[ARCHIVED THREAD] - America Cannot Rule the World (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/14/2006 4:41:21 AM EDT
|
America Cannot Rule the World The foreign policies of America are going down to disastrous defeat all over the world. Americans will soon wake up to defeat after defeat. The basic reason for these defeats is that the West under American leadership is simply incapable of controlling the rest of the world. Too many people live in too large an area with too many political cross-currents for any one nation or even a group of nations to be able to have mastery over. Within the many areas and countries that the U.S. is trying to subdue and run are too many people with knowledge of how to fight, the means to fight, and the will to fight. The world has too many other large nations, such as Russia and China, that can check America and the West in many possible ways and at every turn that suits them as the West seeks to run countries on or near their borders. Within the Western alliance, there are fractures that prevent united action. There are entire continents such as South America and Africa where events can, have, and will go out of American control. America in every way is simply unequal to the task of ruling the world. It can’t do it physically since it lacks the raw resources or power. It can’t do it mentally since it lacks the spirit or will. It can’t do it morally since it lacks the moral high ground. It can’t do it financially since it lacks the wealth. If it keeps on trying to run the world, it can only meet with more defeats than it already is running into. And there is no need for America the state to run the world. Our security does not depend on it. Nor is it right to spread a vision of what some or even many Americans think are right values via the forces of the state. Preventing mass airplane terror is a win and a welcome win. That win did not come about by American foreign policy or by a war against terror expressed by American or Israeli troops on foreign soil. No doubt it came through intelligence methods and infiltration of terror networks. These are better methods than invasions, threats, sanctions, and similar pressures and methods that states employ. Neoconservative baloney The myth of America being a superpower that can remake the world is just that, a myth. Neoconservatives had a dream. They came to power. They turned that dream into a nightmare. They have taken America down to defeat after defeat. They are still dreaming their dreams and still leading the country downwards. Faced with bitter losses, they will now accuse America of not trying hard enough. They will say that we should unleash even greater power and weaponry. They will claim that the military has been stabbed in the back. They will shout that their policies were not put into practice effectively, or that they were sabotaged by weak-willed or ineffectual politicians. They will seek even more power. They will blame everyone and everything they can think of. They will fill the air with their denunciations and obfuscations. They will call us critics defeatists. They will bemoan the toll already paid in blood, as if that were reason to spill even more blood. But the reasons for defeat lie in a basic reality that neoconservative policies failed to reckon with: America cannot run the world. Why do Americans support the wild-eyed neoconservative policies? Some Americans are warmongers. Some are mute followers of their leaders. Some believe pragmatically that the President knows what he is doing. Some believe that this is World War III. Some believe that it is a Christian duty to save the world even if it involves collective military might. And so on. Defeats we can hope will alter these attitudes and beliefs, all of which are entirely wrong. War does not bring peace. Mute submission is suicide. The President has no idea what he is doing. This is not World War III. And Christians should not support armed interventions on behalf of what they think are good causes. Christians should not be supporting wars right and left. Americans should hold fast to one self-evident truth and not listen to neoconservative humbug. The truth is that this country cannot rule the world by army, navy, marine, and air force power, threat, warfare, and intimidation. Nor can it even diminish terror by these conventional means. Superpower methods are useless in the aim of world rule. They are worse than useless. They backfire. If Americans continue to listen and follow current foreign policies, if they keep buying into the neoconservative propaganda, then they will suffer even more defeats. Defeats Afghanistan is a defeat and a snare. That war did not put Usama bin Laden out of business. It did not put local insurgencies out of business. The West ties down forces trying to hold a lid on a situation it can’t control in the long run. Russia couldn’t hold this country and the West can’t either. Trying to do so begets Western losses with no tangible long-run benefits. Men and women die and sustain injury. Wealth is dissipated. American debts rise while Afghani conflict continues. Warlords keep battling or fattening their purses. A fragile democracy there and others elsewhere struggle against insurgencies or don’t measure up to American goals. The clock ticks on to a more visible Western defeat in Afghanistan, but the defeat is already there. What is it that the West has won? Afghanistan was under Taliban rule which was tied in with Pakistan’s support. The Taliban probably still have Pakistani support. American defeat in Afghanistan is also defeat in Pakistan. Someday the lid will blow off Pakistan as it did in Iran. What will America do then? Iraq is a defeat and a snare. The country has a severe civil war going on. Americans sit in the middle of it all, powerless to enforce the American will, whatever that will is. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put Iraq together again. Lebanon is a defeat and a snare. Israel launches an invasion. The U.S. approves and supports it. However, the war reveals the weakness of Israel’s armed forces, not only politically but also militarily, just as the Iraq War revealed the weakness of American armed forces to control a country. Hizbullah parries Israel with a force only a fraction of Israel’s. Hizbullah, which is no moral paragon, makes itself look good beside Israel’s blunderbuss approach that inflicts damage in all directions. There is no Israeli lightning war this time around. After weeks, Israel has penetrated Lebanon only a few miles. Iran sits safely at a distance observing how weak Israel really is. In the long run, can the State of Israel survive? Can it survive by brute force? I don’t think so, not in its current form. Lebanon will be counted as a turning point in which Israel’s enemies not only tasted blood but got the measure of their opponent, when the tide began to turn in their favor, when they rallied more sympathy for their cause, and even when they began to make headway in overturning Arab governments in favor of Islamic fundamentalist regimes. An Israeli defeat is an American defeat, whether or not America gave the green light for the initial invasion. All over this world are trouble spots and more potential defeats. Thailand is or will be having war. Somalia experiences war and Ethiopia intervenes. China will sooner or later make a move of some sort on Taiwan. North Korea threatens South Korea. Venezuela links up to Cuba and Iran while threatening trouble elsewhere in South America. Brazil has severe problems. One can go on and on and on. America cannot control all of these situations. It cannot police the world. It cannot run the world. Neither can the major countries that run the United Nations Security Council, and it is a good thing they can’t. Will Americans learn? Defeat will not go down American throats easily. It may not go down at all. I do not know. But where character and brains most count are in times of defeat and loss. America failed to learn the lessons of stalemate in Korea and defeat in Vietnam. I have no great hope that it will learn from the current episodes. When the hand is burned on a hot stove, one learns not to touch it again. Will America learn not to touch the multitude of world trouble spots? I doubt it. There will be excuses and rationalizations instead. A basic problem is that foreign policy is the main toy of Presidents and Congresses. They can’t resist playing with it. They like to. They don’t get burned. We do. The basic problem is that Americans support their Presidents and Congresses with money, bodies, and wills. They should not. If this is the only way that Americans can get satisfaction, by displays of brawn all over the world, then they are doomed to defeat. The Lilliputians will tie the American Gulliver down and cut him up into little pieces. America should not be trying to save the world via armed force. New directions What is to be done? Many Americans worry about Islamic fundamentalist regimes coming to power, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bin Laden or his deputies might soon be running Somalia or some other country. We need to distinguish the American state from individual Americans. The state’s actions need to be severely constrained. The correct foreign policies in situations like these for the state are (a) patience, (b) non-intervention, (c) peaceful engagement, and (d) appropriate defense of America. The last resort should be war and only when a country directly engages the U.S. in war. Individuals should maintain their own moral high ground so that they can apply moral pressure against injustices and so that they can engage in voluntary individual (not state) action against them. The general idea is to shrink the state’s role in foreign policy (state to state), and allow individuals to engage foreign people in voluntary relationships if they wish to, but still within the boundaries of just and justifiable actions. State’s policies should be more passive than is today the case, and individual policies should be as active or passive as individuals see fit (within the limits of being just.) If Christians wish to remake the world, they can do so with proper and traditional means as individuals (which includes voluntary organizations). If pirates attack ships in Indonesian waters, the shippers can use mercenaries if they wish for protection. Piracy need not lead to extension of the U.S. war against terror to Indonesian waters. If separatists in Thailand blow up a train and Americans want to take sides and fight in Thailand, that is their prerogative as individuals, not that I’m recommending it. They might even fight each other, or they might find Thais fighting them. And if so, the Thais should understand that America the state is not going to protect any of its citizens who undertake such ventures in foreign countries. They are actions of individuals. Situations can rapidly become complex, and this is a good reason why the American state should stay out of foreign situations. It is not proper for the U.S. state to choose up sides and commit the nation to one side or the other in foreign struggles, even if they involve Americans. It makes no sense to extend the protection of the American state, for example, to every American wherever they are in the world in ways that drag the state into local conflicts and wars. An American who travels should be responsible for his own protection. If Americans could carry guns, they would be a lot safer. And if they wore an emblem that signified they were under the protection of a credible protection company that would seek justice for any harm done, that would be better than running to an Embassy in case of trouble or waiting for the Marines to land. It would be better than terrorists, insurgents, and rebels being able to drag the U.S. into wars of their choosing. The American state should lay back and sit still, first for 5 years, then 10 years, then 20 years, and longer. Americans need a long, long respite. We need to recover our sense of proportion. We need to learn how to think and see straight again. We need to solve our own problems. No nation can keep fighting forever without having a nervous breakdown. We need to lay back and sit still because oppressive regimes have a way of self-destructing over time. This happened to the Soviet Union (and it’s the path that the U.S. is on). There is a reason. The more that a regime tries to control, the higher become its costs of control. But also the benefits of citizen resistance rise as the regime becomes more oppressive. At some point, if the regime goes too far, the citizens make a change. It depends on their pain threshold and dissatisfaction levels. This is something that outsiders can’t gauge. We should know about this. Americans once had a low threshold of pain and threw off the British rule. Nonintervention has the enormous benefit of giving foreign peoples no excuse to be against America as a state. If our state has done nothing to earn their hatred or enmity, then they have no just cause against us. This will diminish attacks on us inasmuch as many attacks are for what enemies regard as just causes even if those attacked see matters in the opposite light. Nonintervention will not end all attacks or problem situations, however. One can imagine all sorts of such difficult cases even if the U.S. becomes more passive, but they will be clearer and easier to manage if our state is minding its own business. That’s what nonintervention means: Mind your own business, America. If Islamic regimes oppress their people (or we believe they do), we should be patient and not intervene as a state. Anyway, we have little choice but to wait for the inevitable alteration in the country’s politics because collective intervention makes matters worse. We should be passive as a state, but active as individuals if we wish to. North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam despite American intervention, but now that country engages the U.S. in trade and other ways. If Iranians become dissatisfied enough with their rulers, they will change what they have. The U.S. surely can’t do it for them without further defeat. The U.S. once intervened to put in a puppet, the Shah of Iran, and the Iranians, or some of them, never forgot it. Our CIA’s intervention, among many others, led to the troubles we now face. If there is injustice in Iran that the Iranians complain about, Americans as individuals can support them if they see fit and speak out. If Iranians want money to support their cause, it is the right of any American to support them if the cause is just and the actions to support it are just. Knowing these things may not be easy, but that is what conscience requires. Pressures should build up from below, not from above by the concerted state actions we are used to seeing. The evidence is in. State interventions solve nothing. They lead only to further conflicts. No person needs to sit on his hands in the face of international evils. There is plenty of work to be done to identify them. People can organize and speak out. They can apply moral pressures. Some international organizations do this already, and they make a difference. People can communicate with other peoples as individuals (including voluntary groups) and support them in many ways, even including smuggling, supplying arms, and fighting There are many ways to effect changes. Muscular state policies have failed. What is left except the actions of individuals? If this sort of free market foreign policy sounds visionary and strange, it is. This is what bin Laden is doing. He is conducting his own war against the United States and its citizens. But his actions are terribly wrong and unjust. I am not commending private marauders, pirates, terrorists, and thieves that prey upon innocents. I am commending private actions that are just, and that creates a large constraint and poses difficult problems for anyone who uses force. Patience means that the state (not necessarily individuals) takes a much longer-run view than it is accustomed to and sits still and waits for the natural forces of change to occur. It means the state sees what its leaders think is evil or bad and does not do anything about it through sanctions, threat, armed force, interventions, and alliances. The state should simply not be leading the country into foreign adventures. The situations the state and the country face are not like calling the police because our neighbor gives his wife a black eye. A state that acts like a policeman in foreign nations faces resistance from other states and peoples. The state’s international tools are limited, and the ones we have been taught to think work do not work well over the long haul. There is no end of injustices in this world, and the state cannot successfully commit the American people to rectify them militarily or by the standard means that have gotten us into so much trouble in the past. Militarism must end Americans have shed enormous amounts of blood. They have spent enormous wealth. Why? Defense or national security was only part of it and not even the major root cause. One intervention led to another and yet another on a growing scale. That was the main reason. The main reason was that U.S. policy is militarism. According to one definition, militarism is a national policy of maintaining large armed forces and being willing to use them aggressively to defend or promote national interests. This describes America. U.S. militarism is destroying America. President Eisenhower in 1961 warned the American people: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Immediately thereafter, Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon committed the nation to the Vietnam War. Every President since has committed the nation to intervention and war in foreign lands. There is no end in sight. For wrong reasons, Americans now support what Ike foresaw would be a "disastrous" rise and misuse of power. The returns are coming in. They are defeats. American militarism will end or else America will end. August 14, 2006 Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is the Louis M. Jacobs Professor of Finance at University at Buffalo. |
|
Interesting read... Says more about the writer than anything else... but... still interesting. A lot of people are having a "reaction" to what is going on in the world today. I used to wonder why people reacted the way they do to current events... but... anymore I just accept it. |
Is the University of Buffalo considered a good one? I can't imagine that it is. If their semi-literate finance professors are writing paranoid left-wing political diatribes, then I can't imagine that the quality of education a student receives there is very high...
|
Lew Rockwell is not really a left-winger. He is so far right, that many of his thoughts curve all the way around to the left. He is also a gold-plated moron when it comes to foreign policy. He should stick to economics, a topic about which he actually knows something. |
|
It's all America's (Bush presumably being the bulk of the blame) fault. Typical idealist drivel for the first half and taken straight from the talking points of your average days worth of DU threads. However. He makes some interesting suggestions in the second half. I actually agreed with more than a few of them. After I shake myself of the Barbra Streisand like liberal white guilt hand-wringing of the first half, I think I'll rethink some of the ideas presented in the second half. |
Yeah, you're right, it's impractical for the government to work for our country's intrests, and it's REALLY impractical for the USA to fight against its enemies and try to support governments that would help to fight against our enemies. |
Typical liberal pussy. Their latest tactic is to make the requirements of victory so onerous that we can never "win" the war on terror. In Iraq and Afghanistan we took down two regimes that were our enemies and replaced them with two regimes that are not our enemies. We used to call that a "victory."
|
He does certainly come off that way if you aren't inclined to the left.
I think that's been the tactic all along, it does seem to have accelerated in scope over the last year though.
I do not quite agree. It is a victory if the goal was decisive and lasting. The problem is that while we have replaced two unfriendly regimes with two new regimes more in line with our interests (friendly is a bit of a stretch I think), they cannot stand without our immediate military presence. I would like to see a Germany or Japan like victory. With the political and geopolitical climate like it is, I don't know that this is possible. |
Amateur historians are a dime a dozen. I guess he didn't catch the fact that we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait and likely saved SA at the same time. We probably need to have some more terrorist successes in Europe to pump up the political will there but even then it will be dicey. The muslim population there is much higher than in the US and their levels of sympathy for other muslims are high. Civil unrest and civil war of a low intensity already exists and could get worse before it gets better, hey, that's pretty much the story everywhere. It's even what we said in the beginnng that the WOT is a long one so don't expect immediate victory, just expect to deal with the unexpected. |
Yeah, he should've signed it just as an ordinary citizen, it would've carreid more wieght with me. He's more qualified to comment on the possibility of weather GM or Ford can stave off bankruptcy. I think his comments are just based on BS gleaned from the news media, and we all know where that is from. |
I would consider it a victory simple by the fact that we removed two open enemies of the Republic. If it is decisive and lasting then it is a total victory. However, even if these two states devolve back into 3rd world backwaters (which is where they've been for centuries), I still think you have to declare it a limited victory. The only way I could see Iraq turning into a defeat is if they become a puppet of Iran entirely, which I don't see much chance of. Yes, the Shia currently take Iranian aid, but Iraq is by nature a powerful country. Even if the worst happens and we get a civil war and Shia dictatorship, I think they're first move will be to start fighting with Iran over who is the leader of the Shia sect. After all, what is now Iraq used to be the capital of the Persian Empire and the Shia of Iraq likely think themselves the natural leaders of the Shia faction. |
Never heard of or read the PNAC (Project for the New American Century)???, suggest ya google it. They don't want to rule the world, they want to control the lion's share of the world's natural resources. Mike |
I agree with all those qualifications. |
really we're better off... taking on the rest of the world would cripple the US since the majority of the world is a poverty stricken shithole. and yet the UN doesn't mind milking the US for every cent to try o support the rest of the economically retarded world... or at least that's their cover story... we all know where that money actually goes. |
Let me quote Eric S. Raymond:
Amen. |
UMMM no we can't, if you believe that Weapons of Mass Destruction exist in the hands of any single one of our enemies, than once one nuke is shot off the entire free world will lay in rubbles within minutes of the first nuke launch, everyone will deploy what they have, including our enemies |
You should ask yourself, "What do I know about foreign policy that a college professor doesn't already"? 
|
Why. Elitist nonsense. Being a college professor in itself means little of nothing… matter of fact some of the most dysfunction misfits I know are college professors. |
|
"Never heard of or read the PNAC (Project for the New American Century)???, suggest ya google it." "They don't want to rule the world, they want to control the lion's share of the world's natural resources." "Mike" Thank God there is still some folks with criticial thinking skills on this site and in our Country. Mike has it right with PNAC, but also look up SPP, FTAA and the Nafta Super Freeway. When will folks get it that Reps & Dems are all but the same party anymore and do not represent the average American or the American people? Both sides are supporting projects to screw all of us and so many of you think this is still a Left vs Right fight. Wake up folks!! both parties are sticking it to all of us. If you think there is a big diff form Clinton to Bush, REP VS DEM you need to wake up. Bush is more of a left wing liberal then Clintion was on many issues like spending and border control. I could not stand Clintion ,but Bush is just as bad if not worse on many issues.  So by many folks thinking today if you disagree with the Gov today or Bush you are a liberal. I have to ask you this. When most or all of us were against Clinton and the Gov were we Liberal? Like I said, wake up folks!!!!!! |
No, I've never heard of PNAC. I don't think a "non-profit educational organization" is really responsible for establishing America's international policies, though. I'm sure there is a non-profit organization that advocates turning the entire middle-east into a radio-active, glass parking lot, too. Even so, demonstrating leadership is not the same a ruling. Your definitions my vary. You may have special inside secret knowledge that I am not privvy to. I just don't see anything that makes me think ruling the earth is a goal of this organization. |
Very left-wing school. They censored all the conservatives off an email list I used to belong to there, with impunity. GunLvr |
| That was the most comprehensive summation fo the anti-American left's general feelings about national defense and forgein policy that I have ever read in my life. The author wishes to draw defeat from the success in Afghanistan and exagerates the situation in Iraq in hopes of claiming defeat there as well. The author tries to mask his true feelings, but I believe that he sincerely desires to see America humiliated and dishonored so that Americans will choose to adopt the European way of life and government. |
|
my highschool history teacher once told me: super powers have to flex their muscles and use their military might about every 10 yrs or so, just to keep fresh (or something along those lines) I kinda agree but right now instead of trying to play babysitter and nation builder in Iraq, we should be levelling Tehran and controlling the regions biggest threat |
+1 |
|
Yep - Everyone should be familiar with the Project for the New American Century and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (People's Republic of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are "member states" and Mongolia, India, Pakistan and Iran are "observer states"). I'm only a very casual armchair historian, but today's potential conflicts over resources remind me of those that helped precipitate WWII. Our interests in middle east oil and those of the SCO member states are and will continue to be in conflict. IMO there's gonna be a fight. The question, is whether it has the USA has the will to win. I'm sad to say, I'm not sure. Seems like we are no longer willing to do what it takes to secure a lasting victory (e.g. what we were willing to do to win WWII).
Maybe not, but they sure as hell influence it. Look at who signed their Statement of Principles (e.g. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, Elliott Abrams...) and their Staff. |
NOW influences government. ELF influences government. NAMBLA influences government. NEA influences government. ACLU influences government. NAACP influences government. The Rainbow Coalition influences government. People who wear tin foil hats influence our government. They do not make policy. |
|
Typical Leftist screed. It's easy to be critical of the decisions we've made. There are no easy answers to the unprecidented problems we face. There aren't even any GOOD answers to the problems we face, just bad ones. But we have to make the best "bad" decisions we can and then move forward. The central problems are nuclear proliferation combined with being at war with non-state actors who are bent upon our destruction. And what are this critic's answers to these problems we face? Just more typical Liberal horseshit that we have tried under every Democratic Administration that has occupied the White House since Jimmy Carter; (a) patience, (b) non-intervention, (c) peaceful engagement, and (d) appropriate defense of America. And exactly where has this led? a) A nuclear armed North Korea. b) Attacks within our own borders claiming the lives of thousands of Americans and the destruction of billions of dollars worth of property. c) To an insipient nuclear arms race between two of the most dysfunctional, hostile and dangerous regimes on the planet; Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Iran. These left wing nitwits overlook the central dilemma of our times. That is that we cannot wait until we are attacked with a nuclear weapon before we respond. This is the problem. Until the Left comes to grips with this fundamental problem their words aren't worth the paper they're written on. |
|
Yes. Stricly speaking, no one "makes" policy except the policy makers. In this case, some of the policy makers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) were also previously authors of the PNAC principles. Read this: The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (September 2001) Then read this: Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) The "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." is amazingly similar to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. It even uses the exact same language in many places. The following is from a lefty web site, but IMO it's accurate: '[PNAC's] aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy. This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House." LINK To be clear - I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND AGREE WITH THE RESULTING POLICY. If we want to lead the world, we either need to man up and do what needs to be done or stand down. Half-measures pave the way to national decline. |
I'll come out and say it: I oppose the United States sending troops to fight other people's wars. Fuck 'em. I'm sicking of spending blood and treasure for other people. Slash the size of the Federal government, restore our rights, withdraw our troops from overseas, and put them on our borders. Fuck the rest of the world. Bring Saddam Hussein back - so long as he keeps the oil flowing, and does not threaten our interests, I could give a damn. Let's stop trying to influence politics in other people's countries, and work on creating the republic our forefathers envisioned. Some of you talk of all the rights we have lost, and in the same breath want America to become an Empire. Don't you understand that there is no such thing as a free empire? |
I'm not quite sure how this happens and I thought it WAS Saddam that threatened our interests by invading Kuwait and threatening to enter Saudi Arabia. I might be OK with cutting Israel loose. They were once ready to go nuclear if the SHTF, better them than us cause then we'll still have the moral high ground and that's at least worth a cup of coffee. Nothing personal, I sense your frustration if I'm reading you right. Europe is dropping the ball on this. They're just plain scared to act. Some things just don't change. |