The problem with this view is that you are presuming that our values are universally shared and that we can implement those values in a selfless manner. Like it or not our system of democracy and capitalism is driven by self-interest and greed. This isn't to say that its wrong, I like it myself, but it is a value system that isn't shared by much of the world. In many places those are considered evil values. Further who defines how these values are defined does largely end up to being might makes right. In a pluralistic world our views might not be considered as the right views so even under a very legalistic framework of things like the UN or the World Court we still feel free to act when rulings or views of those goes against our interests. Further our view of democracy is very much constrained by our own interpretation of what qualifies from democratic. Our own system is far from being a true democracy and so is every other system that calls itself a democracy. What makes one valid say, like our elections, vs. say the election of Ahmidajad in Iran valid is dependent on our own relative views of things. The problem with this belief that we have a duty to impose what we see as right on the World is that humans by nature resent it when outsiders come in and tell them what they are doing is totally wrong. Also the forced adoption of a value system on a culture that isn't used to that value system can also cause a lot of problems and chaos if that society isn't prepared to are willing to accept it. To borrow something from Star Trek I myself would subscribe to a Prime Directive of non-interference in the development of societies to allow them to develop at their own pace. I think if you look at countries like Taiwan, South Korea and even the PRC they will move to more progressive stances if left on their own and in many cases its foreign interference that has kept many countries from doing so. No we need not but why should the US be the agent that is responsible for dealing with those issues? ONe of the biggest problems with US hegemony is that we have handicapped the ability of many countries on their own to deal with problems. For instance the NATO structure has caused the Europeans ability to provide for their own defense or dealing with regional problems to atrophy. Bosnia and Kosova shouldn't have been US issues but because Europe was so dependent on the US they couldn't act without us. So what happens is that if we act we get criticized for being heavy handed but we also get criticized when we don't act, like in Rwanda, even though we have no strategic interests or bases in that area. Europe was much better situated to deal with Rwanda and Darfur but since the Europeans military have become subservient to us they haven't. This isn't a situation that is good for our longterm security because it forces us to take on the burdens of the World and only breeds resentment when we act and when we don't act. Other countries can build up the ability to act and multilateral organizations can be strengthened to deal with regional problems but as long as everyone looks to the US to handle their problems that's not goign to happen.
Isn't just possible that we pinkos just have a different view on how the Iraqi situation will best be resolved? Do we have to be "undermining the soldiers morale and public support for finishing (and winning) the mission"? What ridicules political rhetoric. Do you realize that just calling someone un-American is just a way to try to discredit someone who disagrees with your view so you don't have to defend your beliefs? Open discussion is what America is all about. I believe that Americans who don't think it's time to start a withdrawal have America’s best interest at heart. Why aren't people who believe that it is time to start preparing for a withdrawal given the same benefit of the doubt?
You have to 1. Get rid of the WMD's to 2. Get rid of Saddam to 3. establish order and rule by the people in Iraq to 4. promote an Islamic democracy to 5. give Islam an alternative to Theocrazy (sic) so 6. They aren't indoctrinated to see us as Satan so 7. They quit blowng up innocent people around the world As simple as 123...well you have that WMD's thing but that's as much Saddams fault as the West's. He certainly wanted us to think he had them so that maybe we wouldn't invade and overthrow him. If he would have just stayed out of Kuwait he probly could have ruled for another generation. Of course we are going to have to solve the 'Palestinian Problem' as part of that plan. But at least we have a plan. Oddly (or more historically correct) I consider this a liberal 'take positive action' plan not a conservative 'status quo' plan. I don't know where the terminolgy got screwed up. And Sirshang, I do consider the judeo-christian deomocratic system as flawed as a cross-eyed mule but it is the freest system I can see on the planet. It's like being #1 in Division II football, yes your #1 but your really not that good.
Pax Americana has only really existed since the end of the Cold War and I would say probably started with the first Gulf War, where the US marshalled a world wide coalition of even former cold war adversaries to address a regional issue. Yes Americans have gained from it but since you refer to the Dollar as "overvalued, overspent and over invested" I presume that you also feel this isn't something that is sustainable over the long term. As the current war in Iraq shows and also all of the other US missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia shows we have had to fire a lot of shots. We're being forced to handle situations where we have little or no strategic interests. Even worse we bear the brunt of ire when we don't act. Bosnia was terrible but it was a European problem where the Europeans should've handled it. They didn't because largely due to us we've crippled their own command and military structure to keep them wed to us in the Cold War. Yes diplomats have done a lot but our military and economic might have done far more to keep allies in line. You can't deny that during the Cold War and even now we intervened in the politics of many countries. We helped to overthrow leftist and even moderate leaders of allies when they didn't agree with us. So Pax Americana was built on might as much as it was on good feelings. Not exactly even during Clinton there were anti-American feelings. They weren't as vocal possibly because Clinton was more skillful than GW Bush but in the 90's it wasn't like people didn't badmouth America. In general its just human nature that no one likes to be dependent on an outsider or likes an outside telling them what to do. As long as America remains a hegemon resentment is inevitable.
Excellent post. I disagree with the justice of much of the pre-Bush Pax Americana version of imperialism. You give a good description of the reality pre and post-Dubya.
Democracy to Iraq? Done Get rid of WMD -- Since Saddam wasn't complying, we went in there Overthrow Saddam? Done Seems like restoring order to Iraq and transferring power is the mission at this point. No?
Understood, but it did it occur to you that "resentment" and even a casual violent backlash (terrorist attacks for example) are still a small price to pay when compared to the positives of intervention? BTW, not disagreeing with you here Sishir, but just playing devil's advocate, I enjoy poking you with a stick
Restoring order to Iraq is the ONLY mission at this point so we can get out, because the country has lost interest in "staying the course" for much longer (may be another year or so, but likely won't be tolerated for much longer). Democracy (or a theocratic democracy to be more accurate) is much less of a concern at this point, because democracy means nothing if basic security can't be attained. Heck, you know things are bad when the former thug Iyad Allawi criticizes the brutality of the current regime in Iraq, calling it "as bad as Saddam's rule or worse". Seems to go against the "democracy? Done" argument you just made. Democracy can not exist without the rule of law, only tyranny can.
Mission is failing. Permanent bases. Not likely. Control of oil. No. We still have to purchase it at market prices which we've raised, just like before. Cost of Iraq War would have purchased a lot of oil. Democracy and human rights? Allawi has said it is just as bad as with Sadam. 100,000 Iraqi deaths so far beyond Iraq under Sadam. Wmd. None there as Dubya (or at least Cheney) were pretty certain of. Terrorism Not before. Iraq is now a training ground per the CIA. World Domination Nope. The "Iraqi Syndrome" will dwarf the Vietnam Syndrome. Imperialistic America in retreat in domestic polls & worldwide. Positive Issue Environment for Repubs Repubs about to take it on the chin due largely to failed Iraqi caper. Mission Accomplished Only Michael Moore will show the fakey "top gun" Dubya on the Carrier.
Please explain how the dollar is overvalued. We have the strongest economy of the world and political stability (something China is missing). Is it any surprise that Chinese people would rather have their money in the US? And Pax America caused bin Ladens, eh? That's interesting. I didn't know the US was responsible for everything that happens in the world. The extremist religious and violent culture in the Middle East had nothing to do with the rise of bin Laden! But hey, if you guys want to run a campain blaming America for creating bin Laden then go for it. Also, people like to bash Pax Americana but let's not forget how the world was before. Democracy and free trade were not spreading like they are now. I think the benefits far outweigh the costs. Countries benefitting from free trade with us is a perfect example of that.
A google search will turn up more. Is the dollar overvalued or undervalued - will it rise or fall this year? The dollar will continue its bumpy ride, but the fundamental reasons why the trend is downward remain in place. Why I consider it overvalued.... We run an enormous account deficit. During the dot-com boom, other markets invested into our currency for stability and reliability. One huge factor was because of the Thai financial crisis that spread to the rest of Asia. Several Asian markets exchanged their currency into the dollar and inflated its value. In fact, during that period, some economists feared that Clinton was eliminating too much of the deficit. If we only owed a trillion, then there would be a trillion's worth of bonds circulating across the world. Most importantly, there'd be less for us and Uncle Sam to spend. The boom is ancient history....what's funny is that we held whatever markets who held vast amounts of our dollars in reserve in bound to a kind of financial terrorism. The more our dollar tried to rebound to its fair expected value, the more these banks would poor into dollar to keep its value overinflated. If the dollar crashed tomorrow, these Asian financial markets would be in a world of hurt. Diversifying too much into other currencies such as the Euro, Yen or Pound would create a panic amongst rival markets because that hint of fear in the dollars confidence would snowball into a painful reality. Remember these markets could diversify this year, but they'd still hold 80% in the dollar (values are demonstrative). Worse off, if they decided to sell 20% to get some money, other banks might smell blood and sell even more to get what they can (again, values are not real). The only recourse would be to buy more into the underperforming "sound dollar" until there's hope for our economy to gradually land on its own. It's been discussed ad noseum before. I'm not pointing to the debacle in Afghanistan. bin Laden credited his zeal because of the stationing of American bases inside Saudi Arabia (which was used to contain Saddam). Bin Laden didn't invent terrorism and extremism. It existed inside Arab countries well before the scent of cow dung reached Mcveigh's nose. The frustration of continuous failure within their authoritarian countries coupled by these same authoritarian leaders acquiesence of the US's wishes convinced them that in order to topple these authoritarian regimes, they would have to topple us first. With Israel, they have a unifying cause, but that's only secondary towards revolution in their homelands. Yes, it is our fault. I don't hate the US for it. But I do put strong importance for our leaders to correct it. Bush and his ilk ain't gonna. I was trying to be realistic as I could. I wanted to old Pax Americana to continue. It was better living off that old system than this one. Before foreigners welcomed us. Now they're afraid what we do or morons we elect for president. They're resentful that most Americans don't even care.
No, it is because it is all moot here... no matter what you say to me I won't change my stance, and no matter when I say to you you want change yours. It's beating a dead horse... I'd much rather move onto topics that actually bring up interesting debate, not rehash old arguments just to try and fling poo at one another. You have your opinion, I have mine... for every source you show, I can find a source disputing it and vise-versa.
I feel that limited resources and goods in the public domain (clean air, water, soil, fishing habitats) will doom all economies in the long term. I also think Americans will let the good times roll as long as it lasts. The old Pax America would've been the best.... How can it be our fault that Bosnia happened in their backyard? Blair was the only outspoken leader. The UN was knocked out because of Russia's veto. It's the US's fault because their military is inept? France's leadership should correct that mistake now.... I believe the Europeans loath to devote more than 7% of their GDP for a functioning national defense that could be focused upon coordinated relief missions. They'd rather let us foot the bill. To claim the US is to blame for European military woes is to assume that bueracrats of each country have that much money allocated to spend on a joint EU defense force. Outside of the UK, France and Germany not many other countries have numbers to invade or peacekeep another land. No real disagreement. Before they did both. Under Dubya's direction.... Does everyone love the WTO or the UN? Back then, the majority of countrymen from other countries weren't willing to let us get blown up, and they weren't thinking that we deserved it. Guilty or innocent, no one loves policemen breathing down their shoulders. On the other side of that circular logic, they slept a little better knowing that there was a sense of stability with someone patrolling the streets. That sense is gone now. It's what Snowcroft is hammering in....
Come now, Mr. Clutch! We've been busy spreading democracy and freedom for generations, not to mention promoting free trade throughout the world. If anything, Bush has made it harder, IMO. Keep D&D Civil.
The problem with that analysis is that 3-4 doesn't guarentee 5-7. I totally agree but is one reason why classic Liberalism has some big problems. It looks at the ends without considering the consequence of the means and is also very paternalistic. I'm presuming you're referring to me. While yes you might think the Judeo-Christian Democratic System, I left out the Judeo-Christian part, is the freeist in the world but not everyone wants to live under that system. The issue is should we be forcing this system on people who don't trust it? I think people should exercise more but does that mean I should go around forcing fat@sses to hit the treadmill? The problem isn't whether we think our system is rightits right its to what extents we will go to to force it on others and what consequences there will be from trying to do so.
Somewhat off-topic.... As an American with immigrant parents, I'm totally impressed with the nature America has pulled off its dominance. I had a poly sci teacher who told us a joke that Democrat policies benefit Republicans in the long run and vice versa. The glowing vision of an orderly world and free world trade would benefit multinationals the most... Those visionaries you mentioned before realized that engendering trust from other industrialized nations created a currency of good, which much like most money systems not tied on gold works on faith for the working system. During the pre-Iraqi war debates here, the most resounding rebuttal from anti-war people was, what gave our country the right to carry out this invasion? I believed it was that political capital in trust that allowed us to do this. I still do, even if Bush proved me miserably wrong in his leadership. If those men you mention of don't factor in that diplomatic capital, they will grossly underestimate their potential costs. As for the internal costs, perhaps the most limiting restraint would be our aging population and a diminishing workforce. Entitlement fees and cheap raw labor from other countries might cripple our military and economy more than a foreign threat. If that's the case, it might be time to cut our losses. Well we might have short attention spans and memories, but every other countries have grudges they keep their entire existence. Abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan would bring us a world of hurt sooner or later...
We had some of the world's finest politicians in the world running the country at the time, and they successfully built the foundation for the modern state we live in. Certainly, many factors came into play, but this country's leaders at the time took the initiative and remade the world to serve our interests, and we succeeded.
If you recall when the US was hemming and hawing over Bosnia there was a huge outcry among European leaders for the US to do something, many both in Europe and American even stated that the Europeans couldn't do anything without the US. That to me strikes me as them being dependent on us. UN Veto or not the Europeans should've handled this problem because it was theres and not our problem anymore than we should demand that the PRC does something about Hatian refugees coming to the US. But why do Europeans leave it to us to foot the bill? Its because we've put us and them in this situation by dominating NATO. Yes its true that the Europeans don't spend that much on their defense because we're doing it for them and we've resented the few attempts by the Europeans to try to provide for more of their defense. Considering the resentment over when De Gaulle pulled France out of the NATO unified command structure or how US diplomats have raised objections in the past few years over European talk of creating a joint defense force apart from NATO. By babying the Europeans we're largely responsible for their ineptness on defense issues. They possibly weren't wanting to see us blown up but they didn't like us either. When I was in Asia in the 90's most of the Europeans I met would complain about our government, arrogance and hegemony. I remember meeting a Malaysian villager on the island of Tioman who told me flat out he hated America and believed the US was the enemy of Islam. This was 1997 not 2003. While some might've many didn't again no one likes to be dependent on outsiders. For instance we kept the West Germans safe from being overrun by the USSR but that still didn't stop them from vitriolically protesting our presence in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
tigermission1, Maybe during these next 20 years, the US need planners who thinks European, more whining without any substantial action... We baby Asia as well. They spend their "fair share" on defense. Don't you think they enjoyed the position as enlightened pacifists while their perimeter is secure from foreign armies? This issue might become moot if other countries follow France's lead on a EU defense force. Should that happen, they're going to reach the same lesson of claiming moral superiority and excecuting it. Just curious from your POV.... Do you think that hate is the same or is it now intensified? Do you think they had the same level of resentment 3 months after 9/11? If another catastrophe like 9/11 occured, would they have the same lvl of resentment 3 months after...or is it now intensified? F*ck the Police is one catchy song... Maybe you and tiger are right. It might not be worth it any longer. I still think there's a big difference between saying you hate Americans and doing something to prove that you hate them.
