Go Big Or Go Home
Creating mediocrity from greatness
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[...]I truly believe that not only is the United States Government the greatest force for good the world has ever known, but the U.S. military is the single greatest instrument of that good as well. Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U.S. military. Show me regions where war is inconceivable and I will show you permanent U.S. military bases and long term security alliances. [...] Show me a future worth creating and I will show you a price worth paying -- even at the cost of some of our loved ones.
--Thomas P. M. Barnett
The Pentagons' New Map
A future worth creating.
Think about it for a moment.
Read on.
One of the unifying forces in the human mind is the power of the future. We have been inexorably drawn to it since the dawn of time. The future of which I speak is not more and better of today but a different future which fundamentally reorders the world and puts to right the perceived injustices of the present. Demagogues and charlatans have known this forever. So too have true leaders and visionaries, like Ronald Reagan's "shining city on the hill" imagery. So it is no surprise when an elemental human activity like warfare is driven by our passion to change the future.
When all the veneer is stripped away from warfare, wars are fought for two reasons. Either you are fighting to retain the some form of the present or you are fighting to create the future. I would contend that most wars are fought to retain the present and they accomplish very little other than becoming footnotes in a term paper, a Jeopardy question -- Alex, what is the War of Jenkins's Ear? -- or creating offenses against national pride which in turn serve as the flashpoint for more wars.
Admittedly, wars can appear differently to different sides. A quick view of our own history clearly demonstrates that. One thing the Mexican War, the Civil War, and our century of Indian wars had in common was one side desperately fighting to retain the present against another desperately trying to create a future. In all cases the future won out. Another thing they have in common is that the results stuck and have not been relitigated on the battlefield.
That experience is not limited to America. When the armies spawned by the fervor of Revolutionary France hit the monarchies of Europe like a tsunami, it was nothing less than the momentum of the future colliding with the resistance of the present. When the muslim armies erupted from the Arabian peninsula they were bent on creating a new future. Those wedded to the present, the Byzantine Empire and the various statelets in the Holy Land and along the Mediterranean rim, could not resist.
I was an early supporter of the War in Iraq. Like Hillary! I can date my support of the invasion back to the mid-to-late 1990s. I remain a supporter of that war for a lot reasons, both in terms of a pragmatic policy of defending the international security system but mainly because the decision to invade Iraq made possible a fundamental reordering of a world still drunkenly reeling in the aftermath of the demise of the Soviet Union and a new future truly worth creating.
In Iraq now we are confronted with two choices on how we will fight that war.
We can continue the war as it was begun, to quote the President:
In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food and water and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear.
[...]
Our commitment to liberty is America's tradition -- declared at our founding; affirmed in Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms; asserted in the Truman Doctrine and in Ronald Reagan's challenge to an evil empire. We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. Where freedom takes hold, hatred gives way to hope. When freedom takes hold, men and women turn to the peaceful pursuit of a better life. American values and American interests lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty.
If we continue down that path we will create a new future not only for the Arab world but for ourselves. By opening Iraq to what Barnett refers to as the four "flows" of capital, people, energy, and security and bringing that nation into to the international order we will have dealt a death blow the romanticized past and disgruntled present that drives transnational terrorism of the islamic variety. It will be neither quick nor easy but it will begin a fundamental reordering of those societies and, by extension, make ours much safer. People who are decrying the alleged loss of civil liberties because of the daily possibility of a terrorist strike should be in the forefront in demanding that the we do this. People who are concerned about human rights and human dignity should be marching in their dozens to demand that this job be finished.
We are at a defining moment in history, a moment that is as unlikely to present itself again. This war, in my view, is so important that it is worth whatever time, treasure, and blood that is necessary to prevail. I would have cheerfully served in this war and I fully expect to send my son off to one like it. Physically, morally, and financially we are stronger and we can prevail because what we are creating in Iraq offers hope where our enemies can offer only fear.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration seems to have lost its manhood and is flirting with adopting the fatuous and morally bankrupt Iraq Study Group report as a substitute for a strategy and rationale for continuing the war. Rather than playing to win the administration is tending towards playing the role of reactionary Bourbons, Hapsburgs, and Hohenzollerns and fight this war to preserve something like the status quo.
Make no mistake about it. Baker-Hamilton is nothing more or less than an attempt to preserve a rightfully untenable security and political arrangement that might have made sense during the Cold War but now is nothing more than a system for breeding terrorists. Lest anyone thinks I am a newly minted critic of this report or haven't read it, you can read my contemporaneous thoughts on it here | here | here | here | here.
It is futile, it is doomed to fail and it is not worth a second of time, a single cent in expense, or a single drop of blood.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Britain's media, opposition party work together to malign military — Comments (2) »
Go Big Or Go Home 53 Comments (0 topical, 53 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
you pooh-pooh the principles of the French Revolution when many of the Founders, including some presidents, embraced them.
But to the point, are you saying that the ideals of the French Revolution didn't inspire the French armies, pre-Napoleon, and didn't appeal to neighboring countries?
And I don't make value judgments as to good or bad. I'm sure that the Confederates and the Union thought their cause was good. I'm sure the US and the Indians, ditto.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
To say that there were ideals involved in the French Revolution is absurd. The French Revolution was not a planned uprising with specific aims and goals but a spontaneous rebellion with no direct purpose but to overthrow the current government. That is exactly why the French Revolution ended in mass genocide: because it had no principles. If I had to judge, post hoc, what the principles might have been, I would say that they would be based on anti-religious hatred, (considering the fact that Revolutionary France outlawed all public and private worship and executed priests on sight), opposition to tradition, and mob rule.
Of course, the French Revolution did have an impact on other countries. Britain was so disgusted by the atrocities committed by Revolutionary France that she declared war on her. Edmund Burke, the father of Anglo-American conservatism, had a helping hand in convincing her to do so.
Seems like somebody needs a history lesson.
but it isn't me.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
for future-oriented wars is essentially giving consent to every war of aggression. Wasn't Iraq's attempt to annex Kuwait in the first place an example of such future-orientation?
War is a curse, only worthwhile when the disease is worse than the cure. I think the reason support for the Iraqi war has faded is because the situation is now so GOOD. Trying to turn it into a Western-style democracy just isn't an obvious great need.
A lot of it comes to this statement: "... bringing that nation into to the international order we will have dealt a death blow the romanticized past and disgruntled present that drives transnational terrorism of the islamic variety" It's a nice hope - but I see no validation of this. It's not going to change what the Koran says, or what certain mullahs teach. Take an example of domestic religious terrorism: the killing of doctors who perform abortions. Would military occupation of the U.S. be a good solution?
I greatly appreciate the attempt to form a coherent foreign policy. We should be doing more of this. But I'd like to see a little less confidence in the power of goverment - surely a conservative principle.
It's a nice hope - but I see no validation of this. It's not going to change what the Koran says, or what certain mullahs teach.
What I do know is that what we've done there for 50 years is an abysmal failure and what we've started in Iraq has the possibility for success.
But I'd like to see a little less confidence in the power of goverment - surely a conservative principle.
I'm not a conservative according to most so that doesn't bother me much.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
...benevolence and infallibility is a _good_ thing.
One of the great insights of 1970s reflection about the 1960s was that good intentions are not enough, that sweeping policy or political programs have unintended consequences.
History has not been kind to nations whose foreign relations are guided by hubris.
Ditto for nations whose domestic or economic policies are guided by hubris.
and neither is history kind to nations governed by sloth, indolence and selfishness.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
you can either defend the proposition that our policy in that area of the world has been correct and/or successful, not necessarily the same thing, or you can reject it.
I reject it.
I also, as do many who lived through the Civil Rights movement, that government action is necessarily bad and ineffective. I also reject the idea that trying to lift people out of bondage, improve their standard of living, and connect them to the global community of nations is an indication of hubris. Rather it is an indicator of altruism.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
If enough of the people do not agree, should the State move anyway?
Because I can assure you that most will disagree. Do you propose that this is so essential as to bypass all those stupid people?
Be careful, sir. I believe you are missing half the picture. Your stance on this immigration bill shows a similar lack of understanding of the nature of political power.
Respectfully. I know you have great knowledge in the domain of warfare. That discipline is centered on squashing opposition. In the political sphere squashing opposition leads to tyranny.
As far as the Civil Rights Movement, it was necessary indeed. But do you understand why? Why did the need arise?
the actions of government in the first place.
In regards to this political situation in the Middle East, Streif makes a valid point, that nothing we had done previously was working.
Nevertheless, I hope we do not infer from that experience that it is necessary to impose our will and values all around the world.
In fact I would hope we learn the opposite. That instead of relying upon massive alliances which mostly do not work, we instead take a lower profile in the world and work, when we need to, with bi-lateral, and smaller alliances, and that the goals and the strategies to obtain those goals are spelled out ahead of time.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
But the other points need refuted, or at least emphasized that the federal beast can do nothing without creating significant exernalities.
By the way, I agree with bi-lateral.
Multi-lateral stability is emergent from networked or bilateral agreements. A chain of them.
Drop the UN
Drop the WTO
They pair up to create a disruptive force.
Secure the border.
Run tariff systems with trade partners until we reach a mutually beneficial equilibrium, then slowly back off the tariffs.
The Nation-State is not going to disappear.
bonapartism has finally betrayed me.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
But if you think the Civl Rights Movement was not necessary due to previous opression by the state itself then you are missing something, streiff.
I think the Petraeus plan is the right one for Iraq, because it puts forth a proper counterinsurgency strategy, covering military, security, economic, intel, diplomatic and political matters. One problem (as I see it) is the dissonance by the Bush White House, encapsulated by that last Ignatius article. They should just shut up and defer their comments to the U.S. commander in Iraq, and get him the resources he needs to get the job done.
didn't you.
You do realize this isn't about the the "surge" and resources. It is about why we are there. Petraeus is pretty irrelevant to that conversation beyond the extent to which he is successful, with or without resources.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration seems to have lost its manhood and is flirting with adopting the fatuous and morally bankrupt Iraq Study Group report as a substitute for a strategy and rationale for continuing the war. Rather than playing to win the administration is tending towards playing the role of reactionary Bourbons, Hapsburgs, and Hohenzollerns and fight this war to preserve something like the status quo.
So the answer to your question is "yes".
think that refers in any way, shape, or form to whatever Petraeus is doing or not doing.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"I truly believe that not only is the United States Government the greatest force for good the world has ever known..."
Not at all. He added a word there that should have been left out.
I would ask this man to restate as:
"I truly believe that not only are the United States of America the greatest force for good the world has ever known..."
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
lets see if this fixes it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
I have a b /b /b combo in the body after the title
It looks like its fixed now but wasn't before.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"b/b/b"? And hpow would I be able to tell that you have that anyway?
And how can you tell when my HTML is broken or incomplete? In Preview I see the same as if it was working...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Do what? How? I'm lost. I'm a soldier not a computer-technician!
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
“Now, through the utter failure of those robbers even to maintain their own social order and keep at peace among themselves, the world has fallen into our hands. Power has deserted them, and we, we here, have Power. If we do not use it, if we do not use it to the fullest, we are traitors in our turn. Are we to tolerate even a temporary revival of the old system? In the name of reason, why? If their brains have got into the wrong grooves — well, we can make fresh brains. Are we to connive with, and indulge this riffraff that waits outside our doors? Go out and look at them. Look at their insincere faces! Look at their furtive hands. Weigh what they say. Weigh the offers they will make you!”
Or
That precarious first world government with its few millions of imperfectly assimilated adherents, which now clutched the earth, had to immobilize or destroy every facile system of errors, misinterpretations, compensations and self-consolations that still survived to confuse the minds of men; it had to fight a battle against fear, indolence, greed and jealousy in every soul in the world, the souls of its own people most of all, and win. Or it had to lapse. It had to do that within a definite time. If it did not win within that time, then dissension and relapse were inevitable and one more century of blundering and futility would have to be added to the long record of man’s martyrdom. This new r�gime had to clean up the racial mind or fail, and if it failed then in all probability it would leave the race to drift back again to animal individualism, and so through chaos to extinction. Failures in the past had been possible without general disaster, because they were partial and local, but this was the decisive world effort.
I agree completely with the goal. If we live only for our own material prosperity of what point is it ? I trouble with the arrogance of our own viewpoint and cultural imperialism.
That said let us wage a vigorous and militant peace. We have no choice its either the universe or nothing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What often befuddles me is those opposed to this war are unable or unwilling to see the largesse of our efforts to greater regional stability. As a nation, we have spent significant energy over many years attempting to bring peace to the region; with no appreciable avail. Regional terrorism has not subsided, in fact it has grown.
As a metaphorical comparison that latter factor is partially due some of the regional governments “let them eat cake” attitude. Oil money will only grease a certain amount of a populaces thirst for true democracy. The old oligarchies are also watching events in Iraq, trying desperately to understand if democracy will be the “coupe de grace” for them. Further and more importantly compounding this, the intervention and destabilization by Syria and Iran went largely unnoticed by those not otherwise interested in the region. Yet now, we see evidence of their direct involvement and liberals simply demur and warn our President?
I would simply say, what is a workable alternative to our current efforts that has not been tried before and will yield greater results? A true functioning democracy certainly threatens new and old guard governments and addresses the root cause of terrorism.
Certainly Barnett is correct. The U.S. is the greatest force for good the world has ever known” and is finally taking a righteous stance that when successful will yield a plethora of results. Unfortunately, when it is time to persevere, show leadership and have raw nerve it is those who have stated most loudly our country should oppose a peoples blatant subjugation that doth protest loudest.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I wish the White House would pick this up and run with it;
...but mainly because the decision to invade Iraq made possible a fundamental reordering of a world still drunkenly reeling in the aftermath of the demise of the Soviet Union and a new future truly worth creating.
Succinct, extremely relevant, overwhelmingly important and worthy of further expounding.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
As he is, IMO, among the most brilliant and insightful posters here I suspect the "befuddled" statement is an untruth.
Please expand on that thought. What is your suspicion as to the attitude of those bemoan our efforts in the area?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
But I still remember you’re the smartest guy in the room.
I am not certain that can be answered succinctly or comprehensively. Nonetheless, I suspect part of the population that bemoans our efforts are certainly disappointed their efforts have failed and success appears to be coming from a tactic they deplore. Frankly, I do not quite understand the inability to admit they were wrong; after all we are one nation, right? They constantly point to failures and never identify the successes. That is fairly disingenuous but aptly describes what we see happening today.
This is complemented further by a left wing that is comprised of a left over sixties anti war movement and sundry anarchists that are against war and democracy under any circumstance. Certainly, that is very idealistic and not realistic in today’s world, as we would be literally consumed overnight without a common and actionable defense.
This is all pulled together by the liberal mindset, driven by an affliction akin to alcoholism, which reaches for the bottle of contra intellectualism and depletion of social mores as an unending remedy. Furtherance of course comes from like-minded politicians whose specious platitudes attempt to keep their variegated supporters satisfied enough to get elected.
Comprehensively, this is all to our countries ruination and as we are starting to see from Congress now, things could be much worse.
Bottom line, as a 9-11 survivor I feel much safer pursuing the current track and I think time is proving that a sagacious feeling. We need to be patient, now is not the time to falter.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Are in Reference to the Baker-Hamilton part and your contention that Bush is suddenly weak kneed.
Why would he now, suddenly after all this time, effort, abuse, succumb to what he clearly saw as a failed path?
I would rather say it's politics and posturing before I would claim a reversal of the course that he has so far refused to budge on.
The talks with Iran? Those were I believe overdue, not from a help us out standpoint or how ever the media might have portrayed it but based on past performance I would think it was more of a, you folks have a problem and it's going to get worse.
What do you see that I'm missing here? I just don't see that for one he has anything to gain by a reversal, or secondly I think that it's his belief that the mission is to change the region by helping to establish some form of democracy.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
fear that time is running out. Fear that if he stays the course that the rug will be pulled out from under him. Fear that said rug pulling will reflect directly on his legacy (and all presidents get concerned about their legacy at some point).
Maybe his sudden romance with B-H is a delaying tactic to buy time.
I hope I am wrong because I think going into Iraq was one of the most courageous acts by an American politician in a long time.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I believe it to be because he HAS suffered through all this abuse, effort, and time and just has nothing left to fight with. Faced with seemingly unending waves of opposition, you can only go so long, even if you Know you are right.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
I find this post interesting because it demonstrates so clearly the influence of the Jacobinists on modern neoconservative thought, being as they are their ideological predescessors. Notice the denunciation of our current administration as "reactionary", a term used by the revolutionary left, and the fervent support of global governmental change in the name of democracy (with all its Trotskist undertones). Most telling, however, is the praising of Revolutionary France, a murderous anti-Christian regime that executed thousands of people, not least among them priests and nuns, caught up in the mob's anti-religious fervor. Edmund Burke would be turning in his grave to see such sentiments labeled as "conservative".
You really want to compare our actions in the middle east to those of the Jacobins ? What we are doing is creating an order where for all intents and purposes there has been none. The Jacobins pursued a course of overturning what were well ordered situations.
Who resembles Robespiere more ? Saddam or GWB ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There was an order before we invaded Iraq, as detestable as Saddam was. What we have done is removed that order and turned Iraq into a recruiting ground for Islamic extremists - all in the name of making of the world safe for democracy. I realize of course that Saddam was a horrible person, but I see no reason why we have chosen Iraq for our social engineering project and not, say, China, when it is clear that the latter poses an altogether worse threat to America. Of course, the corporate elites in Washington make plenty of money off of the current situation in China, so that is obviously out of the question.
But I digress. Does the American government have a responsibility to destabilize autocratic governments in the name of democracy? Robespierre would certainly think so.
Why involve America at all in foreign affairs, when, as we can see, all our efforts only further political extremism? Whatever happened to the conservative foreign policy of America First?
China has four times our population is nuclear armed and at the the far end of a very long supply chain. We have to try other means and hope for the best.
hmm does America have a responsibility to destabilize autocratic governments in the name of democracy ? Lets rephrase Do we have an obligation to promote freedom and democracy around the world ?
You really don't feel Iraq is in our interest ? Its not an America first issue ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
China has four times our population and has nuclear capabilities. This makes China a much bigger threat than, say, Iran or Saddam's Iraq. Not only that, but China oppresses Christians and those of faith and treats God's creation like a piece of trash, constructing such projects as the Three Gorges Dam (responsible for the extinction of the Chinese River Dolphin) and the Tibetan Railway, designed to consolidate China's power in Tibet. Globalists like to think that free trade will lead to democracy in China but the reality is that the current situation benefits China's urban middle class, a small proportion of China's mostly-rural population. In a free election, the middle class will be outvoted by the rural population; they have no incentive to overthrow the current government. And neither do the corporate elites who depend on China for low manufacturing costs and cheap labor.
Iraq was never in our interest, considering the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We squandered the opportunity to search for the real terrorists and started our little adventure in Iraq, one that has turned out to be a disaster for America, seeing as how it has cost 3 million American lives.
An isolationist foreign policy has served this country well ever since George Washington first gave his Farewell Address in 1796, and I see no reason why we have abandoned it.
Where we have had an isolationist foreign policy ?
P.S. Read Washington's farewell address in light of his actions and its entirety. You might find what he meant is not what you think it is.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Isolationism is largely a myth and by the time modern conservatism evolved isolationism was not an option.
We were not isolationist at all in the 19th century, Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, opening Japan, opening Korea, Spanish American war, our own colonies. Same for the 20th.
News flash, bozo, if you want to troll or moby don't say profoundly stupid stuff like "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" when no one other than MyDD, Dkos, or DU members believe anyone believed that.
BTW, Washington didn't advocate isolationism. He cautioned against alliances and enmities with certain nations. He did not want us to replicate the Anglo-French rivalry that had cause a couple of centuries of war.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
out of him. You've gone and destroyed him in one shot.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I seem to have a reject function for stuff thats too far over the top.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Seeing as Streiff deftly handled the rest:
"...China a much bigger threat than..."
Than whom? Why is China a threat? Keep in mind the Chinese/Asian mindset: "How would this action benefit me/us?" What benefit would China receive from acting overtly against the USA or by supporting terrorist actions against the USA?
Their economy is completely reliant on the economy of the USA. Being the 2nd most powerful nation in the world, and very hostile to Islam and pretty much all other faiths, they are target 2 after the USA.
China has been the China we all know and love for better than 5,000 years. 5 millenia. The longest-lived Western empire was a mere 1,000 when it collapsed.
So tell me, what would acting against the USA do for China that waiting a few hundred years for us to go away on our own wouldn't?
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Have to wait that long at all.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
How can General Petraeus be so smart, effective and honest speaking while our Leaders of the HOuse and Senate so absolutely stupid, dishonest and incompetent?
Nancy Pelosi, with the wide open eyes, is 3rd in line for running the United States and is totally out of her element.
Harry Reid runs the Senate, albeit not very well and is the Master of the Culture of Corruption.
Yet both of them are overriding the actions of General Petraeus and not doing anything but throwing sand into our military engine.
Our Main Stream Media has not mentioned anything about the success story called Iraq.
And don't say well its been 5 years - we are still in Japan and Germany after 60 years.
has been a requirement of the Democrat leadership since the Vietnam War. Now it's a requirement to be their Presidential candidate. Just ask Sen Liebermann how supporting our Military works for a Democrat?
Thank you for this post. I am sharing it with all I know. Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.
From a proud Iraq War veteran.
Tahoblue, et. al.
1. We have a representative democracy, and brilliant generals don't run our country.
2. There is much debate about whether or not Iraq is a real success story. We did defeat Sadam militarily and took over the country. But, what do we do with Iraq, now that we got it?
3. It is not whether or not the U.S. public appreciates what we are doing. It is the opinion of the Iraqis who are crucial to our success.
4. It is precisely because we are still in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, that the American public doesn't like occupying Iraq. Previously, we stayed in these countries because of the Cold War. In order to justify staying in Iraq, you have to demonstrate a real strategic or economic need. Nation-building is a ho hum to most Americans. What is it doing for us?
5. We should know that Americans are very impatient about fighting wars that last more than a couple of years, if it is not a matter of self-survival or vital interests. It costs too much blood and treasure. It should be apparent to politicians that you don't fight a war if you cannot expect to win it, in a timely manner. The American public will not tolerate our forces being in Iraq indefinitely.
6. This thing about making Iraq "safe for democracy" is mostly a public relations gimmick dreamt up after we discovered that we had no post-war plan. If we really believe in making Iraq a democracy, it will take more than the U.S. Army. We need the entire federal government and private sector behind it.
7. Good intentions are much less important than competence and efficiency. The American public will always vote for success. I believe that it is not the Iraq War per se that is unpopular with the American public. It is how the war has been conducted and justified.
Hmmm... If that's true, then perhaps the United States Government should run our economy? Perhaps under the auspices of the Pentagon. Perhaps HillaryCare isn't a bad idea after all, since if the U.S. Government is the greatest force for good then shouldn't Health Care be under its control as well?
Oh, but I guess these comments don't apply domestically. See, domestically the government is a giant train wreck that conservatives oppose because it wastes resources and harms the economy with burdensome regulation and Byzantine tax schemes.
But, leave the shores of the U.S. and something magical occurs. The same federal government that conservatives scream about suddenly morphs into the greatest force for good the world has ever seen. No bureaucratic incompetence. No wasted resources. Nope. None.
The same government that can not run our economy, or even be counted on to school our children is completely capable of building foreign societies.
Or something like that. Skepticism of the government and its awesome capabilities is only allowed in the form of domestic policy, I suppose.
You left out defense by the way. A large chunk of wars are fought from purely defensive necessity on at least one of the party's parts. But I guess that would fall under the idea of 'retaining the present.' I guess that's bad from a revolutionaries' perspective.
I can not believe that I just read a paragraph that seems to extol the virtues of the French revolutionary armies. Antipathy to the French Revolution is a hallmark of conservative thought in the Anglo-Saxon world. From Burke to Kirk to the present, conservative thinkers have blasted the French Revolution and those very, messianic armies you seem so fond of.
Strange times, these.