US Imperialism has peaked - the only way left to go is down...

[Bernie Gunther]

Incidentally War Nerd is having another pop at that great American traitor Victor Davis Hanson over his mentalist neocon take on the Peloponnesian War.

The grimmest joke in the book is that there really is one parallel that holds up when you compare the Peloponnesian War to America’s military history. You bet there is. But here’s the kicker: it’s the one connection Hanson would never, ever allow into print. I’m talking about the creepy way that our Iraq disaster resembles the Athenian invasion of Sicily. When Hanson says, describing the preparations for the expedition to Syracuse, that the Athenians’ “ntelligence about the nature of Sicilian warfare, and the resources of the enemies was either flawed or nonexistent,” you can’t help thinking of Bremer, Perle, the “cakewalk,” and the WMDs. When Hanson talks about how the Persians sat back and watched their enemies to the west bleed each other, you can’t help thinking about the way Iran helped draw us into Iraq by feeding the suckers at the Bush administration fake intel via Chalabi. Then they settled down patiently to watch. And they enjoyed every minute of the war, cheering when we blasted Saddam’s guys and cheering even harder when the insurgents started blasting our troops—with the help of new IED designs straight out of Tehran.

He's sort of got a point ...

Although I'm not quite convinced that the masterminds behind the US disaster in Iraq were Iranian. I think the 'masterminds' were in Washington.

 

[Idris2002]

Thanks for that, an interesting read. I liked the bit talking about how changes in human nature, or at least the absence of an unchanging h. nature lead to changes in war.

I'm not so sure if 'human nature' has changed, or if that's the reason why genocide isn't a counter-insurgency option right now (or yet). I'm thinking it's much more likely to be the need to keep something intact for the post-war settlement, now that the spoils of war are more than mere booty.

 

[oi2002]

Well the US has always been an Imperial nation with a deep distaste for empire, Yanks are greedy self centered isolationists by nature and I think we will see their Imperial ambitions pragmatically moving to other means rather than disapearing. Currently we are witnessing the last throes of a generation of of politicians and soldiers shaped by the cold war who have failed to adapt to more complex times. The new wars of 21st century and the great games that drive them will be very different.

Iraq has guilotined the woolly headed PNAC dreaming of the GOP elite but I suspect that adults will once more take charge in DC. The cunning old multi-lateral shellgame that allowed DC to to project its power much more effectively than the hapless millitarist posturing of Dubya will evolve and replace the boy scout tendency.

DC has perhaps reached a plateau of power but given competent leadership Iraq may be no more signifigant than Augustus losing a couple of legions on the Rhine frontier. That is a big BUT as the current US elite makes Czarist Russia look effective but I've some confidence in the candid ruthlessness of the US system to burn out the rot.

 

[Idris2002]

But what does it say about the system that it can produce such an elite? That elite may well pass away, but the defects in the system that produced them may not. . .

 

[oi2002]

Sure the US has severe systemic faults but this has always been true and DC has a history of recovering from costly errors. Many saw the fall of Saigon as evidence of the end of the US Imperium but it really was just a minor hiccup. The Reagan, Poppy Bush and Clinton years saw a great expansion of US power. Now Dubya has run revolutionary Reaganism into the ground and squandered US power in a foolishly chosen war.

Lawrence Wilkerson recently made the point that truly disasterous periods in US policy often follow a concentration of power arround the office of the Presidency, giving JFK, Nixon and Dubya as examples and citing FDR as an exception (an exceptional leader in exceptional circumstances) to this rule. He does have a point much of what has gone wrong in Dubya's Presidency is due to hasty unexamined, decisions made in secrecy.

The US isn't France. Executive competence is a occasional exception rather than a assumed norm in the US system. It's got more than its fair share of alarmingly competent people but their system is built to cope with the 2nd raters that often rise to power in DC based on what is effectively a patronage system. It's failed Dubya badly simply because the GOP control all the wings of government and has allowed him to behave like an inbred 16th century European Monarch.

Recent polls actually suggest that the US public is at its most liberal since the tail end of the hippie years, 1972, yet they are saddled with an extremely right-wing fiscally irresponsible government bent on corruptly serving the interests of the top 5%. There will be a big adjustment within a decade and it will probably involve the GOP moving back towards the center ground. That doesn't mean DC will suddenly come over all cuddly just a return to the sleakit deceptions that made them great.

A WWI like collapse in globalization, which the US could ride out far better than its still distant rivals, I think is much more likely than an end of American Empire any time soon.

 

[rogue yam]

Hey Kids!

I read a great new article tonight and though of me wee pals
here at u75. Here's an excerpt and a link. Enjoy!



David’s Friend Goliath
By Michael Mandelbaum
Foreign Policy
January/February 2006

<snip>

Sovereign states as powerful as the United States, and as dangerous as its critics declare it to be, were historically subject to a check on their power. Other countries banded together to block them. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France in the late 18th and early 19th century, Germany during the two world wars, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War all inspired countervailing coalitions that ultimately defeated them. Yet no such anti-American alignment has formed or shows any sign of forming today. Widespread complaints about the United States’ international role are met with an absence of concrete, effective measures to challenge, change, or restrict it.

The gap between what the world says about American power and what it fails to do about it is the single most striking feature of 21st-century international relations. The explanation for this gap is twofold. First, the charges most frequently leveled at America are false. The United States does not endanger other countries, nor does it invariably act without regard to the interests and wishes of others. Second, far from menacing the rest of the world, the United States plays a uniquely positive global role. The governments of most other countries understand that, although they have powerful reasons not to say so explicitly.

<snip>

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3331

 

[nino_savatte]

And.....?

 

[Streathamite]

Hey Kids!

I read a great new article tonight and though of me wee pals
here at u75. Here's an excerpt and a link. Enjoy!



David’s Friend Goliath
By Michael Mandelbaum
Foreign Policy
January/February 2006

<snip>

Sovereign states as powerful as the United States, and as dangerous as its critics declare it to be, were historically subject to a check on their power. Other countries banded together to block them. Revolutionary and Napoleonic France in the late 18th and early 19th century, Germany during the two world wars, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War all inspired countervailing coalitions that ultimately defeated them. Yet no such anti-American alignment has formed or shows any sign of forming today. Widespread complaints about the United States’ international role are met with an absence of concrete, effective measures to challenge, change, or restrict it.

The gap between what the world says about American power and what it fails to do about it is the single most striking feature of 21st-century international relations. The explanation for this gap is twofold. First, the charges most frequently leveled at America are false. The United States does not endanger other countries, nor does it invariably act without regard to the interests and wishes of others. Second, far from menacing the rest of the world, the United States plays a uniquely positive global role. The governments of most other countries understand that, although they have powerful reasons not to say so explicitly.

<snip>

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3331

err, yes, thank you for that article.
and....?

 

[kyser_soze]

Wanna know something that will make the foxbots heads explode?

There's tell around t' global meejah village that Murdo is about to go for a global political realignment of his media empire...the new PolEd at the Sun is v. pro-Cameron, Murdo seems to be falling out with Burlosconi AND...AND...AND

Murdo and the Fox news editorial lot have been seen wining and dining senior Dems and Murdo himself has had a one-to-one dinner with a certain Hilary Rodham Clinton...

 

[TAE]

Yet no such anti-American alignment has formed or shows any sign of forming today.

I could have sworn that Bush said the opposite, that he said the US is at war and had to invade two countries to defend itself.

 

[Yossarian]

Hey Kids!

Looks like poor old roguejonnyrebyam has resorted to trolling and running...

 

[rogue yam]

I could have sworn that Bush said the opposite, that he said the US is at war and had to invade two countries to defend itself.

You are failing to understand the difference between criminals and societies.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You are failing to understand the difference between criminals and societies.

Is there an ineluctable difference?

Don't think so, tater-head.

 

[oi2002]

Hey Kid....

That's just plain silly old chap. Basically the same Bloody Wogs attitude of the British Empire. Like Marcus Aurelius saying 'None of these barbarains will join together to oppose us so we must be annointed by the Gods'. Not fair on Marcus actually, Shang of China is nearer the mark.

Times have changed, this is not the golded Clinton year of Y2K. You've just invaded a country in what was regarded as an unprovoked and simply stupid act of hubris by most of the planet. In a vast failure of competence DC has failed to responsibly occupy the state it destroyed and is now fixing to leave. A major part of the worlds oil supply is now at severe risk, terrorism is no longer a containable threat and DC looks too decadent and infantile to trust with the vast power it still has.

Rotted from within, that's what they'll be saying in 2050 about the US if you boys don't start getting real.

 

[rogue yam]

...by most of the planet.

This site is tedious and repetitive even by leftie standards. Have you really not seen the list of countries participating in OIF? Is your country not on this list?

 

[nino_savatte]

This site is tedious and repetitive even by leftie standards. Have you really not seen the list of countries participating in OIF? Is your country not on this list?

You're tedious and repetitive by trolling standards: no charm, no wit, just insults... you don't even bother to cultivate 'friends'...very poor. Freakrepublic aren't what they used to be, I s'pose.

 

[TAE]

You are failing to understand the difference between criminals and societies.

Not that long ago you argued that the problem is with islamic culture as a whole, not just individual criminals within that culture.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This site is tedious and repetitive even by leftie standards. Have you really not seen the list of countries participating in OIF? Is your country not on this list?

If you don't like it then why not fuck off back to FreakRepublic?

I'm sure you must be missing the endless childish backpatting by now.

Don't worry, I've been watching out for your tall tales about how you've out-argued a whole boardful of "commies", you little fibber!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not that long ago you argued that the problem is with islamic culture as a whole, not just individual criminals within that culture.

He's more changeable than the wind.

He tries to play whatever bullshit "argument" is most in vogue with his circle jerk buddles over at FreakRepublic.

 

[rogue yam]

I've been watching out for your tall tales about how you've out-argued a whole boardful of "commies", you little fibber!

I've done what? Link?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've done what? Link?

You want a link?

You want me to prove an assertion?

Tell you what, I'll do that when you start doing the same with the oodles of mendacity you post, okay?

 

[vimto]

This site is tedious and repetitive even by leftie standards. Have you really not seen the list of countries participating in OIF? Is your country not on this list?

So why the fuck are you here in the first place big fat bubba?

 

[vimto]

You really are a tosser...so what's yer fucking point then numb nuts?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So why the fuck are you here in the first place big fat bubba?

Because (like many of his freak buddies) he thinks he's "showing the lefties the error of their ways".

Of course, what he's actually doing is providing us with fodder for "Urban's biggest plum of the year 2006".

 

[vimto]

Because (like many of his freak buddies) he thinks he's "showing the lefties the error of their ways".

Of course, what he's actually doing is providing us with fodder for "Urban's biggest plum of the year 2006".

Indeed

More info from the neocon movement is what we all want surely...let them rip themeselves apart...oh yes

 

[nino_savatte]

So where's rogue spam got to then?

 

[oi2002]

Christopher Preble Amconmag reviewing Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground is rather hostile to the project:

The harm that has come to our nation through the reckless interventionism of the past 15 years cannot be quickly reversed, but the path to recovery must begin with an urgent commitment to stop the bleeding. Of the ten or so major military operations since the end of the Cold War, the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan stands alone as a legitimate and wise exercise of American military power. And yet, even here, Kaplan admits to the difficult challenges we face. “Everything was possible in Afghanistan—with years and patience,” he explains. “The empires that had succeeded in bringing order and a better material life to their colonies had had both of these elements. But it was unclear if the Americans did.”

It is not unclear any longer. Americans are fast losing patience with empire, even when it is romanticized and euphemized, because they accurately sense that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Even as talented a raconteur as Robert Kaplan cannot reverse this trend, and for that we should be thankful

I think he has a good point here. The real problem with the PNAC Imperial vision is that most Yanks simply find it unappealing. This is a vain nation fond of easily won glory but not one that wants the responsibilty of an empire.

Incidentally Preble is also holding out against more welfare programs for camel Jockeys at Cato. Particularly the setting up of a State Department office for nation building, the S/CRS. This is a veiw from a Paleo-con but worth reading:

People who favor S/CRS envision the world
as both more threatening and simpler than it
actually is. It is not as threatening as they see it,
because their fear of failed states is largely
overblown: failed states most often do not represent
security threats. At the same time, the
world is vastly more complex than they would
have it: nation building in failed states is
extremely difficult; again, in Krasner’s words,
“The simple fact is that we do not know how to
do democracy-building.” Most often, attempts
at nation building have resulted in billions of
dollars spent, a distraction from genuine issues
of national security, and failure, even on the
nation builders’ own terms.
...
In an age in which international
terrorism could just as plausibly arise
from Marseille, France, as it could from
Tashkent, Uzbekistan, America cannot afford
to lose its focus and sap its strength by
attempting to build nations. Terrorism is an
incredibly challenging threat that requires
intelligence, discrimination, and determination.
To take on nation-building missions that
aim for the capillaries of the international system
is to dangerously juggle priorities and
could well end up creating new security challenges
where none existed before.

 

[nick1181]

Because (like many of his freak buddies) he thinks he's "showing the lefties the error of their ways".

I see them performing a similar role to vaccinations - ie: an easy to beat version for the immune system to practice on.

As someone said recently - "People on the extreme-right aren't always stupid. Sometimes they're greedy." The right-wing-extremist apologists that turn up here provide good practice for the rare occasions when someone in the greedy camp turns up.

This tends to be fairly rare, because the greedy camp tends to have better things to do - like fucking over normal americans etc.