Reproduced from the old board, itself reproduced from a previous version dating back to 2003 (!)
The following essay describes the mechanisms by which international relations work as seen by the US administration. It is not a dscription of US policy; its a description of the world view on which US policy is based. (this thread has been edited by the removal of an argument string not related to the subject and the deletion of some other, minor, posts. The content of the posts has not been edited).
US international policy is based on the mechanistic concept of Realism. This is a conceptual term and, like most such usages, doesnt quite mean what it does in the normal world. In this context, realism is used to describe a situation of continuous conflict in which the countries of the world are constantly struggling to establish an international hierarchy, to improve their own positions in that hierarchy and to reduce the positions of others. Realism sees the world political arena as being a zero-sum game in which a win for one player necessarily means that another must suffer a loss. Under the concept of Realism this immediately draws a distinction between political and economic interactions. Economic interactions are not a zero-sum game; it is quite possible, indeed usual, for an economic interaction to benefit both parties involved. Political interactions do not do this; even if a political agreement appears to benefit both parties, there will be an unseen third party or parties whose interests are harmed. This basic conceptual position leads to an early manifestation of US policy; a firm belief that trade agreements are more productive and desirable than political agreements.
It should be noted that while realism dominates US political thinking, it is not the only theoretical construct that attempts to model political processes between nations. There are others that work from different precepts and envisage different mechanisms. In many countries, different political parties or groups will espouse different models and promote different policies as a result. The US is not one of these; both Democrat and Republican parties use the Realism model as the basis for their foreign policy. This orientation is reflected by the organizations that surround the government and its bureaucracy; the use of the Realism model is so widespread that Americans in general do not even think about it. It just is. This leads to a problem when dealing with political entities that do not espouse the Realism model. For example, some models propose a situation in which participation in international agreements is desirable as an end in itself since such agreements bring about an ordered international environment. In these models, a bad agreement is better than no agreement since a bad agreement at least creates an environment where good agreements will be accepted. To a country following a Realism model, this is absurd since any international agreement will have winners and losers and losing is bad. Therefore each agreement must be taken on its individual merits, it cannot be considered as part of a larger whole.
The domination of Realism in the US political system saw a very public manifestation in President Bushs famous you are either with us or against us comment on the war on terrorism. This was much criticized as an example of US arrogance yet the truth is quite different. In terms of the Realism paradigm, its a simple statement of fact. The War on Terrorism is a zero-sum game, there will have winners and losers; there will be no neutrals. Thus those who do not support the US position will be enhancing the possibility that the US will be a loser in that interaction and that puts them into the enemy camp.
Another aspect of Realism is the perception that there can only be a single dominant power in a political world, the Hegemon. If there are two or more Hegemons, one will eventually be displaced by the other. This process may be violent or peaceful but it will happen. How it will happen is an interesting question. Although Realism is the dominant philosophy in the US political entity, it is not a monolithic whole. The Realism philosophy is divided into two sub-groups designated Minimal-Realism and Maximal-Realism. While both these hold to the same overall tenets of Realism (the constant struggle to establish and maintain a hierarchy and the zero-sum nature of political interactions), they have very different perceptions on how these interactions are carried out.
Minimal-Realism is sometimes known as Castling after an old childrens game. It envisages the world political environment as a sandy mound with the varying nations struggling to establish themselves at the top of that mound. The various parties form a mass at varying levels determined by their strength, abilities and skill. Eventually, one member of the mass secures enough of an advantage to rise to the top and secure the summit; to become King of the Castle. According to Minimal-Realism the inevitable result of this achievement is for the lesser powers, lower down the slopes of the sand castle to form a coalition that is specifically designed to bring down the entity that has just seized the summit. We can see reflections of this belief in some comments made about the possession and use of nuclear weapons. Sometimes we see the assertion that a nation that acquires or uses nuclear weapons will immediately see the rest of the world uniting against it. This is an implicit acceptance of the Minimal-Realism model of relations; the possession of nuclear weapons automatically moves the possessor to a higher position on the san castle so those underneath form a coalition to pull them down.
From the US point of view, acceptance of Minimal-Realism has two direct implications. On one level (where the US is not the Hegemon or where the position of Hegemon is disputed) the US should be taking a lead in forming and directing coalitions to take the existing or rival Hegemon down. However, once in the position of being the undisputed Hegemon, it should be spending its efforts on watching for the formation of hostile coalitions and ensuring that they do not move from the formative to the active stage. Implicit in this assumption is that the US should not make its Hegemonic position obvious or exploit that position in overt ways. In fact, the US should not act as a Hegemon at all but continue to act as a leader of a coalition to bring down a selected target. In this perception, overt displays of power are not only undesirable but are counter-productive and detrimental to US interests. Another consequence of this construct is that the US should take part in international organizations, not because they are worthwhile or useful but to conceal its Hegemonic position and to ensure that by dominating such organizations they serve rather than oppose US interests. By now, it should be reasonably obvious that the primary stronghold of Minimal-Realism in the US body politic is the Democrat Party.
Maximal-Realism sometimes known as Bandwagoning sees the world as working in an entirely different way. It sees the Hegemonic power as occupying the summit of the international order effectively unchallenged. The other powers, recognizing the futility of challenging the Hegemon make accommodations with it; they bend to its needs and make the noises that the Hegemon will find acceptable. However, eventually a challenge to the Hegemons position is mounted. This may happen because the Hegemon has started to give the impression that its power is slipping either in real terms or in terms of ability and/or desire to use that power, it may happen because the challenger has grown more confident in its own power or has achieved supremacy in a given aspect of power politics. Whatever happens, the challenge is made. From the point of view of the Hegemon, there are now four possible outcomes, it can win-well, it can win-badly, it can lose-well or it can lose-badly. Winning-well means that the challenger is beaten promptly and effectively and ceases to be a challenge; losing-badly means that the Hegemon loses so seriously that its position as Hegemon is disastrously compromised. Winning-badly and losing-well are intermediate stages whose impact can be highly variable; it can be better for the Hegemon to lose-well than to win-badly. The effect of a challenge to the Hegemons position obviously depends on the results; a resounding defeat for the Challenger will ensure the position of the Hegemon and cause additional nations to seek accommodations and favor with that power. On the other hand, any decline in the Hegemonic power will cause the less-committed of its supporters to reconsider their positions and open the way to seeking accommodation with the challenger. If the Hegemon suffers enough defeats and its international prestige is sufficiently badly dented, more of its allies will join the bandwagon, transfer their allegiance to the challenger and the Hegemon will be toppled.
From the US point of view, Maximal-Realism also has some interesting implications. One is that the US is only secure in its position as Hegemon as long as it overtly and openly exerts that power to defend its interests and those of the nations that owe allegiance to it. Anything that dilutes the USs ability to mastermind its own affairs or weakens its ability to act in its own interests is seriously detrimental to US interests. Another is that the US has to be watchful for the rise of potential challengers and cut these down before they become serious risks. Maximal-Realism is the political equivalent of the quote to those that hath, more shall be given. It is the successful exercise of power that is important for it brings with it greater security and sets the bar higher for any subsequent challenger. Another point (and a very important one) is that the initiative lies with the Challenger, not the Hegemon. The Challenger can select the time and place of any confrontation to match its own objectives and capabilities. The Hegemon has to respond for failing to do so will sacrifice prestige and start the bandwagoning process. Vietnam was a classic example; critics of American involvement there always point to the total lack of strategic importance of the place. In Maximal-Realism terms, this misses the point completely. Vietnam was not challenged because it was strategically important; it was strategically important because it was challenged. The US lost-badly in Vietnam and the result was its displacement from the Hegemonic position in the middle and late 1970s with the assumption of the position of Hegemon by the USSR. That result was only changed by the US challenge of the 1980s that displaced the USSR. As should now be obvious, the stronghold of Maximal-Realism in the US is the Republican Party.
Much of shifts and changes in US policy can be understood in terms of the conflict between Maximal-Realism and Minimal-Realism schools of thought as can the Democrat fascination with international orders and treaties and the Republican suspicion of these. The problem that the Democrats face is that a reading of history strongly points to the predominance of the Maximal-Realism over the Minimal-Realism approach.
One example is the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. At the start of this process, Germany was a flat-broke and militarily insignificant player on the European scene. It took only a few years for it to rise to a point where it was a European hegemon. This was achieved by a series of small victories and limited advances that simultaneously enhanced its own power and diluted that of the existing Hegemon. Now, if Minimal-Realism was to prove correct, we should have seen a coalition of European powers arising to confront Germany. In fact, we dont. What we do see is the smaller countries of Europe adopting many of the outward characteristics of Nazi Germany and the foundation of fascist parties in most of the European countries. In short, those countries were bandwagoning with Nazi Germany in exactly the manner predicted by Maximal-Realism. A look at the Cold War gives exactly the same impression. In the 1950s, the US was militarily and economically predominant; the USSR had few allies and was largely isolated. It only broke out of that isolation when Kennedy allowed the US to be humiliated in Berlin and Cuba and McNamara allowed the immense US strategic superiority to wither on the vine. The 1960s were marked by a steady rise of USSR power relative to that of the USA and, with the defeat of the US in Vietnam, the US was strategically routed and lost the hegemon position to the USSR. The steady shift of other nations from a US-leaning allegiance to seek accommodations with the USSR (the most notable being the Ostpolitik of West Germany) goes hand-in-hand with that shift of power whereas if Minimal-Realism was correct, we should have seen the growth of a coalition against the USSR. The US challenge of the 1980s culminating in the destruction of the USSR replaced the USA as the world Hegemon, a position that it still holds.
This also explains the focus on Iraq at this time. Iraq as the first challenge to the US hegemony after the end of the Cold War. That challenge was defeated fast and bloody (the number of nations taking part in the coalition to defeat Iraq reflecting the strength of US hegemony). However, Iraq still continues to challenge the US Hegemony and has not been eliminated as a challenger. That is about to be corrected. However, much of the US hegemonal strength was lost by the weak and ineffectual actions of the Clinton administration (classical Minimal-Realists ) and we are paying for that now with other challengers beginning to emerge (the UN and the EU). Iraq remains the leading threat however, not least because of its links within the Moslem world. The bombings of the US embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole all represented challenges to US hegemony. They were successful challenges because no effective response was made to them. As a result, the prestige of the challengers rose, that of the US fell and the challengers were emboldened to further action the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. The destruction of Afghanistan and the elimination of six al Qaeda leaders in an SUV were both responses that restored the situation somewhat. The elimination of Iraq as a challenger is equally important in restoring the damage done during the Clinton era. In contrast, North Korea is not a problem; they do not mount an effective challenge to the US simply because no nation in its right mind wants to be associated with them. They lack credibility as a challenger so they dont count. Yet.
Maximal-Realism is a proven and demonstrated truth of international relations and it carries with it an important lesson. The rule of Maximal-Realism is when the hegemon says jump the correct response is not how high but may we come down now please. It was once suggested that this would cause us to lose world sympathy. From the Maximal-Realism this is a good thing in its own right. We dont want you to love us, we want you to be frightened of incurring our displeasure.
Wijnand vd Beek A few quibbles #1 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/14/03 02:35:54)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Thanks for this essay, it has helped me understand better some of the discussions and tradeoffs involved.
Being an economic historian by training, I have an instinct to look for win-win situations, tempered by tit for tat retalliation. Your description of two types of realism provides a helpful different perspective. It also provided me with a profound "ahah erlebnis" in understanding US conservative thinking in this field.
However, although I like the theory of it and think it is certainly a helpful analytical tool, I believe you ignore the linkages between economy and politics (heheh, I won't go marxist on you, don't worry) and some concerns over the emphasis on sticks rather than carrots.
If one looks at politics in isolation, I would be inclined to concede this is a zero sum game. Very often however, politics is linked with other interests, and the situation may not be this clear cut. One example is the interaction between politics and economical interests: often international trade negotiations are treated as a zero sum game, while economic theory clearly shows it should be win-win (you may challenge this by arguing that although this may be true in theory, but game theory and the dynamics of international politics and/or domestic special interests dictate zero sum solutions).
But war costs money, lots of it, which impacts the economy. At some point there may be a trade off where avoiding war without the hegemon losing face and the challenger suffering military destruction may be advantageous to both parties: carrot and stick may make win-win apply through avoidance of economic damage.
Taking this argument one step further, I could even imagine that win-win still applies to politics. The assumption behind zero sum politics is that the amount of political gain in a system is a given. Although the amount of political power is probably a given, the gain derived from that power is not. In that sense I would say a democracy is superior to a despotic system, because more citizens are enfranchized politically which leads to a better distribution of political gains. This opens up the possibility for the hegemon to wield its power in such a way that there is a real incentive for other players to fall in line with it. Of course tit for tat will apply heavily here. But it seems to me that this is at least an alternative game plan, albeit only as long as the hegemon is not challenged. When that happens, I can only see realism apply in the ensuing struggle, although the hegemon can still attempt to make allies by distributing political gain. (Which leads to another question: what governs the creation of and interaction with allies in both types of realism?).
A last issue I would have is with the theory is how the hegemon attracts and rewards its supporters. In my view it seems strange that this relationship seems to be dominated by sticks and not carrots. It cannot be that the only benefit of being allied to the hegemon is not getting clubbed over the head as this would be self defeating IMHO: it would put a strong incentive in place for any player other than the hegemon to indeed bandwagon together and form a coalition to bring the hegemon down. I think tit for tat can be helpful here: as long as players demonstrate supportive and positive behavior, there is every reason to reward this.
In summary, although I can clearly see your maxi-realism apply to a situation of open and actual challenge to the hegemon (and should probably be regarded as the default situation), I question whether this is a situation which always applies and whether not additional game rules apply in less confrontational periods.
Cheers,
Wijnand
nudge67 Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #2 [-]
Posts: 1355
(01/14/03 03:26:13)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Interesting essay, Stu. But I found your concluding paragraph very disturbing. The essence of which is that the US as a nation wishes to earn respect through promoting a culture of fear. That is simply why the US will continue to replace one enemy with another, rather than fostering genuine friendship amongst nations.
You have summed up all that is wrong with US foreign policy, and indeed the American cultural view of the world. Beleive me, whether your president is Deomcrat or Republican makes even less difference than you may think throughout much of the world. "It probably never made sense to conceptualise our security interests as a series of diminishing, concentric circles around our coastline, but it certainly does not now."
- Senator Robert Hill.
Tony D A few quibbles #3 [-]
Posts: 98
(01/14/03 05:49:14)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "But war costs money, lots of it, which impacts the economy."
It has been successfully argued many times that the US economy has emerged stronger from every war it has fought, including Vietnam. Look at the economic statistics for the decades preceding and following a war that the US was involved in. Even the War of 1812 proved a net benefit.
"A last issue I would have is with the theory is how the hegemon attracts and rewards its supporters. In my view it seems strange that this relationship seems to be dominated by sticks and not carrots."
Could you give some examples of sticks? I see many counter examples just from the past half-century. The Marshall Plan rewarded those European nations that aligned themselves with the US. Likewise, the Warsaw Pact nations and Cuba were subsidized by the Soviets. Many nations throughout the world outside of NATO and the Warsaw Pact thrived during the Cold War on US and Soviet aid. Those nations that lacked fundamentally sound market-based economies have struggled with the end of that conflict and its source of funding that propped them up. Likewise, the implosion of Eastern European nations with the demise of the Soviet Union and its subsidies. Today, Canada, Mexico, the EU, the Asian Tigers, both Chinas, Australia and NZ all receive benefits by having relatively open and friendly relations with the US.
What are the sticks? That the US has knocked the props out from under treaties such as Kyoto that most other nations have paid only lip service to and have made no attempt to implement? That would appear to be a favor, not a stick.
As far as I can see, the only stick the present US administration is applying to an ally is the one that Germany is being beat with. However, Herr Schroder handed Pres. Bush the stick to beat him with, so it is not clear to me that would be an example of your position. Other nations who are opposing the US policy on Iraq are reportedly getting under the table deals to support, however reluctantly, the US aims.
Wijnand vd Beek Re: A few quibbles #4 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/14/03 06:39:22)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "It has been successfully argued many times that the US economy has emerged stronger from every war it has fought, including Vietnam."
I know this is true for a number of wars (esp. WWII), but Vietnam? That would surprise me and would love to see data for that.
"Could you give some examples of sticks?"
I was not referring to actual US policy, but to Stuart's maximal realism model. From his description, it sounded as if the hegemon would mainly have to apply sticks ("Maximal-Realism is a proven and demonstrated truth of international relations and it carries with it an important lesson. The rule of Maximal-Realism is when the hegemon says jump the correct response is not how high but may we come down now please. It was once suggested that this would cause us to lose world sympathy. From the Maximal-Realism this is a good thing in its won right. We dont want you to love us, we want you to be frightened of incurring our displeasure.."), which I (and apparently you) did not feel reflects the real world situation. As a result, I questioned the validity of the theory as a standalone explanation of international affairs and suggested it should at least be combined with other policies in situations where there is no direct challenge to the hegemon. In other words, the real world seems murkier than the theory, which you seem to confirm with your comment.
Take care,
Wijnand
OSCSSW Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #5 [-]
Posts: 2059
(01/14/03 07:57:07)
The Senior Chief
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "Beleive me, whether your president is Deomcrat or Republican makes even less difference than you may think throughout much of the world."
Personally, and speaking as an Ugly American nationalist, who absolutely hates the UN and is very, very wary of the EU, I KNOW there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats, with their Minimalist Realism, make my country weaker and materially contribute to the success of those who would dethrone us. Republicans with their Maximum Realism will ensure the US stays on top for a long time. So the Republicans serve my best interests, and survival.
Oh, did I mention that I don't give a @#%$ if the EU, UN or the rest of the world love me? Stuart's last paragraph, the one that so distresses you, comforts me. I don't want your love only your respect/fear.
You had better pray that we continue to hold the basic principals of our Constitution and Judea-Christian morals sacred. That is the key constraint to the US Empire becoming a hell of a lot tougher on you than we are.
nervos belly pecuniam infinitam (the sinews of war are infinite money)
sorenmk2 Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #6 [-]
Posts: 2198
(01/14/03 08:34:13)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Excellent analysis, Stuart.
That the President and his coterie are classic maximalists is a given. But the presidential kneebend and genuflection before the high altar of the UN reflects what I think, and have thought since about the time of African embassy bombings, is a fact - that the United States is much farther along the path toward the loss of hegemony than people who do not spend most of their waking hours fretting about this subject, realize.
This patty-cake with the UN is evidence of weakness not strength. Being forced to acknowledge the UN as a primary force in the world of power politics was a rather large defeat in the maximal game and one that opened the eyes and emboldened many who were being tempted to jump back into the game as opponents of the US due to the weakness of the Clinton Administration.
The board should consider where we are now compared with where we could have been had we not taken a detour through the Security Counsel (since I can't say it better I'll quote Mark Steyn again)
If Saddam had been toppled to the cheers of a grateful populace last spring, among other consequences Yasser would be out of office, the ayatollahs would be packing, the House of Saud would be feeling the squeeze of lower oil prices, Boy Assad would have changed course so fast he might actually merit that invite to tea with the Queen, and the European anti-war movement would not have swollen inexorably in inverse proportion to the amount of actual war.
Compromise (with the UN) when no compromise is necessary is a defeat. Delay (before Iraq) when no delay is neccessary is a defeat. The very best course and the course that maximalists at the top of their game would take instinctively, would be to act unilaterally when the hegemonic position is challenged directly and openly as is being done now by Saddam Hussein and other Islamofascists represented by Bin Laden and Arafat, etc. We started on that course in Afghanistan and were proceeding splendidly when a surge of minimalist current pushed down the line by Secretary Powell and Tony Blair, derailed the hegemonic locomotive.
The situation can be salvaged but only by war. The very best thing that could happen now is for the UN Security Council to vote 4-1 against the US position and for the US to proceed directly to invade Iraq and kill or capture Saddam. The second best outcome would be for the Council to vote 3-2 against the US position and for the US and Britain to proceed in Iraq. Any other result, including a peaceful resolution sponsored by the UN, that gains nearly everything the President says he wants, and seems to be a victory for US, is when viewed through the maximalist lens, a defeat. Why? Because it is a zero sum game and the winner of the peacful resolution result is not the present hegemon, the United States, but a competitor for the position of top dog, the UN.
My two cents.
Scott Brim Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #7 [-]
Posts: 1550
(01/14/03 09:13:19)
Technocrat
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "You had better pray that we continue to hold the basic principals of our Constitution and Judea-Christian morals sacred. That is the key constraint to the US Empire becoming a hell of a lot tougher on you than we are."
As the War on Terrorism continues and intensifies, there will be a continuing risk of falling into the trap of becoming a second Roman Empire. It is these basic principles of Constitution and Judea-Christian morals that will keep us off that path.
My sense is that the people now in the White House have what it takes to steer a proper course in keeping intense pressure on the enemy while at the same time not falling into the trap of allowing the US become an empire.
They have to do what Reagan did, and that is to always keep First Principles first in their minds, and then go on from there in managing the details.
RBH Jr Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #8 [-]
Posts: 3067
(01/14/03 11:42:08)
Bob
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts >>Interesting essay, Stu. But I found your concluding paragraph very disturbing. The essence of which is that the US as a nation wishes to earn respect through promoting a culture of fear. That is simply why the US will continue to replace one enemy with another, rather than fostering genuine friendship amongst nations.>>
Nudge what you are missing is that it is not the US that will manufacture enimies but that in being number on rivals will emerge to us naturally. Poeple want what the rich have; its that simple. The rich can either protect it of lose it.
No matter how much the Euros try to pretend; it not their good will or spirit of cooperation or treaties that keeps the world peace; it is the military might of the US.
Assuming that other nations want to work with you out of the goodness fo their hearts is the first step toward losing what you have. You use a carrot and a stick to move things along and hopefully enough of them are smart enough to see that working with us is better for them than working against us.
Jeremy M H Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #9 [-]
Posts: 431
(01/14/03 12:49:01)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts The basic lines of reasoning for various governments go as such.
Europe
God gives power to kings/governments which then confer those rights onto their citizens. Even if you remove the traditional god there is some sort of external justification for the ability of leaders to either confer or deny rights on their subjects. Big difference between that and the US.
US
God grants rights to the people, who then confer certain rights onto the government. The founding fathers were pretty clear about how they thought about this in the Decleration. The way I see it the declaration establishes that God has entrusted the people with their rights as men and the constitution then establishes exactly which rights those men have granted to government.
Just my opinon, could be wrong.
FLW Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #10 [-]
Posts: 3825
(01/14/03 13:15:34)
Resident Theologian
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "Just my opinon, could be wrong."
Nope, that is one of the most succinct synopses of the principles I have heard in a long while. Its right on the money."Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty."
Abdul Hadi Pasha Re: A few quibbles #11 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/14/03 13:22:50)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts That war is good for the economy is an enduring fallacy. Look at it this way: If you produce a truck, you sell it, then it is used for productive purposes. If you produce a tank, you sell at and it sits around somewhere doing nothing until a war happens, then it blows up economically useful things.
Many wars DO stimulate economic growth in some countries due to the lowering of tariff barriers, as was the case in WWII, for those countries that weren't being devastated by fighting, namely, the United States.
declan64 Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #12 [-]
Posts: 1512
(01/14/03 14:37:45)
Root
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting essay, Stu. But I found your concluding paragraph very disturbing. The essence of which is that the US as a nation wishes to earn respect through promoting a culture of fear. That is simply why the US will continue to replace one enemy with another, rather than fostering genuine friendship amongst nations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nudge
The world is not a place of equals , regardless of the pretty words on that building in New York. Since we have evolved out of the primordialism of tribal politics , nations have sought to gain dominance over others.
North America , Europe , Africa , Asia , and Australia , all have differing levels of political maturity. When two states within the country can have a disagreement over water resouces and settle it via the courts of the land ,that is maturity. When two nations go to war over a soccer game in south america , that is another level of maturity.
There used to be an old saying that stated that out of the amount of recognized countries in the UN, only a fraction of their leaders could sleep at night,and even fewer still could leave the country with no fear of a coup.
Now , of the amount of countries listed by the United Nations , the amount of nations that has an active policy against the USA has gone straight through the roof.
The time has long past that any one given country can defeat the United States in a military engagement, but the threat of an asymetric attack on the US , is very much alive. Give it another 20 years and that threat will diminish as well , but for the present dealing with countries like Iraq and North Korea militarily , gives other little tin pot dictators pause for another day.
Not nessecarily the countries , but some of the competing cultures out there in the big blue marble we call earth ,derive their mentality from an aggresive stance. Being defeated in battle is not a big loss of face for them when facing overwhelming odds , its just like the school yard. You turn turtle ,then you get no respect. You give the bully a bloody nose and still get beaten ,then you at least get respect among your peers.
As long as little tin pot dictators still think there is a military option ,then I would rather they fear us , rather than wondering were the next bomb will go off, will that immigrant be the one that has dynamite strapped to his chest.
As long as you are forced to deal with these people as equals ,then you will always have a situation like you do in Israel, who quite frankly could have solved the palestian problem years ago ,with the aid of a few cluster bombs and artillery strikes , and infantry follow up.
Should the world FEAR the United States, funny a few years ago ,that would have been a topic on the conspiracy boards. Now , the world will come to know that it was always better to deal with the United States , now they are gonna get a crash course on what the Japanese and Germans have forgotten.
Declan
Abdul Hadi Pasha Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #13 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/14/03 15:47:32)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts That's all great, but this is not a conventional war against tinpot dictators. We are trying to root out and destroy an international, underground terrorist organization, and to do that successfully, we need the willing assistance of the rest of the world. We are not going to get it by blundering around threatening everyone and alienating our allies and friends.
Naked military power is not going to solve all our problems; I don't even think it's the most potent weapon in our arsenal. The huge appeal of our system is what has undermined our ideological enemies in the end, not our military might.
I understand the appeal of the "f#$% the world, f#$% the UN, f#$% Europe, we're going it alone" mentality, but it will not be successful.
Killing terrorists in Afghanistan is one thing, but it doesn't solve the problem, or protect the United States in the long term on its own; we need to be able to strike at the financial systems that support terror, and gather the info we need to stop attacks while they're in the planning stages, and to do that, we need lots of friends.
We have managed in a very short time to totally throw away the support and goodwill engendered by 9-11 worldwide, and I think that is foolish and wasteful.
declan64 Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #14 [-]
Posts: 1512
(01/14/03 16:30:12)
Root
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's all great, but this is not a conventional war against tinpot dictators. We are trying to root out and destroy an international, underground terrorist organization, and to do that successfully, we need the willing assistance of the rest of the world. We are not going to get it by blundering around threatening everyone and alienating our allies and friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are talking about the war on terrorism, so yes its an unconventional war in that regard.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naked military power is not going to solve all our problems; I don't even think it's the most potent weapon in our arsenal. The huge appeal of our system is what has undermined our ideological enemies in the end, not our military might.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, the aplicable phrase you used , was "all of our problems"
And i agree
Special forces and Cia will kill silently in the night, Conventional forces will destroy Iraq. The nuclear deterent will stand on gaurd against North Korea. Popular culture will erode the will of the foreign national family unit.
So yes , your comment is right on the money.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the appeal of the "f#$% the world, f#$% the UN, f#$% Europe, we're going it alone" mentality, but it will not be successful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I believe it will be successful`.Close to the end , the UN and EU will come on board , simply because they have to , not want to. Being in on the action garuntees a seat at what happens in the future.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killing terrorists in Afghanistan is one thing, but it doesn't solve the problem, or protect the United States in the long term on its own; we need to be able to strike at the financial systems that support terror, and gather the info we need to stop attacks while they're in the planning stages, and to do that, we need lots of friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To solve the problem is genocide, it is within the power of the United States to do that. Beating up small countries now , buys time for future options to come into play , and to see if this islamic thing is a fad , or if it has real staying power. While it may come down to almost genocide, I would prefer to treat these people like the soviet union, contain em , roll back their influence,and when nessecary use military force.
WE Will win, the terms of the surrender are up to the foes.
As for needing freinds , my thoughts go back to WW1 and how some times the world just goes through a realignment politically every so often. For the most part , the countries that are urging UN resolution and so forth before striking at Iraq , are doing so because the weight of the UN is supposed to counterbalance the weight of america. If the UN is going to assume that role , either by design or by circumstances, then they should feel no surprise if the US treats them as the adversary du jour.
Declan
Seer Stuart Re: A few quibbles #15 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/14/03 17:00:20)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts A last issue I would have is with the theory is how the hegemon attracts and rewards its supporters. In my view it seems strange that this relationship seems to be dominated by sticks and not carrots. It cannot be that the only benefit of being allied to the hegemon is not getting clubbed over the head as this would be self defeating IMHO: it would put a strong incentive in place for any player other than the hegemon to indeed bandwagon together and form a coalition to bring the hegemon down. I think tit for tat can be helpful here: as long as players demonstrate supportive and positive behavior, there is every reason to reward this.
As long as the Hegemon is that, then there are many benefits from being aligned with it. Not getting beaten over the head is just one of them. One of the things that makes the Hegemon the Hegemon is its ability to protect and support its allies (militarily and economically). Being seen to be supportive of those who support it is a very important part of maintaining a hegemonic position. Equally failure to support allies and the ability of other powers to attack the hegemon's allies with impunity is disastrous - terminally so - to a hegemonic position. Its easy to identify countries that have a very close relationship with a hegemon - they are able to punch far above their weight in their particular regions. The UK is a good example (the US/UK being an interesting example of a consensual transfer of hegemony followed by an extremely close relationship), Thailand is another.
However, here is the caveat; these benefits only apply as long as the Hegemon is the hegemon. If it looks like losing that position, those client states will start to guarantee their future by making accommodations with the challenger. West Germany and Ostpolitik is the classic example.
Not just conservative; all mainstream political groups use the "Realism" model of either the Minimal or Maximal type. I believe the reason why its so universally accepted is that it is closely parallels life in America (driving to work is a "Maximal-Realism" experience). "Maximal-Realism" is a very cold, bleak and imperialistic model of how the world works but for good or ill, it (IMNAAHO) seems to be an accurate one and we have to live with the way the world is, not as we would like it to be (that's another basic tenet of both sets of "Realism").
Seer Stuart Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #16 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/14/03 17:13:16)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Interesting essay, Stu. But I found your concluding paragraph very disturbing. The essence of which is that the US as a nation wishes to earn respect through promoting a culture of fear. That is simply why the US will continue to replace one enemy with another, rather than fostering genuine friendship amongst nations.
Disturbed is good. Scared spitless is better
The essence of "Maximal Realism" is that whatever nation is Hegemon will always be faced with a series of challenges. Whatever nation is hegemon will always continue to replace one enemy with another. Except the term "enemy" is wrong; nations no more have enemies than they have friends. I've said this, Suphi has and a few others also. Nations do not have friends, they have interests. When their interests coincide they are allies; where they diverge they are opponents but the terms friends and enemies as they are understood in the personal sense are meaningless when translated to the nation-state sense. The best mental terminology to use when thinking about this is "challenger". The hegemonic state will always face one challenger after another until it is finally faced with the one that defeats it as challenger. "Maximal-Realism" is about recognizing that fact and learning to live with it. Its about accepting conflict as being an inevitable part of existance and recognizing that we have to come to terms with conflict.
Genuine friendship between the nations is a chimera. The very way nations interact means that it won't, can't, happen. The nearest we get to it is a tacit agreement that we won't kill eachother. Today.
Seer Stuart Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #17 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/14/03 17:37:55)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts We are trying to root out and destroy an international, underground terrorist organization, and to do that successfully, we need the willing assistance of the rest of the world. We are not going to get it by blundering around threatening everyone and alienating our allies and friends.
Think this one through for a moment. Terrorism is nothing new, its been around in various guises for a very long time. So what is it? Think about the mechanics of "Maximal-Realism" for the moment. We have the hegemon at the top and a challenger emerging from below. By very definition, the hegemon is more powerful, perhaps much more powerful, than the challenger. So the challenger looks for ways to fight that offset that strength. LIGHT COMES ON. Terrorism is one tool that a challenger can use to displace a hegemon. Terrorism doesn't just occur; its part of a challenge to a hegemon. Look how terrorism was virtually non-existant in the 1950s, picked up strength in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, receeded dramatically in the 1980s, almost vanished in the early 1990s and then became resurgent in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Doesn't that pattern look familiar?
Terrorism per se isn't important. Who's using it and the reasons behind them using it are important. Terrorism is a series of blows aimed at a hegemon aimed at weakening it, at demonstrating to other nations that the hegemon isn't able to protect itself, let alone its allies. That its military and state power are helpless against the challenger. Thast why Khobar Towers and the Cole were attacked. It was a demonstration that the Hegemon (the US) military forces were helpless. Thats why the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked - it was a demonstration that the Hegemon government couldn't even protect itself. Thats why the nightclub in Bali and the French oil tanker were attacked; it was a demonstration that the Hegemon couldn't protect its allies.
The key issue here is who is using terrorism; the terrorists themselves are unimportant. Finding and killing the terrorists is all very nice and quite satisfying but more important is to identify the challenger behind them and remove him.
We have managed in a very short time to totally throw away the support and goodwill engendered by 9-11 worldwide, and I think that is foolish and wasteful.
Yes indeed; but we didn't throw it away by acting; we threw it away by not acting violently and decisively enough. If we'd done immediately to Iraq what we did in Afghanistan and moved on to pounding on the next threat on the list, that support and goodwill would still be with us (or the rationale is that they would be; in reality, governments would be stepping very carefully to avoid upsetting us and going out of their way to say friendly things every time a carrier got within 500 miles of them.)
Tony D Re: A few quibbles #18 [-]
Posts: 98
(01/14/03 18:44:45)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Fallacy or not, I'm afraid that you've completely misread my post. I didn't say that war was good for the economy, I said that the economy of the US in the decade after their wars was improved vs. the decade prior to the war. I didn't address the health of the US economy during a war at all. In fact, in several wars that the US has been in, notably the War of 1812, the economy suffered rather badly.
WarshipAdmin Explicit vs Implicit strategies and doctrines #19 [-]
Posts: 3547
(01/14/03 21:12:13)
Greg
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Your essay makes things very clear, and discusses things which I suspect you take for granted yet we ( certainly me) from the outside had never realised.
Friedman discusses the advantages of having an explicit (ie rationally formulated, written and widely, if not necessarily publicly, discussed) doctrine compared with the implicit doctrines favoured by many governments. In no particular order they include:
(a) improved coordination - all your guys know what each other should be doing
(b) more reliable responses - everybody is singing off the same hymn sheet
(c) better ability by other opposing agents to understand why actions are being taken -this might seem unhelpful, but communication is a big part of politics, and predictability is a benefit, not a curse, at a strategic level
I understand and sympathise with nudge's reaction to the Maximal Realism doctrine, but we need to recognise that this has come about not, principally, through conscious decision, but as a best-fit approximation to the way that the world (and human beings) operate. Encouraging the USA to use some other less accurate model will not really improve the quality of life in the long term, since it will be less efficient at predicting outcomes. Sure, short term comfort can be improved by pretending otherwise, but at a long term cost.
So far so good. However it seems to me that small countries or irrelevant countries can get a better outcome in reality by ignoring the bivalent nature of this model. I'm thinking specifically of Switzerland, historically, and perhaps New Zealand, now. That is, fence-sitting might be a better approach.
Tony Evans Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #20 [-]
Posts: 4163
(01/14/03 21:40:11)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Stuart,
Maybe you should think about amending "interests" to "perceived interests" wherever it occurs in your comments. Certainly we try to identify and and service our realistic interists--though even this is questionable in the case of Minimals--but many leaders and polities throughout the world tend to pursue very unrealistic ones. This is often the cause of the great unpredictability in international relations.It is not enough that God is on our side. We must likewise be on God's.
Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #21 [-]
Posts: 5359
(01/14/03 21:43:07)
Unus offa unus iuguolo
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Well SEER, we sure don't act like a Hegomon.
I agree that after 9-11 we should have fire and brimstoned a variety of places in total indifference to the UN, but that aint how it played out.
We have to be 'civilized', afterall....
But i did like your theory, even though theoretical thinking tends to hurt my head "US Snipers-Providing surgical strikes since 1776"
M21A1 Sniper Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #22 [-]
Posts: 5359
(01/14/03 21:56:04)
Unus offa unus iuguolo
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "LIGHT COMES ON Terrorism is one tool that a challenger can use to displace a hegemon. Terrorism doesn't just occur; its part of a challenge to a hegemon. Look how terrorism picked up strength in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, receeded dramatically in the 1980s, almost vanished in the early 1990s and then became resurgent in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Doesn't that pattern look familiar?"
SEER, that should be the Republican billboard message, lol.
Seems further proof that all pacifism gets you is a swift kick in the ass.
"US Snipers-Providing surgical strikes since 1776"
The Real Zippy Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #23 [-]
Posts: 798
(01/14/03 22:53:12)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Finding and killing the terrorists is all very nice and quite satisfying but more important is to identify the challenger behind them and remove him.
Isn't it more important to try to discourage terrorism in and of itself?
Based on what you've written, as it gets easier to engage in terrorism (and, associated with that, it gets easier for weaker countries to attempt asymmetric confrontations), the list of potential challenges to the hegemon grows longer and longer.
I would have thought it would be easier to try and reduce the mechanism (terrorism) which makes those small countries potential challengers than it is to slap each challenger down one at a time - that way, they'll never become challengers in the first place.
That raises the bar for participating in challenges to the dominant power, and presumably stabilises the pecking order more.
In that light, homeland security initiatives would be a critical piece of foreign policy for people working off the doctrine you describe.
cheers,
Zippy
Jeremy M H Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #24 [-]
Posts: 431
(01/14/03 23:30:00)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts I believe the answer to that lies in the fact that a hegemonic power would not change what it does but it would rather seek to alter the behavior of those who are hurting it.
The really nasty way to look at it is this.
Were the United States to engage in an exceedingly agressive application of this policy it could conceivably make the response to any terror act retalliation with Nuclear Weapons on nations associated with this act.
Now, if this happens once after 9-11 and say, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are wipped off the map are homeland security measures going to be necessary? You will have very drastically made the point Stewart is describing, the world will be very afraid, and they will not mess with you.
Obviously there are varying degrees of this. But the concept is that you make them react to you by making them afraid of you. While people may seem willing to sacrifice themselves for terrorism it becomes different alltogehter when you are sacrificing not only your self but your entire nation/way of life as well. If Islam is wipped of the face of the earth because you blew up the WTC then you will not blow up the WTC, even terrorist have some degree of logic.
Wijnand vd Beek Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #25 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/15/03 06:10:40)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "The basic lines of reasoning for various governments go as such.
Europe
God gives power to kings/governments which then confer those rights onto their citizens. Even if you remove the traditional god there is some sort of external justification for the ability of leaders to either confer or deny rights on their subjects. Big difference between that and the US.
US
God grants rights to the people, who then confer certain rights onto the government. The founding fathers were pretty clear about how they thought about this in the Decleration. The way I see it the declaration establishes that God has entrusted the people with their rights as men and the constitution then establishes exactly which rights those men have granted to government.
Just my opinon, could be wrong."
Maybe in the past, this is how it evolved. But as we both have elections, much of the difference has disappeared. In Europe, if a government gets impopular, its out. Period.
However, you have a point that several European countries still have a political culture that has elements of the past:
- France's excessive centralization and etatism was started under Louis XIV, further developed by Napoleon and finally honed by De Gaulle. France desperately needs a new generation of polticians who have grown up in the modern era (i.e. after 1968, so I guess we'll have to wait another bit)
- Italy has been thoroughly corrupt politically until 10 years ago and is still recovering
- Germany has been traumatized by Nazism, the cold war and the wall, and hasn't recovered yet (I'm not saying they did not deserve all that)
- The EU has been created with the wrong intentions (to be the superpower France could no longer be on her own) and this is only slowly starting to get realized.
Count yourself (USA) lucky with a history that has been relatively uneventful since 1865. We just need a bit more time here.
Cheers,
Wijnand
Kevin Madrick Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #26 [-]
Posts: 587
(01/15/03 07:40:43)
Dolphin 38
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Stuart,
Given this premise of a challenger behind the terrorists, would that not point to the KSA? Is it possible to become a challenger without directly meaning to do so?
What's the mechanism by which a challenger could control the terrorists? It seems that they would be an extremely blunt instrument.
Kevin
David Newton Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #27 [-]
Posts: 6032
(01/15/03 07:59:49)
Administrator
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts The best way of controlling terrorists is strangling their money sources. If they don't have any money, they can't pay for guns and explosives, training and they can't bribe people.Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
Abdul Hadi Pasha Re: A few quibbles #28 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/15/03 09:48:02)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Oops, sorry about that. I would have to agree with what you said unconditionally.
Abdul Hadi Pasha Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #29 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/15/03 10:08:05)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts I don't contest anything you say, I for the most part agree. That doesn't cahnge my feeling that the Bush Administration has handled this situation with incompetence.
With regard to the main point of your essay, I think you are ignoring the importance of public opinion in the modern world. It is much easier for the United States to make common cause with nations such as Britain, due to the bonds of, and I would call it this, friendship, between us, than it is with countries with alien cultures with which we lack common experience and long ties.
Likewise, it is up to our leadership to demonstrate the need to pursue a course of action, particulary in the case where violence is required. The Bush administration has failed to do this, and this, plus the fatal delay and indecision, has allowed a huge backlash that has severely hobbled our efforts.
Also, I am not convinced that doing to Iraq what we did to Afghanistan would necessarily be in our long-term interest. Unlike Afghanistan, our problem in Iraq is generated by an individual, who could have been removed by covert means, either diplomatic or violent, instead of announcing months ahead of time that we planned to stage a laborious military buildup and conquest of the whole country.
Smashing threats as they emergee in sequence is not an intelligent plan, because the act of doing so generates new threats. For example, crushing Iraq will likely have serious unforseen and unintended consequences; these could include the loss of Turkey as a Western state, which would be disastrous to our interests.
Also, Saddam is clearly not the only power employing terror to undermine us, and overthrowing his regime is not going to eliminate, nor even severely dent, the problem. Modern terror is dependent upon financial resources, and these are hidden everywhere, including at home and in allied nations. Because of that, we require an enormous amount of assistance from the world community to locate and eliminate these bases of support.
Bush's alienation of just about everyone is therefore not just counterproductive, but dangerous. You only need look back to his father to see a masterful construction of international consensus to legitimize unilateral action.
Abdul Hadi Pasha Re: "I myself am an atheist." I am very, very sorr #30 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/15/03 10:17:12)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts That's not really true. Our common-law heritage is the product of pre-Christian Germanic traditions, with a hefty dose of Roman law, also pre-Christian in origin.
Most of the 10 Commandments lay out morals that are common to just about every culture.
It seems to me that what really distinguishes ours is the separation of religion and government, which is not at all part of the Judeo-Christian heritage.
In fact, we take that seperation for granted to the point that we are incapable of understanding cultures where this has not occurred, like those of the Arab world.
Jeremy M H Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #31 [-]
Posts: 431
(01/15/03 10:46:12)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts There is a big difference between having elections and having a government that is derived from the people.
Most of Europe and the US are different in that regard. Its not so much how the government at the moment is selected but how the relationship between the government and the people is viewed.
Seer Stuart Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #32 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/15/03 11:10:22)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts With regard to the main point of your essay, I think you are ignoring the importance of public opinion in the modern world. It is much easier for the United States to make common cause with nations such as Britain, due to the bonds of, and I would call it this, friendship, between us, than it is with countries with alien cultures with which we lack common experience and long ties.
Likewise, it is up to our leadership to demonstrate the need to pursue a course of action, particulary in the case where violence is required. The Bush administration has failed to do this, and this, plus the fatal delay and indecision, has allowed a huge backlash that has severely hobbled our efforts.
I think you're still missing the point of what I'm trying to get over. The subject I'm addressing is not strategy per se but the model of how the world works that provides the basis for the development of strategy. In short, "Realism" and its variants (there are more than two by the way; its just that only two are important in US policy-making circles) are simply descriptions, not policies. They are what happens and why. Strategy and policy come from decisions on how we are going to live with the world described. There are models other than "Realism", these include (but are not limited to) "Rationalism", "Internationalism" and "Dialecticism". They describe the world in different terms and their acceptance implies different policies. So, "public opinion" etc are irrelevent to the subject; consideration of the issues they raise comes further down the line.
As to friendship between nations; for the first hundred years of its existance, the US regarded the UK as its primary and most likely enemy. In those years, the UK was the hegemon and quite early on saw the US as a likely challenger. Fortunately, when the crunch came and the did become a challenger for hegemony, the UK had the wisdom to concede gracefully.
Smashing threats as they emergee in sequence is not an intelligent plan, because the act of doing so generates new threats.
Again, this is not a description of policy, iits a description of how the world works. The hegemon (whoever they may be) is always faced with a series of challengers. If they are not beaten as they emerge, they will displace the hegemon and rule in its place. So the situation isn't one we dictate, its one thats there and one we have to deal with.
Bush's alienation of just about everyone is therefore not just counterproductive, but dangerous.
Bush hasn't alienated anybody. Its the US failure to react to the challenges made against it that has given people the idea that alienation is a possible option. They've looked at the fact the hegemon appears unable or unwilling to act in its own defense and started to make accommodations with the challenger.
Abdul Hadi Pasha Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #33 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/15/03 11:24:38)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Hmmm. I came into this a bit late; after reading you essay carefully, I understand your point.
However, with regard to the last paragraph of your latest post, I must disagree. Although the governments of the rest of the world are reacting as you describe, it's the sentiments of their populations that make such a course possible, and that in turn is the result of perceived arrogance and naked self-interest (perceived as economic interest, as opposed to security interest, to an extent correctly) on our part. I contrast that with Bush Sr's disguised self-interest, which is a more effective policy.
Adopting the outward forms of consensus-driven policy to mask unilateral or authoritarian action has been an effective ploy since the beginning of recorded history, for instance Augustus' respect for the outward forms of Republicanism.
Wijnand vd Beek Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #34 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/15/03 13:18:55)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Well, I am not the subject of my government and i am pretty sure most people in the NL see it that way (tactical voters now making up about 50% of the population). I am less sure how this is viewed in for example France and Germany, but the last French elections showed definite signs of disgust and desperation with the options available (the Le Pen result being mainly what we call here a "protest vote" against the main parties), and Schroder is being challenged harshly over his weak policies and deception of the voters.
So, I would be interested in some proof or illustrations of your statement. What leads you to believe there is a signioficant difference between the US and Europe in this sense?
Take care,
Wijnand
Wijnand vd Beek Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #35 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/15/03 13:29:18)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "Adopting the outward forms of consensus-driven policy to mask unilateral or authoritarian action has been an effective ploy since the beginning of recorded history, for instance Augustus' respect for the outward forms of Republicanism."
It is interesting you choose this example, because the fact that the senators accepted Augustus' dominance came about because of exactly what maximal realism requires: understanding that a challenge of Augustus' position would be futile and harshly dealt with. I am not an expert on Roman history, but I would bet if you would analyse some of the later infighting of the imperial system, you would come across lots of example of challengers to the hegemon not being effectively countered.
BTW, from earlier peaces of the discussion I understand that enlightened despotism is quite acceptable, as long as challenges to the hegemon are promptly dealt with. Not too different to the behavior of dominant males in different animal species I suppose, such as lions, gorillas and humans.
BTW II: I don't know how well maximal realism applies to the individual level as well as the state level, but my guess would be pretty well.
Cheers,
Wijnand
Phong Nguyen Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #36 [-]
Posts: 314
(01/15/03 14:25:01)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are models other than "Realism", these include (but are not limited to) "Rationalism", "Internationalism" and "Dialecticism". They describe the world in different terms and their acceptance implies different policies. So, "public opinion" etc are irrelevent to the subject; consideration of the issues they raise comes further down the line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly is the "dialectic" model? I think I can guess to what the rational and international models are, but I have no clue as to which the last one is.
Abdul Hadi Pasha Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #37 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/15/03 14:48:24)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts You will note that his predecessor, behaving with haughty arrogance, despite his overwhelming power, was teamed up on by a large body of lesser men and stabbed repeatedly until he died.
Wijnand vd Beek Good point #38 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/15/03 15:06:06)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Which points towards one probable flaw in comparing the state and individual level: there are many individuals but only few (powerful) states. Hmmm, complex.
It would seem that on an individual level coalitions are more important than on a state level. Perhaps the example of lions (which live in small groups (prides)) is a better example than the more complex society of imperial humans.
Interesting, I'll have to think more about this. Ah well, maybe tomorrow someone will have given a good explanation.
In the meantime:
Hail Pasha, dormaturi te salutant
Axis Kast Re: Explicit vs. Implicit strategies and doctrines #39 [-]
Posts: 168
(01/15/03 16:10:33)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts You bring up an excellent point. The United Nations should not be contending with George W. Bush to draft and then initiate American foreign policy. Unfortunately, too many Americans have yet to understand that Bush is hated not because his name is George W., but because it isnt William J.
Worse, the United States has become entangled in party policies as never before. Like a drunken boxer already without hope, the Democratic party is merely rending deeper and deeper into what little cohesion we have left. If Bush and Gore both raced one another to a seat on the bus, and Bush sat down first, its Gores responsibility to stand, acknowledge defeat, and either wait for the next ride or grab a wallstrap. It does him no good to fight over an already-occupied position. Why? Because the bus will be held up and neither man will reach their destination on time. In the same way, Democratic and some Republican politics have damaged our ability and desire to put troops in the field and then support them. When we are headed for war, thats not a luxury we can afford. While men are dying for me on the fields of Iraq, Ill give them my all, thank you very much. They carry guns for us so we can carry on about whether or not theyre all being used as pawns as the world watches on television? I think not.
As for North Korea, Bush should be permitting Beijing and Seoul already so eager to appease Kim Jong-Il rather than do it himself. We might as well ignore that region of the world for the time being anyway. Unless the South supports an embargo, weve already lost this battle. At least if we dont compound the issue by acceding to Kims demands, we can look the intelligent ones ten years down the road when a still-sputtering North unveils its next-generation missiles, thoroughly discrediting both the spineless Chinese and South Koreans. Better they than we, and thats fact.
As for doctrines? I favor an implicit set of directives shared only with our allies. By announcing preemption, Bush doomed us to war or a loss of face, credibility, and power on the world stage. Weve never been put in so flimsy a position. Its proof positive that our goals and objectives should remain unspoken, and that our policy should be outlined in far more general terms if at all.
Seer Stuart Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #40 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/15/03 21:11:30)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts What exactly is the "dialectic" model?
Unlike "Realism" which is hierarchical in structure and "Rationalism" which is ordered in structure, dialecticism is anarchic. That is, it suggests that the international arena has no particular structure of its own and the various groups in it move around essentially at random and interacting when they meet. As a result of each interaction, each group takes on some of the characteristics of the other. So if Group A meets Group B, each goes away as Group AB. This is repeated over and over again. Two groups with conflicting characteristics meet and between them form a synthesis of their characteristics then move off to conflict with other groups, forming further syntheses with them. As a result of this process, repeated over and over again, the character of the environment is first formed then gradually changes over time.
Now when two groups interact, the extent to which they affect eachother is not necessarily equal. The extent to which each affects the other is a factor their relative power, their determination to affect the other, the extent to which they with to resist affect and the measures they take to prevent it. This means a large, powerful group that interacts with a smaller weaker group and also takes every opportunity to isolate the effects of that interaction will be much less affected by the interaction than the smaller group. Also, the more actively a group seeks such interactions, the more it will affect other groups. In such cases, the environment will slowly take on the characteristics of the powerful group and, eventually, be indistinguisable from it.
The prime believer in the "Dialecticism" model was the USSR.
Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #41 [-]
Posts: 314
(01/15/03 21:37:09)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Thanks for posting the response; it makes much more sense now than trying to look up "dialectic" in a dictionary and extrapolating from there.
Jeremy M H Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #42 [-]
Posts: 431
(01/15/03 22:31:08)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts The UK has no constitution, the rights are granted by Parliment. Hence the people are subjects.
The German government pay tribute to being created by the people but it was not. It was created by the Allies after WWII.
France has the best claim to being a government by the people, but has changed forms so many times its hard to tell.
The fact that most of these people were given their right to govern by the consent of those in charge makes it a bit different.
Beyond that we come to the implicit portion of the American Constitution that the people have a complete and total right to put down the government if it oversteps its bounds. This is reflected in the adoption of the 2nd Amendment which has no parallel in Europe.
Those two factors are crucial for a government of and by the people. They must both be the ones who truley are the source of their government, and they must be assured the ability to put it down if they have to.
theduchessofzeon It's already been identified. #43 [-]
Posts: 3089
(01/15/03 22:43:02)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts
but more important is to identify the challenger behind them and remove him.
And that challenger is Salafist-Wahhabist Islam which is centrally politically organized as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
"We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and legal institutions from the bonds which hold a tight grip on us although they are incompatible with the needs of our century." - Mustafa Kemal Atatrk on the Sheriat Law.
theduchessofzeon States behave rationally, people behave irrationally. #44 [-]
Posts: 3089
(01/15/03 22:53:10)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts
What can be applied as a model to the interactions of large groups of people will break down for small groups, or for individuals; this affects internal politics in comparison to the relations of States, considerably.
People are creatures who through a combination of the rational and the irrational function. They are creatures of both Reason and the Beast; and so they are contradictory and unpredictable.
The assasins of Caesar were perhaps motivated through means which might be very hard for any system to predict - A human factor, or friction in the system. When one considers their fate of the course of time, even when Caesar's faction was weakened by his assasination, this begins to make more sense.
They acted in futility; but they still acted, and perhaps considerably affected the nature of dictatorial rule in the Republic (which we then hence call the later era of the Principate, instead of perhaps the Dictatoriate or somesuch), because of certain motives that are very human. These, of course, are things which can be quite hard to quantify in any system, as one such expect. Humanity, being the combination of the animal passion and the calculation of Reason, is inherent only in unpredictability. One must always understand this when creating a system to model anything having to do with the interactions of people on a large scale.
"We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and legal institutions from the bonds which hold a tight grip on us although they are incompatible with the needs of our century." - Mustafa Kemal Atatrk on the Sheriat Law.
theduchessofzeon I think one must always understand.. #45 [-]
Posts: 3089
(01/15/03 22:57:50)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts
...That the hegemon will always be envied and hated; feared and reviled. Thucydides understood this nature of man about Imperial Athens and the loathing her power brought forth among the other Greek City-States; also did the other writers of Empire.
The USA is now in the same position and now will deal with the same no matter what sort of foreign policy we engage in. Only being deprived of our status as hegemon - which would have obviously grave and perhaps apocalyptic consequences for our country - would alleviate this. So there is no reason not to engage in a policy which shall not preserve our status.
"We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and legal institutions from the bonds which hold a tight grip on us although they are incompatible with the needs of our century." - Mustafa Kemal Atatrk on the Sheriat Law.
The Real Zippy Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #46 [-]
Posts: 798
(01/16/03 03:18:50)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts I don't think I made myself clear.
You can change their behaviour by altering their intent (scaring them) or by altering their ability to put their intent into effect (removing their capability to strike at you).
Since terrorism seems to me to be the best way for a weaker entity to bloody the nose of a larger entity, if terrorist acts was harder to achieve, that would shorten the list of states that could present any threat to the US.
That increases your safety margin, since you only have to worry about keeping the more powerful states in line (which presumably have more organised and therefore more rational governments), rather than every tin-pot dictatorship.
That line of reasoning rests on some assumptions:
- That terorism is, by a significant margin, currently the easiest way for a small actor to hurt a larger nation.
- That it's easier to intimidate a smaller number of nations than a larger number.
- That intimidation isn't so reliable that you don't want an additional safety factor (challengers do emerge, according to the doctrine).
All of those seem valid to me, but I wouldn't regard them as certain byany means. And together, they mean that homeland security initiatives would be an important foreign policy move for the republicans.
cheers,
Zippy
David Newton Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #47 [-]
Posts: 6032
(01/16/03 06:26:05)
Administrator
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts The UK does have a constitution, it's just that it is not written down in one place. Much of the British constitution consists of precedent in Common Law. Remember that we have got rid of a king twice because he got too close to the 'divine right' bit of rule. The first time we chopped off the head of Charles I. The second time we kicked his son James II out into exile.Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with mustard.
OSCSSW "Dialecticism" model could not pass the Darwin tes #48 [-]
Posts: 2059
(01/16/03 08:01:10)
The Senior Chief
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "The prime believer in the "Dialecticism" model was the USSR."
Personally, since I have no love for communism or the EU I hope you just keep on trucking along as you are.
RBH Jr Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #49 [-]
Posts: 3067
(01/16/03 08:35:57)
Bob
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts >>I contrast that with Bush Sr's disguised self-interest, which is a more effective policy.>>
The world is a diferent place today then it was in 1990. The cold war had drawn the US and Europe extremely close together for 55 years in goals. After the cold war was over the interests of Europe and the US were bound to drift at least a little.
What you see in Europe today is a Europe that sees its elf interest more indemendent of the US and therefore some of their politicians and opinion leaders are getting great recognition of themselves by voicing opposition to the US. 55 years of being our little allies I'm sure planeted the seeds of discontent and now they are showing.
Ask yourself why is Europe so upset? How does this really effect them? Is is so much that the US has acted in a bad way or the we have acted in our interests and Europe has acted in a way that it sees as its own? given that who can say which side is wrong.
>>Adopting the outward forms of consensus-driven policy to mask unilateral or authoritarian action has been an effective ploy since the beginning of recorded history, for instance Augustus' respect for the outward forms of Republicanism. >>
And beating the drums of war to achieve a benificial peaceful solution is older than its mention by Sun Tzu.
Kevin Madrick Re: It's already been identified. #50 [-]
Posts: 587
(01/16/03 08:47:45)
Dolphin 38
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts But is it all of the KSA, or just a faction in it? Is it possible that the KSA has been a dupe for somebody else?
Kevin
Abdul Hadi Pasha Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #51 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/16/03 09:31:33)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts How effective has the drumbeating been?
What happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick"? Do you think announcing 6 months ahead of time that you plan to attack a country and overthrow its government is a wise policy move? Now we have no othwe option, and have allowed the opposition to mobilize.
I agree with Axis Kast. We should outline our overall policy and then act according to our interests, and we should do whatever possibly behind the scenes to line up support from our "friends".
Statements like "you are either with us or against us" are silly, and there's nothing wrong with employing carrots as well as sticks.
samiam2385 Re: "I myself am an atheist." I am very, very sorr #52 [-]
Posts: 437
(01/16/03 22:55:08)
That guy...
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church. . .in the instant example the Roman Catholic Church (there are other "churches" at other times in history that were similar. . .this is not a slam at Catholics). . .is a creation of MEN, it is run by MEN, as such it has human failings. As are ALL religions. Please shoew me where the actions you cite are sanctioned by ANYTHING Christ ever said?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the Biblical Jesus was a peaceloving man. However, being an atheist I think that religion is a construct of man. Therefore it doesn't really matter to me if the MEN have convuluted the message of Christ, I think that man is all there is. All religions have human failings, because all religions are human. No religion can make the claim to higher morals.
I have also heard the case that the power of the Catholic Church, and the overpowering of the world by the White Man, has more to do with geography, than religion, superiority, or anything. Manifest destiny is essentially bunk.
I don't think I put my thoughts into words very well here FLW, I'm sorry.
About the world, the things aroung me and you aren't evidence for Gods' existence anymore than they are evidence for the non-existence of God.I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious-for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply:'Oh, but you forget the good God.' Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious
Bertrand Russel
theduchessofzeon Re: It's already been identified. #53 [-]
Posts: 3089
(01/17/03 02:45:08)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts
The KSA is a country populated by Wahhabi fanatics, and ruled by a family descended from Wahhabi fanatics, possessing of Wahhabi fanatics, and following the Wahhabi diversion of the Salafist branch of Islam.
Salafism is our target, and the KSA is its center of gravity. It must be undone, by some force or means.
"We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and legal institutions from the bonds which hold a tight grip on us although they are incompatible with the needs of our century." - Mustafa Kemal Atatrk on the Sheriat Law.
Seer Stuart Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #54 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/17/03 06:48:49)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts I must disagree. Although the governments of the rest of the world are reacting as you describe, it's the sentiments of their populations that make such a course possible, and that in turn is the result of perceived arrogance and naked self-interest (perceived as economic interest, as opposed to security interest, to an extent correctly) on our part.
There is a buried assumption there that is actually debateable. Do governments and other parts of the power structure mould public opinion (both consciously and unconsciously) or does public opinion mould the way government reacts? Again, there are two schools of thought on that one.
"Structural-Realism" holds the first position; that it is the government that moulds public opinion in ways that are convenient to it. It does so consciously by selective news releases, by governmental statements, by the constant drum-beat of persuasion. It also does so quite unconsciously simply by assuming that no sane, sensible person could disagree with its viewpoints.
"Biological-Realism" holds the opposite viewpoint. It works from the basis that governments respond to public opinion, expressed either as opinion or unrest. It suggests that a public consensus forms and is modified over a period of time and governments must keep pace with that consensus and changes in it or create such dissent that they are driven from power.
The arguments between those two schools go on without conclusion. I've been in conferences where Structural and Biological Realists have been locked in debate for hours. Producing conclusive proof one way or the other should be good for a Political Science PhD.
To the cold-hearted, flinty-eyed imperialists of the "Maximal-Realist" school, the response is generally, "screw both of them. It doesn't matter." This is the big difference between people who study these things as part of a political science course and people who use the theories to determine strategy. Political Science is split into a myriad of models and sub-models and sub-sub-sub-models that differ in minute details and the proponents of those ideas get really mad with everybody else. Strategists don't really care about those details; they are not important. What is important is to have a broad-brush picture that gives us an accurate indication of how international interactions work and the effects they have. From that, policy can be made.
Now, its quite questionable if the current administration is adopting the right policies but thats not the point either. Before we can argue what the right policies are, we have to know how the world works.
Seer Stuart Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #55 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/17/03 06:58:41)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts You will note that his predecessor, behaving with haughty arrogance, despite his overwhelming power, was teamed up on by a large body of lesser men and stabbed repeatedly until he died.
Well, thats Shakespeare's version of it. If you read the completed works of Shakespeare, its pretty obvious he was a "Minimal-Realist". Most people involved with acting/stage/drama are. "Minimal-Realism" is dramatic and gives great scope for drama. (I wonder if thats why Hollywood stars tend to be supporters of the Democrat Party). In contrast, the cold-blooded assessment of risks and striking down challengers before they become dangerous is not good material for drama (except as the bad - guys. Most evil overlords tend to be incompetent Maximal-Realists. Try Wise Political Advice for some thoughts on that.)
Julius Caesar could be interpreted another way, a hegemon who, with advancing age and other interests (Cleopatra) let his guard down, allowed challengers to develop and get the idea that an attempted assassination was a risk worth taking.
RBH Jr Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #56 [-]
Posts: 3067
(01/17/03 07:35:20)
Bob
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts >>How effective has the drumbeating been? >>
Can't tell completely until more happens but do you thihnk even the inspections would have resumed if not for the drum beating? If we keep pushing it to resolution it will have been a successful strategy; if we let things stand incomplete then we have not only failed in the mission we have wasted our relationship with our allies for NOTHING. That would be a tragedy of the first order.
>>We should outline our overall policy and then act according to our interests, and we should do whatever possibly behind the scenes to line up support from our "friends".>>
What makes you think that's not what's happening? Do you think this long delay was for anything but to line things up right?
>>Statements like "you are either with us or against us" are silly, and there's nothing wrong with employing carrots as well as sticks. >>
Strong statements said for domestic consuption often don't go over well abroad. I agree that statement,while a perfect one for the feelings of Americans on 9/12/01 is overly simplistic as a policy.
We are dangling so many carrots right now Ithink it would make your head spin.
OSCSSW Do you have a problem with speaking clearly Pasha? #57 [-]
Posts: 2059
(01/17/03 08:07:38)
The Senior Chief
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Statements like "you are either with us or against us" are silly, and there's nothing wrong with employing carrots as well as sticks.
No it is not silly. The only problem I have with it is we have not severely and with great prejudice made an example of one of our so called allies who has chosen to oppose us. My choice would be the frogs because I have no use for them and they are of no real consequence to the US. Furthermore Europe would be better off without them. We should bring them to their knees either militarily or economically, as a little reminder to the others as to whom they are screwing with.
We are at war with most of the moslem world! Do you really think we have the luxury of allowing our "Clients" to dis us?
In this life and death struggle WE the USA can take no other position than "you are either with us or against us". Too much is at stake.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue
Wijnand vd Beek Hey Stu! #58 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/17/03 08:10:11)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Are you trying to pull a mindjob on us: how many more realisms are you going to pull from the magic hat just to confuse us?
Cheers,
Wijnand
RBH Jr Re: Do you have a problem with speaking clearly Pasha? #59 [-]
Posts: 3067
(01/17/03 08:30:58)
Bob
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts >>No it is not silly. The only problem I have with it is we have not severely and with great prejudice made an example of one of our so called allies who has chosen to oppose us. My choice would be the frogs because I have no use for them and they are of no real consequence to the US. Furthermore Europe would be better off without them. We should bring them to their knees either militarily or economically, as a little reminder to the others as to whom they are screwing with.
We are at war with most of the moslem world! Do you really think we have the luxury of allowing our "Clients" to dis us?
In this life and death struggle WE the USA can take no other position than "you are either with us or against us". Too much is at stake. >>
Another fine example of why those who are skilled at fighting war should not be in charge of diplomacy.
The "kill all and let God sort them out" mentality has its place when all else fails but ignoring the economic relationships that are vital to the US as one evicerates every country on Earth for minor diferences of opinion would destroy the very USA you love so dearly.
Seer Stuart Re: Hey Stu! #60 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/17/03 09:04:57)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts The ones I know of are
"Radical-Realism"
"Strong- Realism"
"Hedged-Realism"
However "Maximal-Realism" and "Minimal-Realism" are the only two important ones when considering the background to US policy. The others are basically political science constructs cutting very fine hairs
Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #61 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/17/03 09:46:03)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Why does it have to be one or the other? That's the problem with theorists; they tend to see in black and white, e.g. Nature vs. Nurture. It's both.
Likewise in the interplay of government vs. public, the power structure moulds pulbic opinion as best it can, and the individual politicians, who are dependent upon the public to maintain their power, behave in accordance with their perception of what the majority of the public wishes.
Also, the government is not a monolithic structure, and isn't even in the most autocratic regimes; there are always different power centers vying for control, often with widely divergent policies and interests.
OSCSSW Concur Pasha. In the US we have the Republicans and #62 [-]
Posts: 2059
(01/17/03 12:26:42)
The Senior Chief
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts the TRAITORS. Both hold office in our government.
"there are always different power centers vying for control, often with widely divergent policies and interests."
Stuart's two Realism are divergent views
nudge67 Nudge answers his critics #63 [-]
Posts: 1355
(01/17/03 14:25:05)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is not a place of equals , regardless of the pretty words on that building in New York. Since we have evolved out of the primordialism of tribal politics , nations have sought to gain dominance over others.
North America , Europe , Africa , Asia , and Australia , all have differing levels of political maturity. When two states within the country can have a disagreement over water resouces and settle it via the courts of the land ,that is maturity. When two nations go to war over a soccer game in south america , that is another level of maturity.
There used to be an old saying that stated that out of the amount of recognized countries in the UN, only a fraction of their leaders could sleep at night,and even fewer still could leave the country with no fear of a coup.
Now , of the amount of countries listed by the United Nations , the amount of nations that has an active policy against the USA has gone straight through the roof.
The time has long past that any one given country can defeat the United States in a military engagement, but the threat of an asymetric attack on the US , is very much alive. Give it another 20 years and that threat will diminish as well , but for the present dealing with countries like Iraq and North Korea militarily , gives other little tin pot dictators pause for another day.
Not nessecarily the countries , but some of the competing cultures out there in the big blue marble we call earth ,derive their mentality from an aggresive stance. Being defeated in battle is not a big loss of face for them when facing overwhelming odds , its just like the school yard. You turn turtle ,then you get no respect. You give the bully a bloody nose and still get beaten ,then you at least get respect among your peers.
As long as little tin pot dictators still think there is a military option ,then I would rather they fear us , rather than wondering were the next bomb will go off, will that immigrant be the one that has dynamite strapped to his chest.
As long as you are forced to deal with these people as equals ,then you will always have a situation like you do in Israel, who quite frankly could have solved the palestian problem years ago ,with the aid of a few cluster bombs and artillery strikes , and infantry follow up.
Should the world FEAR the United States, funny a few years ago ,that would have been a topic on the conspiracy boards. Now , the world will come to know that it was always better to deal with the United States , now they are gonna get a crash course on what the Japanese and Germans have forgotten.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we get to the crux of the problem. Equality between nations. It has yet to be satisfactorily explained to me why we (the liberal democracies of the West) must treat all nations as equals, when clearly they are not. The problem is that for reasons sometimes as shallow as political expediencey or plain ultracapitalist greed we have contracted ourselves to countries that conduct their affairs in an unconscionable manner. This is why I argued in a recent essay, Choosing one's friends more carefully, that we need to structure our alliances more carefully, by only treating with those countries that have a capacity for genuine friendship. Trade and defence links should be maximized between those countries sharing a certain set of ideals, with countries of lesser worth being dealt with only when necessary.
Nudge's lessons of history:
1/ Unrestrained capitalism serves to arm our enemies. The selling of arms and weapons technology to the Iraqi regime in the 1980's, simply because they were post-revolutionary Iran's enemy, was a serious mistake that has led to the invasion of Kuwait and other crises in the region. The cost of resoving these crises far outweighs the profit made by supporting an illegitimate regime a decade earlier. It is the same mistake made by Australia in the 1930's when we sold steel and wool to arm and clothe an expansionist Japanese military. This is why I advocate that there should be restrictions on trade with regimes of dubious legitimacy.
2/ Democracies do not make war on each other. If anyone here can name a single occasion where two genuine democracies fought a war, I will be extremely surprised. Therefore it is in the West's interest to do all that is reasonable to foster democracy throughout the world. Put simply, the more democracies there are, the less potential enemies we face.
3/ Hegemony is not forever. Throughout the course of history, there have been times when one nation has been the sole dominant power, without rival. This nation has for a time held the ability to exert its power or influence far beyong its natural borders. But hegemony is not forever, with these nations all eventually losing their pre-eminent position either from external competition or internal corruption. In some cases, that nation survived, finding itself reduced to its natural borders (Spain, Britain). In other cases, that nation has ceased to exist (Rome). Ultimately, there will come a time when the hegemony of the United States will be challenged, possibly by a resurgent Europe, or even China. It would be wise to make as many friends in the world as possible to delay this event, and cushion its impact. This is not acheived by creating enemies through the promotion of a culture of fear.
"It probably never made sense to conceptualise our security interests as a series of diminishing, concentric circles around our coastline, but it certainly does not now."
- Senator Robert Hill.
Seer Stuart Re: Nudge answers his critics #64 [-]
Posts: 7088
(01/17/03 17:13:19)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Hegemony is not forever. Throughout the course of history, there have been times when one nation has been the sole dominant power, without rival. This nation has for a time held the ability to exert its power or influence far beyong its natural borders. But hegemony is not forever, with these nations all eventually losing their pre-eminent position either from external competition or internal corruption.
This is, perhaps, the most important lesson of the "Maximal-Realist" world-model. One day, the US will cease to be the hegemon and lose that place to another nation. When we do so, we will cease to stamp the world with our image and the new hegemon will start the process of replacing our legacy with its own. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the UK, and the one for which it received least recognition, is that it managed a transfer of hegemony in such a way that the new hegemon built upon and enhanced the legacy of the UK hegemony rather than replacing it.
At the moment, its the objective of US policy to extend, by whatever means are most effective, its period of hegemony. At this time, there is no conceivable challenger to the US that would place the world in better hands than ours. It is right and proper that those who would challenge us should fear us because, without exceptions, they are pretty bad people. The world would not benefit from having a bloodthirsty tyrant like Saddam Hussein or a bunch or religious nutters like the Taliban replace us. There is one good side to this. The US is a country based on an idea, its not based on being a group of people or a piece of territory or a religon. Its a very powerful idea and it is the root of US power. People can only match that power by buying into the basic idea. If people buy into the idea, they become part of us whether they know it or not. Therefore, the likely replacement for the US as hegemon is somebody who has bought into the idea and taken it a stage further in the direction the British started and we developed. Those who should be afraid of the US are those who haven't bought into that idea. We don't want those people to love us; fear will do very nicely thank you.
Scott Brim How long? Which one? #65 [-]
Posts: 1550
(01/17/03 17:42:03)
Technocrat
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Stuart, would you care to speculate as to how long that process might take, and as to which nation -- existing or yet to be founded -- might become the new hegemon?
nudge67 Re: Nudge answers his critics #66 [-]
Posts: 1355
(01/17/03 18:17:23)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts In your last sentence you have articulated the point that should have been made in your initial post: That those who share traditional liberal-democratic ideals as developed by the British are friends, and those who do not are potential enemies. Exactly what I have been saying all along. "It probably never made sense to conceptualise our security interests as a series of diminishing, concentric circles around our coastline, but it certainly does not now."
- Senator Robert Hill.
nudge67 Re: Nudge answers his critics #67 [-]
Posts: 1355
(01/17/03 18:40:23)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts I refer you to my comments in an earlier post that 'True democracies are those which are constitutionally governed by a parliamentary body freely elected by universal adult suffrage'.
Arguments to debunk your suggestions can be found here: War between democracies"It probably never made sense to conceptualise our security interests as a series of diminishing, concentric circles around our coastline, but it certainly does not now."
- Senator Robert Hill.
WarshipAdmin One for the historians #68 [-]
Posts: 3547
(01/18/03 00:05:38)
Greg
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts I'd guess the shortest timespan of a particular hegemon remaining at #1 is say 40 years, and the longest is say 400 years. What would be interesting would be to try and model the change in hegemon-power for each polity as a proportion of the toal global hegemon-power as time progresses. Obviously up until the 1600s you couldn't really be a global hegemon, since the world was not entirely known to any one polity (yes, today's word). Also to be a hegemon I think you don't just need to be locally powerful, you have to interact with the rest of the world, so China and India don't really get a look in since they have been so self absorbed for most of their histories.
Here's my candidates with very rough dates.
Rome 100BC - 300
Persia 200 BC - 100
Eastern Roman Empire 300-800
France 1000-1915
Spain 1400-1700
The Netherlands ?
Great Britain/UK 1600 -1917
Germany 1870--1944
USSR 1945-1985
USA 1917-
Since hegemon-power is unmeasurable I suspect GNP would have to be used!
Scott Brim Re: One for the historians #69 [-]
Posts: 1550
(01/18/03 01:48:09)
Technocrat
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "Since hegemon-power is unmeasurable I suspect GNP would have to be used!"
Hmmm. Could there be something akin to a Second Law of Hegemon Dynamics which is the equivalent of hegemonic entropy?
In other words, the processes that give rise to and allow the achievement of hegemony guarantee that the nation which has it must eventually lose it, and so what we measure is the change in state of the political/economic/power dynamic, not its absolute value at any given point in time.
Anyway, I sure hope this doesn't happen to the US in my lifetime, or in my children's lifetimes, but it is not altogether out of the question.
Wijnand vd Beek Scott, the key phrase in Stuarts post is: #70 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/18/03 03:13:25)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts "People can only match that power by buying into the basic idea. If people buy into the idea, they become part of us whether they know it or not. Therefore, the likely replacement for the US as hegemon is somebody who has bought into the idea and taken it a stage further in the direction the British started and we developed."
I believe this to be true. It has been articulated by others as well in the context of the war on fundamentalist Islam: fundamentalist Islam is threatened to its core by the forces of freedom and modernity, and must attack western democracies or whither. But as their system is economically and socially dramatically less efficient, their defence is in the end a futile rearguard action. They must adapt or be defeated. In the long term the victory of the west is inevitable. (Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated )
So the question of when the US will be replaced as hegemon is less important than by what will the US be replaced: by a nation that will be very similar to the US in many if not moat ways. And like the UK (and the rest of Europe) need not fear its replacement by the US as hegemon, I think the US need not fear this either.
Still, if you look at the potential candidates and their current problems, it is most likely the 21st century will be another American century.
Cheers,
Wijnand
Wijnand vd Beek Re: One more for the historians #71 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/18/03 03:38:56)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts The Netherlands c 1580 - c 1680
France 1650-1870
Great Britain/UK 1650 -1940
Omissions:
Osman empire 1200 - 1684
China ? - 1700
Mogul empire ? - 1600
Potential rivals for US:
Europe: unlikely to overpower US, may at best match it by 2nd half of 21st century, if even that
Russia: as always, plenty potential but always disappointing. Assessment similar to Europe. Maybe when they combine, but that's not very likely either.
China: if China does not break up and if they manage to transform into a democracy, perhaps. But not during this century.
India: maybe next century.
Africa: maybe in another 2000 years.
Cheers,
Wijnand
nudge67 The end of empire #72 [-]
Posts: 1355
(01/18/03 15:56:27)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Let us examine each hegemon and why they ended.
Egypt 2615BC-1065BC Though definably a nation for 3000 years, the Three Kingdoms period represent the height of Egyptian power, which was in turn conquerd by Assyria, Persia, and Rome. Duration - 1550 years.
Carthage 814BC-264BC Phoenecian Empire that ruled the Mediterranean coast until the start of the Punic Wars with Rome. Duration - 550 years.
Persia 533BC-331BC Founded by Cyrus the Great, the Achaemenid dynasty extended Persian civilization to Turkey, Egypt and the Eastern Mediterraneanb. Overthrown by Alexander the Great. Duration - 202 years.
Macedonia 338BC-323BC Philip of Macedon united the warring Greek City States through conquest, his son Alexander the Great then conquered the Persian Empire. Upon Alexander's death, the empire was divided amongst his generals. Duration - 15 years.
Rome 272BC-410AD The conquest of Taranto signified the unification of Italy under Roman rule, from which most of the known world was then conquered. Collapsed when the barbarian Visigoth invaders sacked Rome. Duration - 682 years.
China 206BC-present Asia's greatest power from the start of the Han Dynasty to the abdication of the Manchu Dynasty, interrepted by occaisional periods of civil conflict. Restablished itself with the formation of the People's Republic in 1949. Duration - 2209 years thus far.
Byzantine 410-1071 Succeded Rome in the Eastern Mediterranian, only to be defeated by the Seljuk Turks and ultimately absorbed into the Ottoman Empire. Duration - 661 years
Moslem Empire 622-1920 Mohammed united Arabia under the Islamic religion, forming a Caliphate which eventually ruled the Middle East, North Africa and Southern Europe. The Caliphate continued in various forms, eventually being ruled by the Ottoman Turks. Territorial decline began in 1699 under the Treaty of Carlowitz upon the rise of Austria. After WWI the empire was dismembered under the Treaty of Sevres. Duration - 1298 years.
Holy Roman / Habsburg Empire 800-1918 Begun by Charlegmane, it was controlled by the Habsburgs from 1273, who relinquished the title of 'Holy Roman Emporer' in the early 1800's. Dismembered by the Treaty of Versailles after WW1. Duration - 1118 years.
Inca Empire 1200-1533 Controlled much of South America until defeated by Spanish conquistadors. Duration - 333 years.
Aztec Empire 1325-1521 Controlled Mexico and Central America until defeated by Spanish conquistadors. Duration - 196 years.
Mongol Empire 1206-1691 Established by Genghis Khan, it ruled from Eastern Europe to the Pacific. Conquered by the Manchurians and absorbed into China. Duration - 485 years.
Spain & Portugal 1494-1808 Recognized as great powers by the Treaty of Tordesillas, their American empires asserted independence after Napolean invaded the Iberian peninsula. Duration - 314 years.
England 1588-1948 The destruction of the Spanish Armada signalled the rise of English naval supremecy. The cost of American assistance in WWII was the granting of self-determination to her colonies, which began with the independence of the Indian subcontinent. Duration - 360 years.
France 1598-1940 Henry of Navarre ended the religious wars and founded the Bourbon dynasty that was to build a great empire, which only began to assert independence after Hitler's conquest of Paris. Duration - 342 years.
Russia 1613-1991 Territorial expansion began with the Romanov dynasty, reaching its peak with the USSR. With the collapse of communism many Asian and European countries freed themselves from Russian control. Duration - 378 years.
Germany 1871-1945 Otto von Bismarck completed German unification and began building an empire that went on to control most of Europe under Hitler's Nazi regime. Defeated by the combined power of capitalism and communism. Duration - 74 years.
Japan 1895-1945 Territorial expansion began after the acquisition of Korea and Taiwan from China, beginning a conquest if the Asia-Pacific region that was defeated by American miltary supremecy. Duration - 50 years.
United States of America 1898-present The defeat of Spain signalled the beginning of American power that has been supreme since the collapse of communism in 1991. Duration - 105 years thus far.
European Union 1993-present Established by the Treaty of Maastricht to rival American economic supremacy and secure Europe's place as a world power. Duration - 10 years thus far.
Interesting to see the common links here. Most empires seem to last around 300 to 600 years, and fall at the hands of another. How many years do you give the US, Europe and China? Do you see any other powers rising?
"It probably never made sense to conceptualise our security interests as a series of diminishing, concentric circles around our coastline, but it certainly does not now."
- Senator Robert Hill.
theduchessofzeon Re: The end of empire #73 [-]
Posts: 3089
(01/19/03 00:48:03)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts
I would not refer to the Muslims as a single Empire; there are instead a series of Caliphates, probably four, worthy of the title of Hegemons.
Likewise, each Chinese Dynastic Cycle should be counted as a seperate Hegemon, as they were often quite distinct and seperated by foreign invasions or extreme civil turmoil, the total dissolution of central control into small states, etc.
Finally, you completely left out the Mauryan, Gupta, and Mughal Empires, which all established Hegemony over the Indian Subcontinent.
The Timurid Empire also counts as a Hegemon based on the criteria you are using.
"We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and legal institutions from the bonds which hold a tight grip on us although they are incompatible with the needs of our century." - Mustafa Kemal Atatrk on the Sheriat Law.
WarshipAdmin Thanks #74 [-]
Posts: 3547
(01/19/03 03:20:54)
Greg
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts I'm surprised that nudges estimate is so high, I had a feeling that 400 was pushing it.
I had a sneaking feeling the Moguls should have been in there, and must have been crazy to forget Egypt.
Gonna go googling after the Timurids, never even heard of them.
Now I'd like to see some measure showing the change of hegemmonship against time!
theduchessofzeon Re: Thanks #75 [-]
Posts: 3089
(01/19/03 07:07:15)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts
Timur is another spelling of Tamurlane or Tamburlane, and Timurid is the form often used to refer to him and his descendants, who from the founding of his Sultanate until the Uzbeks finished it off ruled from 1364-1507, though certainly they didn't have Hegemon status the entire time, except perhaps for most of it in Central Asia.
They were definitely THE Hegemon early on, however. And, of course, just nineteen years after the last remnants were finished off, Babur, one of Tamburlane's descendants, founded the Mughal Empire.
"We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and legal institutions from the bonds which hold a tight grip on us although they are incompatible with the needs of our century." - Mustafa Kemal Atatrk on the Sheriat Law.
nudge67 Re: Thanks #76 [-]
Posts: 1355
(01/20/03 05:15:12)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts I've made some changes taking on board your comments. I've incuded Indian hegemons, and split China into five periods.
Your right, 300 years seems average, few make 400. I wonder why?"It probably never made sense to conceptualise our security interests as a series of diminishing, concentric circles around our coastline, but it certainly does not now."
- Senator Robert Hill.
Abdul Hadi Pasha Definition of Hegemon #77 [-]
Posts: 10
(01/20/03 09:15:58)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Of all the hegemonic powers mentioned in this thread, I would only grant that title to Rome, France, Britain, and the United States.
Even my beloved Ottomans, although one of the great powers of history, was never more than a regional power, and at its height was successfully resisted by the Hapsburg Empire, which in turn was prevented from achieving hegemony by the power of France.
There is a lesson to be learned from this. Ottoman military and economic power greatly outstripped all rivals, but the Ottoman unwillingness to engage in international relations prevented them from using their might to the extent that was possible; they chose to use only the military option, and as a result, remained isolated and unable to maintain their position.
BTW, with regard to Rome, I would argue that it never really diasappeared; politically it survived at least until 1453, and some would argue until the abolition of the Caliphate in 1923; in any case, as long as the Catholic Church survives, the ghost of the Roman Empire remains to haunt us.
Silkbow I think... #78 [-]
Posts: 482
(02/06/03 09:20:46)
Hongkie Expat
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts That something needs to be made clear, or at least less-implicit here.
Mekozak eludes to this in another thread.
The Maximal-Realism paradigm only works, or is sustainable, in the case of a benevolent hegemon. That is, the interests of the hegemon also coincide with the interests of the world: stability, commerce, freedom, blah-blah-blah.
Otherwise, say the hegemon decides to undertake policies of mercantilism, colonialism, slavery, etc... then no matter how powerful the hegemon be, the Rest of World will sandcastle a coalition against it.
Cheers,
Silk.Life is a dream walking, death is a going home.
Axis Kast Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #79 [-]
Posts: 168
(03/08/03 14:31:01)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts The world is headed toward a multipolar composition. While the United States will retain its position of first among near equals into the foreseeable future (lets say around fifty years) and should continue to maintain its cordon sanitaire in the Western Hemisphere for three or four times as long, it will soon be forced to contend with Chinese, Russian, and European competition on a global level.
While I agree with preliminary assessments that tap both the EU and Russian Federation as growing to become regional powers in their own right (expanding over much of Europe and Central Asia, perhaps also into the Middle East and of course North Africa), it is China toward which America should now be looking with concern. Were talking about a growing nation of 1.2 billion whose Westward expansion has not yet begun. China is already on an equal footing with or beyond the United States in terms of production of steel, textiles, construction materials, and personal computers. Were also talking about a captive market with more consumers concentrated domestically than American companies could kick up in their wildest dreams even if running rampant over international markets. In the same way that Washington exports loan capital and monetary sustenance to the rest of the world, so too will China be able but on a greater scale if its current growth is any indication. Our military potency and relative impregnability will not last us forever. Although not yet expansionistic beyond its own shores, the Chinese, by picking up Russian technologies, could potentially tool themselves inside a century for legitimate power projection in contest with American aims. Imagine a nation able to out-maneuver the United States financially. Even without coming to blows, China will, within fifty or sixty years, prove itself as a rather competent and quite dangerous adversary. This is especially true if Beijing eschews becoming a truly global actor (in terms of direct influence) before Washington makes a critical mistake, allowing the heirs of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao to pick up Americas fallen moral mantle and thus elevate its now-dubious position on the world forum.
Must we be wary? Indeed. Although China is unlikely to be able to threaten American technological, military, or developmental supremacy, their money could carry them quite far. The future battlefield is the boardroom, territory new to all and on which the United States has proven itself remarkably untempered. The future will be, if anything is for certain, far more an uphill affair. The United States will remain undisputed number one for the duration of our lifetimes, of course, but probably not into those of our great-great grandchildren.
newharper Re: Nudge67 I think you are missing the point #80 [-]
Posts: 2
(05/23/03 01:45:33)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Hi,
So once you've got God out of the way, it comes down to 'does power come from above or below'.
Hardly mindblowing.
newharper.
Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #81 [-]
Posts: 23
(08/22/03 10:24:06)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Stuart,
I am interested in your view that maximal-realism is the correct mechanism by which politics on a world scale operates. I am not doubting that it is at play and is quite prevalent, but you stated:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if Minimal-Realism was to prove correct, we should have seen a coalition of European powers arising to confront Germany. In fact, we dont. What we do see is the smaller countries of Europe adopting many of the outward characteristics of Nazi Germany and the foundation of fascist parties in most of the European countries. In short, those countries were bandwagoning with Nazi Germany in exactly the manner predicted by Maximal-Realism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximal-Realism does predict that the smaller countries started the bandwagoning procedure and jumping on board with the emerging hegemon. Now after Chamberlain's failure to stop Hitler's expansionistic ideals through compromise, we see something that in my mind is completely minimal-realism at work. Instead of cowing to the growing strength of the German hegemon, we see the remainder of French resistance, and Britain begin to form alliances to counter the growing German power. If maximal realism were completely correct, upon the destruction of France, the British being clearly lower on the power chain at this point, should have begun to cow to the Germans to save their own behinds. Instead they openly oppose them. Perhaps I am considering this differently or do not have a complete grasp on the realism idea, but throughout history I see both Maximal and Minimal Realism at play.
On another note, you state that economics is not a zero sum game. Therefore it is possible for both sides to profit from the same transaction. How does the max. and min. realism model hold up for a country that is clearly the Economic Hegemon (i.e. the US)?
Seer Stuart Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #82 [-]
Posts: 7088
(08/22/03 11:28:04)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Maximal-Realism does predict that the smaller countries started the bandwagoning procedure and jumping on board with the emerging hegemon. Now after Chamberlain's failure to stop Hitler's expansionistic ideals through compromise, we see something that in my mind is completely minimal-realism at work. Instead of cowing to the growing strength of the German hegemon, we see the remainder of French resistance, and Britain begin to form alliances to counter the growing German power. If maximal realism were completely correct, upon the destruction of France, the British being clearly lower on the power chain at this point, should have begun to cow to the Germans to save their own behinds. Instead they openly oppose them. Perhaps I am considering this differently or do not have a complete grasp on the realism idea, but throughout history I see both Maximal and Minimal Realism at play.
First of all, lets look at the late 1930s world in Power Politics terms. The world hegemon is the UK or, to be more precise, the British Empire. The problem is that its power is visibly waning - the country is no longer the wolrd economic powerhouse, the Royal Navy is no longer the undoubted mistress of the seas, now it is , at best, the first amongst equals. The Empire is fragmenting and in various areas there is growing unrest. In short, the old order that's held the line since 1815 is dying. The question is who's going to replace the UK has Hegemon. Overtly it appears that the most likely contender is the USA. It has the economic and military power and it has geo-political advantages that are hard to overcome.
This is where things went wrong. We have Germany starting a resurgence in Europe. The country starts a series of challenges against the regional hegemon (France) and the world Hegemon (the UK). These include tearing holes in the military limitations imposed by the treaty of Versailles, the remilitarization of the Rhineland etc etc. Each challenge was either ignored or rationalized away. The result was that Germany was overtly and openly defying the Hegemony that faced it and was getting away with it. In short, by successfully challenging the existing Hegemons it was denying their position and setting itself up as a replacement to it. By the late 1930s, it had succeeded in doing this to the point where France had effectively been displaced as the Regional Hegemon.
At this point, according to "Minimal-Realism" we should have seen the smaller European countries forming a coalition against Germany. In fact, we see exactly the opposite. We see the Soviet Union seeking rapprochment with a state that is overtly aiming at its destruction. We see the UK signing a disadvantageous naval treaty, we see France competing with the UK and the USSR to appease the German state. Far from the rise of Germany provoking an alliance amongst the other states, we see its neighbors becoming less and less willing to confront it and ever more willing to appease it by complying with its wishes. The whole thrust and nature of the late 1930s appeasement policy is a classic example of Maximal-Realism bandwagoning at work.
This bandwagoning effect reached its crux in Munich in 1938. The Czech Sudetanland Crisis was an overt challenge to the UK as World hegemon - and the UK flubbed it. If Minimal-Realism had any significance, this is the point where the balancing mechanism would have kicked in and we should have seen an alliance of European powers forcing the Germans to back off. Instead, we see additional Bandwagoning; we see an upsurge of strength of Fascist movements around Europe, we see a further drift to alignment with Germany. We see the USSR redoubling its efforts and actually signing an alliance with Germany. You mentioned the UK - we see the UK Fascist Party recommending an accommodation with Germany gaining further strength - as do the fascist parties in France, Belgium, Romania, Poland, Hungary etc etc etc.
In short, we see Maximal-Realism proved to the hilt. A year later Hitler staged another challenge to the UK as World Hegemon by attacking a country to which the UK had given specific security guarantees. The Uk did not back down from that challenge and the result was war. Note how many allies the UK had in the early days of World War Two. One. France. That's it. The UK was virtually alone. No coalition of lesser powers; they were siding with what appeared to be the successful challenger. After France went, the UK was left on its own defending its position on its own. Note how many countries rushed to its aid.
Sorry, the whole history of 1930s Europe is a devastating indictement of Minimal-Realism policies. At each stage we can see Maximal-Realism mechanisms working as the growing successful challenge to the UK caused other countries to drift away from its position and seek accommodation with the rising power of Germany.
Its interesting to speculate what would have happened if the UK had caved in over Poland in 1939. Germany, having displaced the UK as World Hegemon would have gained that position for itself. Fortunately, that didn't happen; at the last moment the UK responded to the challenge mounted against it. What could have happened otherwise is ugly to contemplate.The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.
JoshCaldwell Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #83 [-]
Posts: 23
(08/24/03 19:10:04)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Well to continue with this line of thought. I am having some issues separating out the Maximal and Minimal Realism at specific points. You can argue that as the war continued, that the UK began to show itself as a successful challenger to the Nazi's and thus under Maximal Realism, we see many countries (US, Post-Mussolini Italy, USSR...) jumping ship to join with the British. But it could also be viewed that with Germany gaining such strength and continuing to steam roll through Europe, The US and USSR (I have trouble with the latter as they only joined the allies after Hitler actually attacked them not because of a balance of power, but more later) begin to form a coalition to stop the Nazi's as is consistent with minimal realism. Also you could argue that the USSR, after being invaded by Hitler was forced to make a decision of cowing and making a treaty (which obviously was a ridiculous idea and even with the sorry mental state of Stalin at the time, I doubt this even entered his head) which would be consistent with Max. or to fight back and join the coalition in an effort to resist, consistent with Min. This is a bit of a stretch I feel, but the logic seems to fit.
This is a pretty new topic to me, but is pretty interesting argument. I would be interested to hear your retort as it appears to me we live in a world where minimal and maximal realism exist and at times the lines separating the two blur.
Seer Stuart Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #84 [-]
Posts: 7088
(08/26/03 08:56:15)
The Prince of Darkness
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts You can argue that as the war continued, that the UK began to show itself as a successful challenger to the Nazi's and thus under Maximal Realism, we see many countries (US, Post-Mussolini Italy, USSR...) jumping ship to join with the British.
No, no, no. You've got what I said completely reversed. It was the UK that was the Hegemon and Nazi Germany that was the challenger. Up to the Polish Invasion, the Uk and france had failed to respond to the German challenge and it was that which started the bandwagoning effect rolling in Europe. That bandwagoning effect only began to be reversed when the UK showed that it had both the political willpower and muscle to withstand the German challenge. Even then, there was no great move away from the pre-war German bandwagon. Germany created the coalition against it by attacking people.
Also you could argue that the USSR, after being invaded by Hitler was forced to make a decision of cowing and making a treaty (which obviously was a ridiculous idea and even with the sorry mental state of Stalin at the time, I doubt this even entered his head)
I really do wish you would learn some basic history. Stalin DID sign a treaty of alliance with Nazi Germany. As you point out, absolutely consistent with maximal-realism and a flat contradiction of what would be expected from minimal-realism.The great issues of the day are not solved by speeches and resolutions in the United Nations. They are solved by the tanks of the US Armed Forces.
JoshCaldwell Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #85 [-]
Posts: 23
(08/28/03 11:04:17)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Stuart,
I understand that USSR signed the alliance treaty, but this was prior to the attack on Poland. Upon the German's attack of the Soviets, this treaty was of course dismembered. I have read reports of Stalin in his ridiculously paranoid way was hiding under desks and locking himself in rooms unable to believe that Hitler had broken their agreement. My point was saying that at THIS point, they could have signed another agreement (which would obviously have been foolish, considering the German adherence to the first one) or go to war with Germany and join the UK. You answered my question though, I was wondering how you felt being attacked played into the realism model. Obviously, such activity forces you to one side or the other and therefore is hard to believe that it would back either realism model as the hand was forced. Its not that I didn't know the history, I must not have done a good job of explaining my point...
Urgit Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #86 [-]
Posts: 1543
(08/28/03 23:29:03)
Linuxphile
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts IIRC They signed the treaty with the express intention to carve up Poland between them. Stalin knew they where going to invade Poland.
Also, Operation Barbarossa ( the invasion of Russia by German forces .. eg when Hitler really DID break the agreement ) was in June, 1941, Poland had been occupied for nearly 2 years by then.
www.assumption.edu/dept/h..._pact.html
theduchessofzeon Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #87 [-]
Posts: 3089
(08/29/03 00:05:14)
Banned User
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts
Stuart, how far back does the analysis for the support of Maximal Realism go? It seems like the biggest hole to be torn in it to me would be the War of the Grand Alliance (AKA War of the League of Augsburg) and I wonder what Maximal Realism can make of the entire situation, indeed, around the wars of Louis XIV.
"The interest of the world's history hung trembling in the balance. Oriental despotism, a world united under one lord and sovereign, on the one side, and seperate states, insignificant in extent and resources, but animated by free individuality, on the other side, stood front to front in array of battle. Never in history has the superiority of spiritual power over material bulk, and that of no contemptible amount, been made so gloriously manifest." - GWF Hegel on the Battle of Salamis.
JoshCaldwell Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #88 [-]
Posts: 23
(08/29/03 11:28:51)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that USSR signed the alliance treaty, but this was prior to the attack on Poland. Upon the German's attack of the Soviets, this treaty was of course dismembered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ok this is was what I said. My point was exactly what you stated. That the alliance between USSR and Germany was signed prior to the invasion of Poland. What I was stating was that later on when Hitler called for the invasion of USSR this broke the treaty and forced the issue with how the USSR would react. My question to Stuart was how this lined up with Realism models, but that has been answered. Case closed
Urgit Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #89 [-]
Posts: 1543
(08/29/03 14:55:29)
Linuxphile
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Sorry, I managed to badly misread that one. Been sober for most of the week as well so no excuses there!
The Argus Re: Scott, the key phrase in Stuarts post is: #90 [-]
Posts: 1333
(11/26/03 14:31:11)
I Like to Watch
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts So Wij, working on your 'relay-runner' concept, that would imply that the next big cheese looks like Europe. As things stand, no one else has the right blend of economic's and politics.
China and India both have potential, but they have a long way to go and in directions that play to their weaknesses not their strengths (politics for China, economics for India).
Canada, Australia, Malasia/Singapore etc lack the gravitas, Indonesia needs to hold together before it can think about the future, as you say Africa has along way to go, Russia.... and that leaves Europe as the current candiadate, which sort of explains a little of the recent trans-atlantic friction.
Might another function of the Hegemon Law be that you can't have two bites at the cherry? China is a potential exception to the rule, but the list of "Former Hegemons that are now backwaters" is longer than "The Empires that have struck back and won."
It's as if being #1 takes so much effort that once vanquished, a scoiety takes a collective sight of relief and sits back to watch the show. So how long does it take to recover? If the EU is to be concidered a player, then ~50 years might be a possiable answer, but I doubt it.
WWII marked the passing of serveral hegemons and the EU is an amalgam of some of them. But we have Britain as control and they've only just managed to win a world cup at their own game. So to me the EU looks as if the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
shaneRule .303
Shoot straight, you bastards.
Wijnand vd Beek Re: Scott, the key phrase in Stuarts post is: #91 [-]
Posts: 1210
(01/12/04 15:39:00)
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Shane,
I frankly don't think Europe will be a credible challenger any more: we have only mrginally more people (even with the new EE joiners), and the differences in language, culture, and the ideological hangups prevent us from overtaking the US in any meaningful sense.
As you mention, only China and India have the demographical mass to potentially surpass the US, but they face huge institutional barriers.
I can only conclude the 21st century will be an American one. And that's probably good for us all.
Cheerioh,
Wijnand
MarkSheppard Re: The Underlying Principles of US Policy #92 [-]
Posts: 2780
(01/15/04 20:03:46)
Slightly oblivious
Reply Quote MoreMy Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Kast, I don't think we have much to worry about china,
except for them going to war because of their single
child policy which is resulting in a rather unhealthy imbalance
of more male children vs female children...last time a
country had that kind of surplus population that was
germany before WWII....
And you really do overestimate the chinese...all it would take
to really hurt them would be to pop a small scale nuke into
that dam they've built...I forget the name, wouldn't that
wipe out a lot of their population?
_________________
Maximal Realism & the Underlying Effects of US policy
-
Craiglxviii
- Posts: 2276
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 7:25 am
Re: Maximal Realism & the Underlying Effects of US policy
An interesting addition to the essay by Bret Deveroux. He favors more the minimal realism model, but recognizes that it switches.
https://acoup.blog/2023/07/07/collecti ... coalition/
https://acoup.blog/2023/07/07/collecti ... coalition/
-
Johnnie Lyle
- Posts: 2874
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:27 pm
Re: Maximal Realism & the Underlying Effects of US policy
I’d say it’s less about minimal realism in general than a specific case study of one part of it.kdahm wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 6:21 pm An interesting addition to the essay by Bret Deveroux. He favors more the minimal realism model, but recognizes that it switches.
https://acoup.blog/2023/07/07/collecti ... coalition/
The big issue is that Dr. Deveraux fails to address the elephant in the room since at least 2016: the status is not quo for a large portion of the Status Quo coalition, and that has driven a lot of both domestic unrest and foreign policy shifts within the Status Quo coalition.