Why the Republicans Won’t Talk About Foreign Policy
The Republican mindset remains rooted in the “Bush Freedom Agenda,” the Wilsonian illusion that with enough money and firepower, America could build democracies in the Muslim world that would be friendly towards the United States. But that has failed miserably. Iraq has turned into an ally of Iran, and may turn into its puppet. Our best ally in the Muslim world, the feckless Hosni Mubarak, has fallen and left in its place a chaotic, Islamist-leaning disaster in Egypt. The vicious, corrupt but pro-Western Tunisian government is gone, and an Islamist party with a violent history will almost certainly rule in its place after this week’s elections. Turkey’s supposedly moderate-Islamist government vies with Iran to sponsor Hamas and threatens war against Israel (and yet we hear Hillary Clinton warning Iran not to interfere in Iraq because “we have a NATO ally in Turkey” — have worms eaten her brain?). Pakistan sponsors terrorist attacks against American embassies, and we warn, and warn, and do nothing about it.
Admiral Mullen was right: if we take serious action to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, either through bombing (as I propose) or through active subversion of the regime (as Michael Ledeen proposes), Iran will use all the power it has accumulated through our years of inaction to create chaos in the Middle East. So be it: the strongest power is best positioned to benefit from chaos, and the strongest power is still the United States of America. If we abandon the illusory goal of stability, and assert American security interests aggressively, we will find that the fault lines in the Middle East can work to our benefit as well.
Republicans should demand of their candidates that they take a no-compromise position on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They should pledge to use force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. No nation-building, no occupation army, no Mr. Nice Guy — just the raw exercise of American muscle. And the American public will stand up and cheer.
Biggest problem with not talking foreign policy is it allows their opposition to define the debate, which Obama has been doing lately with flashy singular events, while the big stuff gets lost in a muddle. Yes, we would like our troops home from Iraq, but if it means a resurgent and confident Iran, possibly with nukes, then probably not such a great idea. Yes we would like to wring savings from a bloated Pentagon bureaucracy, but not at expense of giving up capability or preparedness, etc. GOP field better start making their side of the argument…
“Why the Republicans Won’t Talk About Foreign Policy” — Because the neocons who control foreign policy in the Republican Party are extremely unpopular — with good reason — with Conservatives (and the American people). We threw the Republicans out of power in 2006 and 2008 because the neocons had captured the Republican Party.
George Dumbo Bush and his neocon misadvisers destroyed the Republican Party, and they destroyed America as a superpower.
Hang on… I’m a neo-con, too. I’m part of the greater Irving Kristol network. Irving sponsored supply-side economics in the first place. The first programmatic piece on Reaganomics was Jude Wanniski’s 1972 essay in Kristol’s “The Public Interest” entitled “The Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis.” Jude wrote his book “The Way the World Works” on an AEI fellowship arranged by Kristol. And I was Jude’s business partner and chief economist at his consulting firm Polyconomics from 1988 to 1993. I had the honor to appear on a podium with Irving Kristol at a client conference. More than any other American intellectual, Irving Kristol created the idea infrastructure of the Reagan administration. He deserves enormous credit for the rescue of the US economy and our victory in the Cold War. The trouble is that the methods we used to win the Cold War–supporting democratic movements in Poland, for example–don’t work in dealing with Islamic extremism. I’ve had a lot of disagreements with other neocons, and I’m probably more of a “theocon.” But I don’t forget where I come from. The neocons are on the side of the angels, even when some of them are wrong about some things.
Ah, but as you yourself admit, there are no angels in the Middle East.
And it was those you disagreed with that thought they found angels where none exist, who were in power and are responsible for US’s current predicament.
Neither would I boast too much about supply side economics, Laffer curve, etc. That contributed no less to the US domestic predicament.
The PostWest
http://www.fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com
This was a most unsettling comment. “Neocons” have come to signify an unholy Jewish presence in the formation of American foreign policy. That is populist paranoia at its worst. Please see http://clarespark.com/2009/09/11/oil-politics-and-obamas-view-of-israeli-history/, for the long term interests of the U.S. with respect to the Middle East.
One of my favorite books is “2 Cheers for Capitalism”, by Irving Kristol. And it was this approach to our world, a bureaucracy, that has defined the ‘neo cons.’
But then, the term ‘neo con’ has truly transformed itself into ‘Jew.’ There is no getting around that ugly fact.
I keep telling my Jewish relatives to please stop nattering on about the Palestinian return. Not very far beneath the crust of civility is anti semitism.
A “neo-con” is simply a Reagan Democrat who went all the way. Do people want to lose them also? I am proud to be a neo-conservative AND a tea-partier.
It was Rush Limbaugh, to my knowldge, who suddently, in the middle of a program (happened to be listening), who first claimed that the use of the term “neo-con” was basically anti-semitic. (He didn’t precisly use the word “anti-semitic”, but that was the substance.) Bless his heart, he didn’t have to do that.
Sorry for the typos.
You wrote, “No nation-building, no occupation army, no Mr. Nice Guy–just the raw exercise of American muscle. And the American public will stand up and cheer.”
This is inspired prose, David! As a now-retired military officer, I wish that someone in power in say, 2001, had the courage to say it and do it. Now use your jedi mind-control powers to insert it into the brains of one or more republican contenders.
Because I think that the party is congenitally unable to think like that on its own, having tacitly adopted a “big-government fix is better” solution to most everything, including foreign policy issues.
I am not sure that, given the US economic predicament, it has the kind of muscle to apply in so many places where its blunders to date have popped enemies. It’s already bankrupt and overstretched abroad — remember Rome?
Besides, the US applied that kind of muscle in Vietnam and lost. It very much depends who you’re enemy is. The Islamists are no less, and probably more motivated than the Vietnamese, and are also using asymmetric warfare. They pushed the US out of Lebanon, Iraq and likely Afghanistan soon. They pushed Israel out of Lebanon and Gaza. The muscle and the will to use it seem to have been exhausted in the process.
Yes, oao, I remember Rome. I also remember Oswald Spengler — not to mention Gibbon, Toynbee, and a host of others — point out that it was the late Empire, not the late Republic that had these problems. Come back in five hundred years and we’ll talk.
US muscle was winning in Vietnam until the politicians went with the “focus groups” formed by the media.
It’s the politicians who have no mettle.
Israel was pushed out of Lebanon because Iran and its foreign legion were emboldened by the US lack of Muscle, political muscle.
Unfortunately the US for the past decades has been missing men with guts to lead and advisors who knew what they were advising about.
Well said. Vietnam was won, fully and completely, till we abandoned them to the mercies of the communists. Even without our troops, they probably would have held out – until congress cut off even our ability to resupply them with material.
We were not “pushed” out of Lebanon or Gaza. We could have stayed in both, but overly pragmatic (or, in the case of Lebanon, left-wing) politicuans decided to leave. The first was definitely wrong, the second probably so.
A good neocon never dies, he only disappears. Take a look at Mitt Romney’s foreign policy experts then you would see many of the unrepentant neocons. Indeed, this site is a home turf for neocons to spin Obama out off control. As if the disaster in Iraq is not enough, they want to push US into a military confrontation with Iran. Any one with a gram of strategic sense would see that there is no military solution to Iranian challenge. It takes strategic patience and smart diplomacy to reign in Iran’s nuclear ambition.
There is no time for that “patience” you talk about. By the time that comes around millions will be dead and massive destruction in the global economy.
When one lets something fester for so long the only answer is to operate, even if one has to replace the original with an artificial one; if one wants to continue breathing that is.
I don’t know the solution to Iran, but “smart diplomacy”? You mean the term of the most diplomatically inept President in American history?
The neocons were on display for all to see during the disastrous administration of George W. Bush. There was NOTHING Conservative about their foreign policy. Neocons are Wilsonian idealists…
The neocons don’t understand reality. They are oblivious to the real Middle East. They are oblivious about what is important in the Middle East — ethnonationalism, tribalism and Islamic fundamentalism.
All of the “countries” in the Middle East are extremely “diverse” and “multicultural”. In “diverse” countries, so long as you have a strongman to keep all of the squabbling factions under control, they are able to manage. But as soon as the dictator (Stalin, Tito, Saddam etc.) is gone, the artificial nations Balkanized and collapsed into armed camps and went to war with themselves (over ethnicity, religion, culture, tribal lines etc.). The Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, India, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Sudan and countless other examples… They were incapable of living with each other peacefully. As long as they had the dictator who repressed them and kept them in line, these “diverse” countries were able to manage just fine; but as soon as the dictator was gone the country broke down along ethnic, religious, cultural tribal lines etc. and the people went to war with each other…
There won’t be peace until the artificial Arab states collapse and the unnatural borders imposed upon the Arabs by European imperialists are discarded.
Let the Arab states collapse and break up into small natural states ruled by homogeneous groups (Sunni, Shia, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Punjabis, Kurds, Alawites, Pashtuns, Balochis etc.).
Great Britain created the borders of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen and the Gulf emirates. France was involved in determining the borders of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria and Lebanon. Italy was responsible for the borders of Libya. Included within these borders were ethnic, religious, denominational and tribal groups who, throughout history, were often unable to live together in peace.
Saddam was a secular Sunni dictator. Iraq is 67% Shia and 33% Sunni. The Shiites will now take revenge on the Sunnis for what Saddam did to them. Iran will take over Iraq… We can thank George Dumbo Bush and his neocon misadvisors for recreating the ancient Persian Empire. What a nightmare…
Mordechai Kedar: Small Homogeneous States Only Solution for Middle East
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=51683
Yes, I know that you’re a neocon… I’m not so much bashing you as I am Bill Krystal, the Meekly Standard, SourKraut, and all the rest of them… You are more reasonable than them… They are blinded by ideology… They don’t even recognize the results their policies have produced…
The neoconservative foreign policy of George W. Bush rested on several pillars: support of Israel, invasions to oust enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and U.S. occupations to rebuild and convert these nations into democracies.
Bush declared at his 2005 inaugural that his goal was to “end tyranny in our world,” and called for elections in the Middle East, he got the results his policies had produced.
In “Palestine”, Hamas swept to power. In Lebanon, Hezbollah made such gains it was brought into the Lebanese government it eventually brought down. When Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak allowed some electoral districts to be contested, the Muslim Brotherhood won most of them. In Iran in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected. In the Iraqi elections of 2010, the big winner was the anti-American Muqtada al-Sadr.
The message from the Middle East has been consistent and clear: When elections are held, or monarchs and autocrats overthrown, the masses will turn to leaders who will pull away from America and stand in solidarity with the Palestinians.
The kings of Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (and Mubarak) are more reliable friends than any regime that might come out of one-man, one-vote elections. One-man, one-vote democracy across the Maghreb and Middle East is almost certain to strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and to empower Islamists… Why, other than ideology, would a leader demand that a friendly regime hold elections if it were a near certainty the regime to come out of those elections would be more hostile to one’s own country?
Isn’t neoconservatism “a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology”?
I want no part of that. That is not Conservatism. It is Wilsonian idealism…
The Future of the Global Muslim Population
Projections for 2010-2030
http://pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx
Yes, the Muslim world is undergoing a demographic collapse…but they are still in much better shape than the West… The world’s Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030. Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion. Sunnis make up 87-90% of the world’s Muslims. Shia’s make up 10-13% of the world’s Muslims.
The OVERALL level of Muslim population is growing, thanks first of all to Pakistan and Indonesia – but that doesn’t help Iran and Turkey, who are in a tailspin. It’s like the platoon that drowned in a river that averaged 3 feet in depth.
After drilling down through your farrago lets cut to the chase. The neo-cons are a result of NATO and the Cold War. As long as Europe needs oil from the middle east insuring supplies was and is part of the mission. Therefore we need some what reliable and somewhat friendly Arab and Muslim States. That these states are artificial constructs is the result of the European Colonial Offices and not our creations is besides the point, they exist and we have to deal with them. The attempt to create semi-legitimate nation states is hardly idealistic. Its sold that way but it isn’t. We don’t want our oil suppliers that unstable. We want stable suppliers. We need stable suppliers. Even if we were completely free of Arab oil the rest of the world isn’t and economic disruptions elsewhere affect us.
Now instead of dumping on the neo-cons, see the reality of the world as it is. Its called Realpolitiks as in the term used back in day. The alternatives are far worst. A dead Saddam is still infinitely better than a live and in power Saddam. Supposed we just bugged out in 1991 after the first Gulf War? Saddam would in all likelihood be alive and well, be in power and already have if not be close to having nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them. And then there is Iran with its ambitions. What do you think the other Gulf State Arabs would do? Sit still and be subjugated by iran or Iraq? No, they to would go the nuclear route. And Egypt? Syria? Libya under the Gadaffi? Not everything in life has an optimal solution but sometimes the lesser of the two evils really is the much better outcome.
Of course it would help if the democrats would stop sandbagging the US national interest which is why we first get in to these wars to begin with, why we are initially quite successful and then why screw it up in the end. Ever since Korea the democrats have consistently tried to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. In the interim if the US were to kick the new age green-communists to the curb and start seriously drilling for oil at home not only would the US be somewhat more insulated from economic shocks and disruptions it would dampen Arab and Muslim hubris and chasten the Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians and the rest of the world which would be all to the good. And as you noted the overall Muslim population is rising but a large part of the increase is in areas that have limited water supplies and hence the ability to grow food. We have the water and hence we have the food. We have the upper hand if push really comes to shove provided we are willing to let mass starvation occur if they don’t bend to our will. In the past we did have gumption to do that. Ask the Germans, they still remember the hunger that lead them to an armistice in 1918.
The practitioners of Realpolitiks understand this.
Mr. Goldman, as per your observation that Egypt imports half of its daily caloric intake and is down to less than four months of foreign exchange reserves to purchase the food what happens in February? Do we let them starve or do we raid our food reserves and gift to to them to feed them? Just how much a dent will Egypt’s requirements be and will the shipments be paid for and who presumably will be writting the check? We are broke, so are the Europeans, the Chinese aren’t known for their generosity and countries like Argentina and Canada are hardly going to toss away billions in food without getting paid and I don’t see the rich Arab states really reaching in to their wallets (they make far bigger pledges than actual contributions). So do you see a war with Israel as a diversion?
Regarding the US drilling for oil, it pays to remember that oil is a fungible asset and the more there is on the market the lower the price. If the US opens any significant oil production the price worldwide collapses and the “oil rich” Arabs become poor overnight. The only reason that they are important in any way is that they happen to live on top of the easiest to obtain oil in the world.
Without the constant influx of money from oil exports their economy dies. The decades of wealth has been squandered on fast cars and loose women (or boys, depending on their predilictions.) No Arab nation has gone about setting up a productive economy. The best and fastest way to ruin Iran is to drop the price of oil $20 a barrel, all of the oil-sheikdoms (as well as the travesty of a democracy in Iran) would be in the red by the end of the year.
No American blood spilt, no unpleasant bombing of anybody, no need to get a UN sanction or any need to enforce the (easily bypassed) embargoes. Just the statement that the US would be allowing the drilling off of the Eastern and Western seaboards and the re-opening of the Gulf would drive the speculators out of the market and crush the price of crude. Any increase is supply (particularly from a stable source) would have a disproportionately large impact on price.
Well said, anton.
It’s insane that “environmentalists” and their lobbyists are holding us back from exploiting our own confirmed resources. It’s the flowers-and-salmon-tail wagging and tweaking Uncle Sam’s nose and pulling on his beard.
Exxon Valdez and British Petroleum’s Gulf of Mexico disasters aren’t the only reminders of things to be avoided in exploiting our own reserves with sensible technology and prudent, cautious management among skippers and the engineers; the shareholders and board members should not be panting with anticipation towards clipping their coupons before the engineers’ sober judgement has been fully exercised.
The very vocal “politically correct” Americans are in denial that we’re fighting an existential war, right this minute, against militant Muslims/Islamists and their instruction-book.
Remember, they hereby become the Arab’s allies.
As to Iraq: the US leadership took a long step too far, by wanting to change that country into a ‘democracy.’ It has been a hard lesson, that tribalism just doesn’t work well with a modern capitalist economy, or indeed, anywhere in the world we would term “modern.” I remember Bush saying that the Iraqis, “like everyone else” want to be free. Nope. They want the security of a multi thousand year old tribal security blanket. At the same time, they want the fruits of modernity, like cars and microwaves.
I like to compare the Gaza strip to Hong Kong. Both have been surrounded by enemies, enemies that have controlled the water supply; both came into being in 1948; both face bodies of water that provide ports (and wealth!!!)… Kind of different, eh?
In fact, the end of this will be Iran will take a step too far; the USA will forget its Arabist chattering class, and drop The Bomb; and in the meantime, with North American and Russian sources of oil, the Middle East can carry on with its grand old traditions (like genital mutilation of their women.)
They really are a nasty crowd, I think.
David/Spengler, While the Muslim birthrate has collapsed…it is still higher than the West/the rest of the world…and they are growing as percentage of the world’s population.
There are many Muslim-majority countries where the population will explode — Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Niger, Somalia, Gaza and the “West Bank” (Judea and Samaria) etc…
And there many places where they are making quite a bit of trouble — India, Nigeria, the Caucasus, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Sudan, Kenya, the Ivory Coast, in the Balkans (the former Yugoslavia) etc…
It isn’t only about their birthrate… They are willing to fight and die for what they believe in, while the rest of the world isn’t willing to fight and die, so that gives them a TREMENDOUS advantage over us…
“In many Muslim-majority countries – including Indonesia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Turkey and Tunisia – fertility rates also have dropped substantially. The average Total Fertility Rate for all 49 Muslim-majority countries has fallen from 4.3 children per woman in 1990-95 to an estimated 2.9 children in 2010-15. Over the next 20 years, fertility rates in these Muslim-majority countries as a whole are expected to continue to decline, though not quite as steeply, dropping to 2.6 children per woman in 2020-25 and 2.3 children in 2030-35 – approaching and possibly reaching replacement levels.” http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-main-factors-fertility.aspx
What is your opinion on Mordechai Kedar’s article. I think it is brilliant… The neocons are clueless about this. They say give everyone “freedom” and “democracy” and all will be well… NONSENSE!
Mordechai Kedar: Small Homogeneous States Only Solution for Middle East
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=51683
Once again: the traditional world everywhere has high birth rates. As long as Muslims remain stuck in the traditional world (measured by literacy above all) they will have high birth rates. And they will be subject to continual destabilization due to economic, tribal, religious and other pressures. The Muslim countries that have attempted to move into modernity and have high rates of literacy (Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia most prominently) immediately enter a demographic tailspin. Neither group of countries functions.
Where do you get your info from. The Arab birthrate in Judea/Samaria is not that high, thanks to the raise in the standard of living afforded by the fact that we’re (Israel) next door. The Jewish birthrate (even secular) isn’t doing too badly, and a lot of us are pretty traditional. (My uncle and aunt moved here with three kids. Out of that, 27 grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are still coming.)
Hi Goldman,
I am in favor of bombing Iran, just to make sure I want to state my position beforehand as I am going to play the devil’s advocate. Now, how do you explain that to the common American, that little guy that votes? I ask you this because America has gone to 2 wars (actually 3, if we count Libya). Afghanistan was explainable: the Taliban supported and gave shelter to the terrorists who destroyed the WTC. Now, how about Iraq? As you said, that was part of the “Bush Freedom Agenda”. The American public is (IMHO) wearied of “stupid” wars that just spend taxpayers money in foreign lands that have nothing to do with them. So, again, how are you going to explain to the little guy that instead of spending money with him you’re going to spend money throwing off some mid east dictator that he doesn’t care the least?
Americans have no problem with bombing a terrorist state. They don’t like lengthy occupations.
So why didn’t George Bush just bomb Iraq? Why did he send troops? And why did he send troops to Afghanistan? And last but not least, why do you think in the case of Iran it will be any different?
In 1990 – there were 1.1 billion Muslims, 4.2 billion Non-Muslims, and 19.9% of world population was Muslim.
In 2010 – there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 5.3 billion Non-Muslims, and 23.4% of world population is Muslim.
Projection:
In 2030 – there will be 2.2 billion Muslims, 6.1 billion Non-Muslims, and 26.4% of world population will be Muslim.
“Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.”
Yes, “the traditional world everywhere has high birth rates”… but Muslim-majority countries have higher birthrates (though not by so much, nevertheless still a significant difference) than Non-Muslim-majority countries in the Third World (Africa, Asia, Latin America, wherever)…
You are certainly correct about Muslim countries that “have attempted to move into modernity and have high rates of literacy (Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia most prominently) immediately enter a demographic tailspin”… Why do you think the Islamists are so against “modernity”, “education for women”, and “Western decadence”… They understand that Demographics is Destiny, and “modernity” is causing their societies — and grand ambitions — to collapse.
The Islamists don’t care if Westerners like yourself approve of their societies, they have seen what “modernity” has done to Europe and the USA (and Japan)… It causes birthrates to collapse, and eventually collapses the system (look at Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain…and it is going to get MUCH worse for these and other countries).
While you may not approve of how countries like Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Niger, Somalia etc. “function”, that is by design. The Islamists set it up like that to ensure very high birthrates and population explosions, which they can use for Jihad — Holy War — or for Invasion, Conquest, and Colonization — Immigration to the West and Dar al-Harb to Subjugate them, Enslave them, and Conquer them.
What you consider “failures” and “dysfunctional societies”, the Islamists look at very differently. It isn’t about GDP and education, it’s about high birthrates — Demographics — and Conquest.
yea, but only if we feed them. For some time we will continue to do so, but at some point….
Spengler, Iran (Persians are only 51% and declining) and Turkey (Kurds are 20% and growing) have HUGE problems…but that is only two countries…how about Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, Yemen, Somalia, Niger, Sudan etc…
What do you think about:
Mordechai Kedar: Small Homogeneous States Only Solution for Middle East
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=51683
I’m sympathetic, but the quesetion is whether you can get there from here, as the Maine farmer said. One can’t start out with a simple formula: redraw all the maps for ethnic and religious homogeneity. It’s not the simple. A third of Kirkuk is Arab rather than Kurdish, thanks to Saddam’s resettlement policy. My concern is for American security, not Middle East stability. The two themes may or may not overlap. In some cases we should support regimes that have multi-ethnic populations; occasionally we might seek to support devolution. Given Turkey’s misbehavior, helping the Kurds seems quite reasonable.
This is where the world is headed. These are the battles of the future. This is the way the world is going. (It is a Gemara/Talmud. I don’t have it so clear in my mind right now. I’ll check it up, and write about it in the next few days, hopefully.)
This is happening whether you want it to or not. All over the Middle East we are seeing these battles: Sunni vs. Shia, Arab vs. Persian, Arab vs. Kurd, Turk vs. Kurd, Sunni vs. Alawite, Muslim vs. Christian, Jew vs. Arab etc. The fighting will continue for a long time until there is a solution. We don’t have to “redraw all the maps for ethnic and religious homogeneity” — This will happen — indeed, it is happening — naturally on it’s own… We just have to let the artificial Arab states collapse and the unnatural borders imposed upon the Arabs by European imperialists be discarded, and break up into small natural states ruled by homogeneous groups (Sunni, Shia, Arabs, Turks, Persians, Punjabis, Kurds, Alawites, Pashtuns, Balochis etc.).
A few years back, professor Jerry Z. Muller wrote in Foreign Affairs that World Wars I and II were at root ethnonational wars of Europeans fighting to create nations where their own tribe ruled and their own culture was predominant.
Only when this was achieved in 1945, after immense bloodshed, did peace come to Europe.
Muller predicted that the ethnonational wars of Europe would be replicated across the Third World, as tribes rebelled against alien rulers and the unnatural borders imposed upon them by European imperialists.
Us and Them
http://www.tfasinternational.org/iipes/academics/mullercm.pdf
OH yea – WWII worked out just great for the Jews.
This is a good point. For the Christians and the Jews, the “solution” could be final, Heaven forbid. And since I actually live within missle range of Labanon, I’m not anguine about the idea.
(I wonder what rabbinic quote he was taking about. Nothing comes to mind.)
Well, the small successful homogeneous state/group has been the tribe/clan for thousands of years and in the Middle East that structure within a tribe has more chance of peaceful existence than the attempts to Socialize or Democratize agglomerations of them into States.
Not many pay enough attention to Jordan to see that those wielding power are the tribal leaders and the jumped up king.
Then again there’s not that much peaceful existing with the competing tribes.
What the West can’t appreciate is that the tribal/clan culture does not jibe with a Western culture evolved from some 2000 years of infighting.
Should have written and Not the jumped up king.
Not to mention minorities in the area. Historically, the Jew in the Muslim world was best off when closest to the central government. Out in the sticks, the local sheikh could take one of your wives for his own or do whatever else he wanted.
David,
There are so many domestic and foreign blunders you can withstand and the US has gone well over the limit.
It is hard for people to accept that we’re watching the PostWest. Decline means that indeed the public is too self-involved with its economic survival but which the corporate welfare state cannot but make worse, and a crisis of leadership which makes reversing decline extremely difficult.
The appeasement strategy towards the Islamists is not by choice. There is a clear sense that the days of the West are over and its only hope is that if it makes nice with Islamists, they will be gentle with a West going down. Good luck with that.
The PostWest
http://www.fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com
That’s what people thought back in 1980, too. Then we got the Gipper. We have all kinds of problems, but in the most pessimistic reading, we’re still the leper with the most fingers. We surely need some big changes. But when you say post-West, who do you think is going to run things? China? I don’t think China wants to run things except in its own neighborhood. India is an ally (and could be a better ally). No other contenders.
Frankly, I do not accept, like so many do, that Reagan was a success story. He and his people blundered left and right, but were lucky: the USSR imploded on its own, the corrupt US corporate welfare state had not managed to suck the country dry yet and Jihadism was only being initiated by Iran (due also to an American blunder by Carter).
All these variables changed for the worst and it is extremely difficult not to see that the trouble the US is in is not of the kind that it could recover from like in the past, unless you’re in denial. It’s not possible to live off the Chinese and lose a generation and still apply muscle throughout the world, that’s not power, that’s the illusion of power.
In Mideast, U.S. Policy Is In Shambles
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/589188/201110241855/Mideast-Policy-In-A-Shambles.htm
James Lewis: Captain America Abandons the Entire Middle East
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/captain_america_abandons_the_entire_middle_east.html
It’s precisely that nobody’s gonna run things in the PostWest that’s scary. The stability of the Pax Americana is over and so may well be Western civilization, and I shudder to think about the consequences. It’s good that I am old enough not to live through it, it won’t be pretty.
oaa – you must be very young. We all thought in those days that there was a good, very good, chance that the world, for all practicle purposes, would end before the century did. No one can lead without big errors – at least I’ve never met one in the real world. Get the biggest things right, and you’re brilliant. Reagan did what was needed for the Soviets to fail and our economy to rebound. Carter would have done neither.
I agree. Hindsight is 20-20.
Reagan took some very specfic steps to destroy the USSR, such as faking the success of an anti-missle test, and gettign the Saudis to pump a lot of oil to undercut the Soviets.
In short, Reagan did what the Left had convinced us all (including anti-Communists like myself) was impossible – he spent the Russians into the ground. This in spite of being undercut by the entire MSM and left-wing estrablishment, which continually attacked “Star Wars”.
One more:
Obama’s Misplaced Mideast Optimism
http://www.danielpipes.org/10262/obama-mideast-optimism?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kramerlinks+%28Linkage+by+Martin+Kramer%29
These are not indicators that “we have problems”. These are indicators that we’re on our way to demise.
The “Republican mindset” favoring “building democracies” POV that you mention probably speaks more to voters aligned with the NeoCon and RINO [Rodney King] wing of the party. That’s just arrogance and wasted effort, IMO.
I’m obviously NOT speaking for the Tea Party but as a TP aficionado I’m more in favor of a “tough love” approach to foreign policy. Work with your friends, maintain contact with your enemies and ratchet down US support for scoundrels. Fly the flag everywhere and don’t take crap from anyone, including China. You insult us, it’s gonna come back to bite your butt.
That’s a simplistic approach but the beauty of “simple” is it is hard to misunderstand. Avoiding confusion in developing minds is essential to our peace and prosperity. The Japanese misunderstood and we got Pearl Harbor. OSB misunderstood and we got 9/11. We need a leader to be clear, forthright and proactive. Not to bully the world, but to be their friends when they earn it or be their enemies when they don’t. And for most people in the world to expect that reaction.
Without identifying too closely with him, I’m more in favor of a “John Bolton” approach than “Dean Atkinson”, but that dates me.
As for Iran. Should have been bombed five years ago. Shame on GWB.
5 years ago? In “long ago” times forceful embassy entry was considered worse than a simple declaration of war.
5 years ago? Until post-WWII it was customary to perceive a forceful entry into embassy as an act of war.
It’s a nasty world out there.
How nice it would be if the solution was just to bring the troops home, stay out of other people’s business, and live and let live. But there is one lesson that isolationists have failed to understand. Problems abroad have a curious habit of popping up in unexpected places – like bombed embassys, airplanes flying into buildings, attempted bombings on subways, or assasination plots in Washington. Chaos abroad destabilizes the world and that ain’t good for business. And remember – the business of America is business. The world is interdependent. That is generally a good thing because trading partners don’t usually shoot at each other. Security is critical for world progress. Yes security is expensive. But the alternative is much, much worse.
Neocons are getting a bad rap but remember the classic definition – a neocon is a former liberal who was mugged by reality. 9/11 was a classic mugging. We really have no choice but to fight this one out. Otherwise, the muggers win.
Re #3 Bill B and oaa;
Most Americans have no idea how much we have degraded our effective combat power through ROE restrictions. If we removed the requirements to minimize collateral damage among enemy civilians, we would increase our effective combat power by a minimum of one order of magnitude (10X). If we removed the restrictions on the use of massed bombardment, we would increase our effective combat power by another order of magnitude (100X).
What we have been doing in the Middle East is the equivalent of taking a giant steel sledgehammer and dialing down the striking surface to the size of a tooth pick. Even if you swing the sledgehammer with the toothpick striking surface very rapidly, it will take an enormous amount of time to pulverize a rock pile — or an enemy nation.
David Goldman is advocating that we use the full striking face of the American sledehammer on the Iranians. Over and over until they are pulverized and can’t threaten us or our allies for at least a generation. And then we leave.
The American public will stand up and cheer. And everyone of our enemies and potential enemies will look at the wreck of Iran and tremble.
You are deluded… The US military is incapable of fighting an actual war. They are now an internationalist police force for the UN.
The American people are sick and tired of these unwinnable, endless “wars” in the Middle East… We will not tolerate another “war”… Iraq and Afghanistan were disasters – why do you think Iran would be any better?
America is bankrupt ($15 Trillion). There are 26 million unemployed or underemployed Americans. America is turning into a Third World Banana Republic. Pax Americana is coming to an end. Our “allies” (ungrateful worthless parasites) better learn to defend themselves (and quick), or they will suffer the consequences.
Let the world look out for itself for a while. Time to start looking out for America and Americans first. For if we don’t, who will?
Right, but if you think that withdrawing the US will be able to recover from its self-inflicted damage and allowed to do it by the world, you suffer from your own delusion. I suggest you pay attention to #21.
The two wars were indeed strategic blunders which will probably prove to be America’s ultimate undoing, but only because it got sucked into the fool’s errand of nation building. Had the US stayed out of Iraq; and just smashed Afghanistan to smithereens, without repeating the mistake of every interventionist before it, including the soviets, it would have been in a much better situation than demise.
Sorry deluded…but you are the deluded one here if you believe this crap:
“The US military is incapable of fighting an actual war.”
Even after a decade fighting in the Middle East, there is NO, repeat NO military on this planet that can keep up with us on the battlefield.
And quit deigning to speak for all 300+ Million Americans by saying “Americans want this” or “Americans don’t want that.”
Up yours…you don’t speak for me, chump.
Indeed, you are correct. These non-historian historians fail to note that we failed quite a lot during WWII, just nearly lost Korea (were whipped twice – once by the North Koreans and once by the Chinese)and it wasn’t long ago that no one thought we could win any direct conflict with the USSR. Our nuclear umbrella being the only theoretical hope to keep the Ruskies out of Europe – which the Europeans were scared we wouldn’t use. We were dooooomed, I tell ya!
That’s of course true to a degree (lots of collaterl damage to those drone strikes though). Israel has essentially endangered its existence by adhering to the same nonsense.
But that’s the problem, isn’t it? A clash of values which gives superiority to an enemy that fights to win and one who doesn’t?
But I believe the issue is moot now — it’s too late to recover from the damage caused
Countervalue strikes against Iranian population, or even just the Persian portion of it, would serve little purpose or end. Few Iranians are ardent supporters of the regime anyway. The regime doesn’t have much need for its citizens since it has oil revenues to fund its minority supporters.
Counterforce strikes against their military still leaves what we really fear, their terrorist networks.
Decapitation is always attractive except that a person who knows they’re a target will seldom allow their physical location to become public knowledge. The same difficulty applies to the Iranian terror network.
That leaves their oil extraction and export facilities. These are fixed in known locations and vulnerable. However, hitting them removes that much oil from world markets that are already at $94/barrel.
If the Saudis were serious, they would open the spigot on their oil fields to drive down the price so starving the Iranians of cash. However, since they haven’t, perhaps they can’t – or else they are not serious about the threat.
Sorry, I don’t see large scale bombing as a complete solution. Perhaps limited actions against oil and nuclear infrastructure are feasible, when the time is right. Ledeen’s subversion proposals seems more useful, along with black ops against their terror network.
If you think that’s bad, at least America doesn’t have genocidal enemy countries on its borders. Imagine fighting for your life with those ROE’s, like we do here in Israel. I think International Law should be revised to do what the British used to – if the enemy does it to you, you do it to them.
The US can get away with rewriting International Law. We can’t so easily. But our enemies ought to know that General Ein Berarirah (We Have No Choice) hasn’t hung up his hat, if they think they will untimately prevail.
By the time the election rolls around “foreign policy” is going to force its way into the conversation. Obama has lit a flame under the Middle East and it won’t take long for it to boil. When it does Americans will have a new concern -our place in a dangerous world. Republicans need to stake out their positions now.
I’m afraid the instinct will be to retreat, not to be aggressive. There is historic and cultural evidence for suspecting that.
And that will probably be realistic too: that’s the consequence of self-destruction.
I have never been a Reagan Republoican and rue the day that the far right fundamentalists became the ‘base’ of the GOP. Without a realistic foreign policy Americans won’t have to worry about any social agenda because that will be cared for by those who take over the country.
I am one of those who think the US has been in World War III or IV since before 9/11. While our foreign policy may not encourage or build democracies in all foreign countries, at least it should seek to encourage them not to be anti-American. We should not allow our military be subservient to anti-American politicians, here or abroad. If they are not willing to play by our rules or the commonly understood rules of war, we should take all our money, men and machines and go home. Foreigners, seeking homes in this country either adopt our ways or leave…. no more giving rights to those who advocate the overthrow of this country.
The GOP shouldn’t talk about an issue on which it is split.
This isn’t the Bush era anymore, and we’ve now got Republicans like Rand Paul who are not sold on military interventionism.
So Obama wants to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. There are lots of conservatives (I’m one of them) who don’t want to stay there another minute to prop up that regime.
I was appalled at Karzai’s statement that in a confrontation between Pakistan and the U.S. he would stand with Pakistan against the U.S. Why are we propping up his regime again?
It will be interesting to see what the 2012 GOP Platform says about the Middle East. My guess is that it won’t say what Kristol and Kagan and McCain want it to say.
David – Thanks for the honor of your reply to my comment in the previous post. I read your article when it came out in Tablet. You have taught me a great deal about theo- and demo- politics, but with all due respect, the Tablet article and this post don’t fully answer my questions.
Quick and dirty, my disagreements and reservations are in two areas:
1. It seems to me that U.S. security elites were opposed to action against Iran way before US forces in Iraq supposedly became “hostage” to Iran. I would say that, up through at least the end of 2004 and into 2005, the Iranians and Syrians were more afraid that we’d jump them (Syria was so diffident that they pulled their conventional forces out of Lebanon during the 2005 Cedar Revolution). But even before 9/11, pundits and analysts who tried to call attention to the danger of Iran got ignored or slagged as acting on behalf of Israel. Perhaps pre-9/11 was too early for the US to focus on the problem but I find this essentially “conscious disregard” by the establishment over a period of decades to be depressing and puzzling. Ledeen was calling out “Faster, Please” starting in 2002, but we just got to the Euphrates, sat down, and let the Iranians and Syrians scheme.
2. Yes, a strike on Iran and a subsequent fight with pro-Iran militias in and around Baghdad would have been messy in 2007/8, but I don’t think it would have been too much heavy lifting or taken more than three months (U.S. forces, from Bath and Laundry Specialists to SF operators, would have climbed all over each other for the chance to fight a short, decisive battle against pro-Iranian Shia militias in and around Baghdad). Briefly, and based entirely on open source information, that sort of fight would have been based on US forces getting good targeting information to roll up militia leaders and facilitators. If moderate Shia in Iraq had witnessed the US decisively taking out Iranian power centers in Iraq and Iran, I think they would have lined up to join the winning side and give us targeting information (remember, the Al-Maliki government willingly fought a succesful campaign against pro-Iranian militas in Basra with help from US and UK in Spring 2008). “The Strongest Tribe”, the title of Bing West’s book on Anbar, is a useful shorthand for the winning operational level formula in Iraq. Groups lined up with us when they saw us as strong and there for the long-haul. Of course, my analysis doesn’t even address why the US, apparently, didn’t energetically experiment with the Ledeen strategy circa 2006 to 2008.
I have less admiration than you seem to have for ADM Mullen. He went along with President Obama’s hot/cold/hot/cold support for Afghanistan operations in 2010/11. He owns the policy circa 2007 to 2011 of fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, pouring in development money to be wasted or stolen, but opposing any strong and decisive strikes against states (such as Iran and Syria, can I use the term “Axis of Evil” one more time?) which provided safe havens for INS (ex., see Mullen’s speech, http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1336#). I would argue that a principled senior flag officer should have resigned rather than continue to feed soldiers and marines into a ground fight against IEDs and EFPs, w/o tackling safe havens. Of course, after 4,000 plus dead and Gd knows how many maimed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/love-for-wounded-soldier-upon-return-from-afghanistan/2011/10/03/gIQAdaGSWL_story.html) we face a still growing threat from Iran. At the level of the Chairman of JCS, I call that military malpractice.
I’m sorry if I’m a bit of a one-note on this. Thanks for the chance to vent.
MarcH,
There are diverging views in the national security establishment, The Brzezinski-Gates report on Iran at CFR in 2004 (which I wrote up at the time) had no qualms about Iran getting nuclear weapons — it was truly nuts. Then there was Mullen, who said exactly what he thought…apparently he didn’t sign on to your optimism regarding the ease with which Shi’ite militias might be reduced. We’ll never know who is right because we were too cautious to go after Iran. Let’s just say that Mullen did a lot of things his job required him to do. I know people close to him whose thinking was very clear. Should he have resigned? Maybe. Tough call.
David,
I agree that ADM Mullen had a tough call about whether to resign. If my comment was interpreted as defaming his character, I regret that (as I wrote, I was venting), especially given his distinguished record of command at sea.
Concerning my hypothetical scenario of reducing the pro-Iran Shia militas in and around Baghdad in coordination with a decisive action (military or political) against Iran circa 2008/9, of course I have no idea what plans were actually requested or considered by national level authorities. In an atmosphere where the bizarre Baker/Brezinski/Gates report on Iran, which you referenced above, was considered wisdom, I doubt whether the scenario I sketched would ever have been seriously considered.
MarcH,
I’m not privy to Mullen’s thinking. My point is that a lot of senior military and intelligence people did what the politicians told them to do, but didn’t always think it the wisest thing to do.
David,
I agree that senior leaders in the military, as well as DoS and intelligence services, carry out the orders of their political leaders. 99.9% of the time that is the proper and honorable course of action (although I would argue that W was undermined by heavy leaking by some career national security professionals).
But, .1% of the time, very senior career leaders who also enjoy the public’s trust, have a responsibility to resign in a dignified way, rather than carry out policies which do long-term harm to the country.
Back to ADM Mullen (and GEN Petraeus as CENTCOM, for that matter):
1. if, when shaving in the mirror, he believed that an Iranian government driven by the pathologies you describe in Why Civilizations Die (which I just received), fielding a large covert military/political arm to sponsor terrorism and subversion around the world, and attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, was a very significant threat to the U.S.; and,
2. if he believed that there were and perhaps still are, decesive alternate strategies (the Ledeen strategy, the DPG strategy, etc.) which could be gamed out and possibly adopted by the U.S. to thwart this Iranian threat;
then he should have given very serious thought to resigning rather than executing policies which avoided addressing the threat.
I briefly argued in a comment above that the point of view within the national security establishment (the Gates/Brezinski CFR report on Iran; the Baker/Hamilton ISG; the ADM Fallon interview in The Atlantic, etc.) possibly prevented serious and in-depth consideration of decisive operations in Iraq/Iran, so I doubt that ADM Mullen ever requested or received a full analysis of reducing the pro-Iranina-Shia militia in Iraq, in the context of decisive operations.
I really think we are singing out of the same hymm book.
Best Regards,
MarcH
David,
This comment thread is old, but perhaps you still get flagged on replies?
There are many reasons why I believe that the US was capable of reducing the pro-Iranian Shia militias around Baghdad w/some hard but limited fighting circa 2008, especially in the context of some sort of decisive action against Iran. I’ve just found an excellent new authority to support my POV. It’s in a 2011 book which I truly think is an indespensible guide to the religious and demographic roots of geopolitics, HOW CIVILIZATIONS DIE. On page 238 the author opines, “The Iranians had no interest in disrupting the surge. If they had, the American military would have made short work of their local proxies, who never could outfight the U.S. Marines”.
You’ve been a great teacher to me, but I would argue that your facts and analysis on Iraq 2007 to 2010 are off.
v/r,
MarcH
You know why conservative candidates don’t talk about foreign policy? Because they don’t have much of a clue. I mean, look at all the spasmatic ideas here: bomb left, bomb right, then come home. It is as if everyone, conservatives included, forgot the reason why the US went into Afghanistan and Iraq.
The consideration of foreign policy, on both sides of the aisle, has degraded considerably in the past two decades. It seems that only the few remaining Cold Warriors have any idea about what to do abroad. Everyone else is merely flying by the seat of their pants. Ask the Isolationists if they want the US to leave the world alone, if the world’ll become a more violent place, one that is dominated by China and a desperate Russia? No, considerations like that don’t matter, its all about the “Islamists.” The decade of the war on terror has left many, I bet most of the commentators here included, unable to think outside of the narrow “clash of civilizations” or “Middle East Ueber alles” fixation.
Finally, we can get the best assessment of your own foreign policy ‘expertise’ by merely looking at the subjects you bring up: Iran, Arab Spring, Israel. That hardly counts as a foreign policy, its merely a regional policy. The basic fact that you barely mention China, the primary US foreign policy challenge in the future, shows the depth of your foreign policy know-how.
I’ll pay attention to a conservative foreign policy when its a little more that Bomb Iran and Protect Israel, oh and Peace Through Strength. Those aren’t a policy, they’re merely pandering to the conservative base.
Amen brother. US and to a lesser extent NATO first constrained then brought down Soviet Union (Russian empire) with all sorts of thermonuclear weapons that could have destroyed (and still can) US and its allies many times over. China, India and Pakistan all have nuclear devices with mutual destructive capacities. China and India are resurgent powers aspiring for their place in the sun. They want to use their economies to reorder their region. Brazil has always kept its nuclear options open to attain major power status. South Africa also has the potential to become the African nuclear power. Israel has a monopoly on nuclear weapons with a second strike capacity in its neighborhood. So, what is this big fuss about Iran getting few centrifuges? I am sure that Iran will never give up the nuclear option just willy nilly. But, it not fully exercise that option either. Because, that will change the face of the middle east for good as it will lead Egypt, Saudi Arabia and possibly Turkey to go nuclear. Now, that sure would not make Iran more safe. So, its best strategy is to emulate Israel. That is, have its nuclear cake and eat it too.
If we (Israel) didn’t have nuclear capability, we would have been the victim of chemical attacks by now. But we aren’t going to use it offesnsively. I wish I could assume that for Iran.
Second strike? Do you have any idea how tiny this country is? What good does it do you when everyone’s dead?
Oh, I’ll settle for, “I don’t believe in appeasement, and I’ll bring in a decent protocol adviser”. Oh, and “I will not force our policies on friends, and I will not force proto-totalitarian rulers (Niguragua, Honduras) on them. I will not make nice to bullies (Russia, China).” Compared to the current administration, anything would be a vast improvement.
I heard Alan West on PJTV, and he seemed to have a very good handle on the wrold. (Caine/West? Of course, the Left will NEVER believe that the two best candidates just happened to be Black. Goes entirely against their thinking.)
Not to mention the pun.
“It’s not that it hurts Republicans to talk about foreign policy, but their pollsters are telling them that people just don’t care.”
Sure, foreign policy doesn’t matter. That is until Iran gets a nuclear bomb and decides the obliterate Israel. That, by the way, could also start a nuclear war in the Middle East that could quickly spread to other parts of the world, especially Europe. But hey, no need to read about foreign policy right now, not when just the whole world is hanging in the balance. And that whole North Korea thing? Not that important. China kicking our butts financially and soon, militarily? No problem. And all those Middle Eastern countries falling like dominoes to radical Islamists? No problem. Russia trying to dominate Europe again? Don’t think about it. And Iran and Hezbollah making inroads into South America? Forget it. And we don’t even want to talk about Mexico, crime center of our hemisphere. Just move along, folks, and worry about your 401K.
What people tend to forget is, your 401K could be worthless if any of the above happen, not to mention your paycheck. But, no need to worry.
You nailed it: “Republicans should demand of their candidates that they take a no-compromise position on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They should pledge to use force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. No nation-building, no occupation army, no Mr. Nice Guy — just the raw exercise of American muscle. And the American public will stand up and cheer.”
We don’t even need to use nuclear bombs to conquer you infidels. We already have nearly 50 million of our brothers and sisters in the infidel nations of Europe, who are growing rapidly in number, while the infidels are aging, shrinking, and dying, who are turning it into Eurabia.
Our women’s wombs are our greatest weapon. We are conquering you in the maternity wards and kindergartens. You can’t stop it. Your grandchildren will be living under Sharia. It is inevitable. Your granddaughters will wear the burqa. Your infidel lifestyle has proven to be a total and absolute failure. We have the answer. You degenerate Westerners way of life is collapsing all around you. You are unable to solve your own problems. We have a better way of life. You will join us. Either voluntarily, or against your will.
We have defeated you imperialist American infidels in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are establishing Islamic states ruled by the Sharia in Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Gaza, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Jordan, and many other countries. We are gaining strength every day, while you infidels are becoming weaker and weaker. You are no match for us. We will defeat you easily. You are not ready for what is coming. You don’t stand a chance. It’s not too late. You can still join us. Time is running out for you infidels.
You were better as La Raza/Aztec Warrior.
Try to appease #21 and see what you get.
That’s the consequence of stunted intellectual development: you can apply sexual deprivation and oppression on the masses in the name of some god, and not only they buy it, but they love it and wage war for it.
One wonders if it’s so much better, why do they have to force it on others. And why so many leave the Islamic heaven for the inferior lands of the infidels.
But I guess if you’re incapable of progress there’s nothing you can do but stop that of others.
BTW, David,
Regarding your question “who will run the world?”, looks like China and Russia are already doing it:
JacksonDiehl:
Having blocked action on Syria, Russia and China now trying to prevent release of UN intel on #Iran nuke weaponization http://t.co/TbCMxuir
And without spending much blood or bankrupting themselves in the process.
Thinking back over my time on this planet it is easy to observe that when the U.S. population really decides to go to war with the gloves off the enemy learns a very harsh lesson. The “reality” in which the U.S. military operates today is through the mist of “political correctness” and “international law” and “ROE” and other stupidities. Wars are not fought by a couple of divisions kicking around some rag-tag jihadists. Wars are fought with no gloves, few rules, and the object of winning via the total, and I do mean total, destruction of your enemy. Civilian populations become regrettable casualties and their homes, villages, towns and cities get turned to rubble. There may or may not be a “Marshall Plan” extended later on to rebuild. These penny ante “police actions” we have been in for the past ten years or so are not the real thing. If one is going to be a “neo-con” on the left or right, it is more than time to recall that war is not a PC contest. If you want to fight that way you loose.
Let me add to the above, if you think for a minute that the jihadists will give one a break for not fighting total, think again. They will merely consider you a fool and dupe. If the U.S. decides to really get into another war, the first rule is to tell the entire world, right up front and forcefully, we don’t give a good g-d damn what you think.
DD, re: “How nice it would be if the solution was just to bring the troops home, stay out of other people’s business, and live and let live. But there is one lesson that isolationists have failed to understand….” The correct term is “non-interventionism,” not isolationism. There’s a difference, one genuine conservatives once knew. See Dr. Russell Kirk, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, etc. The founding fathers warned us that we could play the great games of power abroad, or we could live in freedom and prosperity at home, but not both. There is no quicker way to undermine liberty than to engage in perpetual wars, under the guise of which almost any abridgement of freedom can be justified in the name of national security. The game of empire bankrupted Britain, now you would have us do the same? Notwithstanding arguments for/against the U.S. being world cop, how do you propose we pay for such duties? We’re already borrowing from the PRC to fund our wars abroad.
“Problems abroad have a curious habit of popping up in unexpected places – like bombed embassys, airplanes flying into buildings, attempted bombings on subways, or assasination plots in Washington. Chaos abroad destabilizes the world and that ain’t good for business.” Why it is our job alone to provide stability for the world and its economy? The proper means of minimizing the damage said chaos does is not to wade into it, guns blazing, but to isolate it and wall ourselves off from it to the extent possible. The foreign policy you propose results in endless “blowback,” therefore an endless supply of enemies with cause to hate us.
“And remember – the business of America is business. The world is interdependent. That is generally a good thing because trading partners don’t usually shoot at each other.” History shows that trading partners will go to war if provoked to do so, or else they find other ways of waging war besides guns and bullets, i.e., China and its economic warfare against us at present, BTW a “war” we are losing. American interests, economic and otherwise, should be the foremost priority of our leaders, not assuring someone else’s security halfway around the globe. Carjackistan can solve its own problems…
“Security is critical for world progress. Yes security is expensive. But the alternative is much, much worse.” Security is an illusion, and an expensive one at that. A strong nation defense, yes, but “security” is a chimera, always chased but never caught, that justifies a perpetual state of crisis, big govt. and big military budgets. Besides, meaningful security does not come from the barrel of a gun, but in a free and prosperous society at home. Without the latter, we cannot afford a capable military in the first place. It is no coincidence that at her zenith militarily (c.1940-1960, American also possessed the most powerful economy on earth.
The correct term is “non-interventionism,” not isolationism.
A subtlety that I get, but our enemies would ignore. Force talks with its own effective eloquence.
As for how to pay for it, yes the US Federal gov’t is headed towards insolvency but that can be fixed. The US is not borrowing from the PRC to pay for its military, it is borrowing to pay for its entitlements.
Security must be a shared enterprise. It was the basis for Nato and all the other multilateral alliances that US created post WWII. The failure of those organizations is a failure of diplomacy, not concept.
As for China, I wouldn’t be so fast to declare it a ‘winner’ in anything. Nor would I trade their economic position for ours. China may have lots of foreign reserves, but the country remains greatly underdeveloped, has huge social problems, huge inflation issues just to name a few problems. Still, integration of China into the world economy (thanks to Nixon / Kissinger) was a good thing and makes a shooting conflict, less, not more likely. China is a competitor, but the West should not be afraid of competition.
I find your statement that security is an illusion curious. Do you not think that the rule of law is preferable to chaos? How can you possibly have a healthy economy without security?
Like most liberals and some conservatives, you confuse the later Goldwater with Barry Goldwater the Presidential Candidate of 1964.
Back then he was a super-hawk on Vietnam — indeed he went so far as to advocate the tactical use of nukes there. (What do you think sparked that infamous anti-Goldwater daisy-nuclear cloud TV commercial?)
In fact, I distinctly remember the joke going around in 1965: “They said if I voted for Goldwater we’d have a wider war in Vietnam — so I voted for Goldwater and sure enough, we have a wider war in Vietnam!”
“Republicans should demand of their candidates that they take a no-compromise position on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They should pledge to use force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Period.” So I guess this means the dare not speak his name M.D. from Texas is out.
oao, what do you want? American tanks in Damascus? The Israelis didn’t want to go that route even though militarily (at least for some time) they had that capability. And they live there.
I agree with the commenter above — the reason Republicans don’t want to talk about foreign policy and especially not with Dr. Paul is because the constant, bleeding interventions are unpopular even among most Republicans — including the relatively ‘bloodless’ (at least NATO blood) campaign to topple Gaddafi, for which Obama never bothered to receive Congressional authorization. The only Republicans for whom these wars remain popular are those in D.C., not coincidentally the ones who profit the most from the spending.
You’re halfway there, but then start moving backwards. You’re correct that the “constant, bleeding interventions” are unpopular across the spectrum, but you’re mistaken if you think that Paul’s vaunted “non-intervention” would be better-liked, or even liked as well. In my (admittedly non-universal) experience, people on the right would be FINE with an intervention that was decisive, deadly, and left mostly smoking rubble, as opposed to empowered cliques of fractious ingrates to be “rebuilt.”
In other words, “scorched earth” > “nation-building” > “non-intervention.” Distaste for the second doesn’t imply approval of the third.
P.S.: Unless I’m a client of the man’s medical practice, he’s by-God “MISTER Paul.”
My primary concern when we invaded Iraq is that we would end up with a radical Shia state. Looking at the demographics, it would be a surprise if we did not. Of course, the same would have to be said for Egypt and Libya, but moves, or lack thereof, do not seem nearly as pre-emptive as invading Iraq.
The reason the Repubs stay away from foreign policy points is that it is not at all clear that, (despite the caterwauling here,) Obama has mucked things up any worse than GWB did, plus he has some nice scalps dangling on the wall. Granted, if it becomes clear that Iran has the bomb ready to go, a little bluster might gain a few votes, but possibly lose at least as many.
The hard part about beating Obama (and I belabor the obvious) is that you need somebody to be able to beat him, and so far the field has not distinguished itself. Obviously, righties will rally around whoever is nominated, but in the mean time, the Obama operatives are taking good notes and will use them later.
Our foreign policy should be the one of ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Our government does not allow assassinations, but our CIA should be allowed to take out those on top that want to destroy us and its own people. If N. Korean’s Kim Dong was taken out, what a saving of millions of starving Koreans, the next in line would see that He would be next one taken out unless he be a benevolent leader.Our present policy is laughed at world wide, we have the ways and know how , but politically correctness always gets in the way of good governance.
MarcH., re: Admiral Mullen and “At the level of the Chairman of JCS, I call that military malpractice”…
Marc, a well-done post. Let me add the following, at the risk of going off-thread for a moment. If it had been within my (limited) powers, I’d have had the good admiral keel-hauled for his spineless surrender to Obama and the pro-homosexual lobby concerning overturning DADT. He said and did nothing when Obama’s people gamed personnel surveys to show that the troops “wanted” homosexuals in the ranks, when the opposite was true. Numerous independent surveys – especially those of combat troops – show that an overwhelming number neither wanted nor needed gays in their units. Mullen typifies the type of political general/flag officer, or “perfumed prince” (to use the late Col. David Hackworth’s memorable turn of phrase), who populate the JCS – gutless, finger held aloft in the political winds at all times, a careerist and bureaucrat, not a warrior. Sadly, it comes as no surprise that Mullen has proved basically inept as a wartime leader, c.f. his decisions in Afghanistan.
A man of principle would have resigned, rather than serve under a man whose very legitimacy in the Oval Office as CIC still remains in doubt. Speaking of which, it will be black mark in history against Mullen and General (Army COS) Casey’s names concerning LTC Terry Lakin, M.D., a good man and a patriot who took his oath to the constitution seriously, and in so doing, questioned Obama’s bonafides. The brass threw him to the wolves, even though he was doing the job they should have done themselves.
As a start, I would be happy if the Rep candidates would discuss foreign policy enough to ensure us that they can find Afghanistan and Iran on a map. I would also like them to understand that our allies (and the NGO-fed publicity in these countries) can obstruct our aims and have to be dealt with diplomatically, especially through effective public diplomacy. Now is not the time to discuss loudly any specifics WRT Iran; the situation may change before the inauguration.
Glad people are finally after the Neocons and I think the are right about keeping their heads down. As a note, people bought into it when it was untested and now that it is, people still won’t do any rethinking: ideas always trump reality for idealists.
We should keep in mind that it is not conservative in any way having no respect for tradition or any people’s unique history: rather it is leftist. Neocons believe that all people are good and governments are oppressive, frustrating their better natures, which, of course are universal.
In Iraq the Neocons hooted about how much people there wanted democracy good government and an end to corruption. They got elections and the newly elected just took the opportunity to steal for themselves.
You can impose clean government with the emphasis on impose, and it will be very unpopular: it tough to change an ethos and it require really strong repressive measures.
In these situation one must remember that ‘innocent civilian’ is a trope, like ‘laughing hyena’. The fighter have the support and positive aid of the locals or they could not exist.
Scapegoating and slaughtering Muslims overseas in order to distract the working class from the evil machinations of the corporate plutocrats worked in the aftermath of the successful pinning of the 9-11 incident on said Muslims. However, this is failing as a strategy. The GOP will now return to its traditional racism against Blacks and Hispanics to keep the White workers’ eyes away from the greed of his bosses.
Barry O’Solyndra is a Republican? Who knew?
Re: “The GOP will now return to its traditional racism against Blacks and Hispanics to keep the White workers’ eyes away from the greed of his bosses.”
Yobbin, your post says more about you than about the GOP. It is a lie that the GOP is the party of racism; if that charge is to be made, it rightly belongs to the Democrats, whose party opposed desegregation throughout the 1950s and 1960s, and fought tooth-and-nail against enfranchisement of blacks. Abraham Lincoln, the president credited with overturning slavery and saving the Union, was a Republican. The Democrats elected former Klansman and outright racist Woodrow Wilson to the White House, and more recently, gave former KKK man and Senator the late Robert Byrd, the status of ‘respected elder” in the party.
As for charges of “racism,” which seem to leave the mouths of leftists every time someone disagrees with them, that dog won’t hunt anymore. That charge has lost much of its currency, because people are waking up to the fact that race-baiting is central to the left’s hold on political power.
The charge that the GOP is racist is risible for another reason. A black man, Herman Cain, is among the contenders for the nomination for president; a black woman, Condi Rice, was Bush’s national security advisor and SecState, and a black man, Gen. Colin Powell, served several GOP CICs in a similar capacity, in and out of uniform. Democrats may pat themselves on the back that they put Obama in office, a “black man,” but upon further examination, Obama’s primary allegiance isn’t to black Americans, or any Americans, for that matter, but to international leftist and Islam.
Who’s the “racist” now?
DD, thanks for your reply. My responses follow.
Re: “The correct term is ‘non-interventionism,’ not isolationism.
A subtlety that I get, but our enemies would ignore. Force talks with its own effective eloquence.” I’m splitting hairs, but only in order to make a point, which is that non-intervention does not mean retreating inside “fortress America” and pulling up the drawbridge (which is what the folks who charge ‘isolationism’ imply); it means making more-prudent decisions regarding when, where, and how we intervene in the affairs of other nations and peoples.
The idea that America can protect everything and be everywhere at once is a fallacy; we’re powerful, but not that powerful. Remember your Frederick the Great, “He who defends everything, defends nothing”… a wise admonition to pick your battles and causes carefully.
Re: “As for how to pay for it, yes the US Federal gov’t is headed towards insolvency but that can be fixed. The US is not borrowing from the PRC to pay for its military, it is borrowing to pay for its entitlements.” Now, you are the one splitting hairs; insolvency is insolvency. If the well runs dry, it runs dry – it matters not what from. We agree, I think, that entitlements should be cut before defense… but my guess is that given a choice between cutting “cabinet wars” of choice abroad and nation-building, and cutting social security, medicare/medicaid, or other social welfare benefits, the electorate chooses the former gets the axe. I could be wrong… Election 2012 may tell the tale on that one. However, no matter who wins, the laws of economics and mathematics still apply with equal force.
Re: “Security must be a shared enterprise. It was the basis for Nato and all the other multilateral alliances that US created post WWII. The failure of those organizations is a failure of diplomacy, not concept.” That’s debateable. NATO, to use one example you cited, served a valid purpose during the Cold War, but it has outlived its usefulness, especially to us. NATO without the USA, is impotent and ineffective. The nations of Europe have relied upon it as their defense umbrella the last half century, but contribute so little to it that if we left, Europe might be unable to defend itself if attacked. The much-vaunted NATO rapid-reaction force, for example, can’t react to anything without us. Why? They don’t have any airlift capability of their own; they are dependent on ours. NATO’s intervention in Libya, for example, had to put in an emergency call for U.S. help, because they were running out of ordnance for their aircraft. Again, the U.S. props up its allies, who aren’t pulling their weight.
Your wrote of a “failure of diplomacy”… IMHO, modern diplomacy, is broken mechanistically and no longer works for the 21st century, c.f. Ralph Peters has argued the same and I agree with him, but that’s a debate for another time.
This isn’t a “collective” security arrangement, it is the United States subsidizing the defense of Europe. Why should we drain our treasury, and risk the lives of our military personnel to defend Europe, if that continent’s people can’t be troubled to do the job themselves? Fifty years ago, our economy dwarfed those of the rest of the world, and Europe and Asia were still recovering from WWII; they needed our help on defense. That’s no longer the case – Germany, France, Britain, S. Korea, Japan, and many others are quite prosperous enough to fund a (much) greater share of the security load. If they are unwilling to do so, we should re-evaluate our treaties with them. Why should we drain our treasury to defend a rich Germany from a USSR that no longer exists? This amounts to a form of national-security welfare or trans-national entitlement spending, and it is not working to our advantage. We’re getting fleeced, to be specific.
Re: “Still, integration of China into the world economy (thanks to Nixon / Kissinger) was a good thing and makes a shooting conflict, less, not more likely.” I think the jury is still out concerning the Nixon/Kissinger mission to “open” China to the west. I do not trust the communists, and never will. I do not believe China is, in any sense of the word, a reliable friend or trust-worthy trading partner (see counterfieting, trade piracy and industrial espionage, unethical currency manipulation, etc.) The PRC cares about its own interests, not ours. We should act likewise. As for a “shooting war” being less likely, so far you’ve been proven correct… but tomorrow and in the future, that could easily change. Don’t forget that memories are long in that part of the world, and that we fought a savage conflict against the Chinese and North Korea only sixty years ago. The Chinese and we were allies against the Japanese only a few years before. Today’s “friend” can become tomorrow’s enemy rather quickly. History is also full of trading partners who got angry with one another, and went to war. Germany, France and Great Britain before WWI are an example.
Re: “I find your statement that security is an illusion curious.” Humans constantly make choices and weigh risks; we probably differ in how to appraise and remedy risk. I favor a strong national defense, and do not wish to see our nation drop its guard or weaken itself in an unpredictable world. However, the word “security” is often involked by defense hawks as justification for nation-building and a Wilsonian foreign policy. I am opposed to those things. What I meant by my comment on security being an illusion is simply that the word “security” can mean just about anything to anyone these days; it is entirely an open-ended concept. Who defines what security is or isn’t? How much is enough, how little is too little? Does security mean the security of Americans first, or – say – that of Belorussians also? There are also different types of security, not only military, but economic, moral and political. In my view, our economic security – specifically, our indebtedness – is as great a threat to the nation as anyone in the Middle East or Asia. I also believe that left unchecked, illegal immigration and an uncontrolled border are a far-greater threat to our national security than anything happening in Afghanistan. Again, we all want “security,” the question is of what kind and how much.
Re: “Do you not think that the rule of law is preferable to chaos? How can you possibly have a healthy economy without security?” Who said anything about the rule of law or chaos? I didn’t. You are engaging in a strawman argument here.
I would argue however, that economic “security” (there’s that word again) serves as the foundation of military force and power projection. Without economic prosperity, we won’t be able to afford a military capable of assuring our own safety, let alone the safety of others such as our allies. Regarding the “rule of law versus chaos,” you seem to argue that it is one or another and nothing in between. That’s a fallacy. The best we imperfect humans can do is create some order out of chaos, and create a functional, if imperfect, nation. It is an age-old conceit that we can impose order on chaos everywhere. It’s a utopian ideal, and it is dangerous. It is also cotradictednot only by history and common sense but by science, in the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Creating order (whether in a chemical-physical sense or otherwise) requires an input of energy and resources, which must be supplied from elsewhere in the system or from outside of it. There’s no free lunch, in other words. You want to impose order on Afghanistan, for example, it will cost you (i.e., us) in spent resources – energy, order, money, time, etc. – from someplace else, probably here. In my view, we Americans should be devoting more, not less, of our resources and effort to strengthening our nation at home, instead of engaging in foreign adventurism. To the extent we project power abroad, it should be only in service of our interests as a nation, and for clearly-defined (as opposed to open-ended) goals. At present, our chief executives have too much power to deploy our military in service of political or other ends, without the advice and consent of Congress, let alone that of the American people. This disbalance is badly in need of correction.
This article reeks of colonialist nonsense.
Colonize you? Pal, we don’t even want to have to see you again.
i was prepared to read a thoughtful article then the writer said this
“The electorate doesn’t always know what it wants to hear,…”
there is nothing else in the article more important than that statement… and it tells me exactly the type of person the writer is.
I’m trying to understand what your problem is. Do you think voters secrete information, like clams? Sometimes they need to be informed, and the job of political leaders is to put items of importance on the political agenda. Most people don’t know enough about Iran and terrorism to make a judgment: that’s why Republican candidates should provide the information and propose a solution. That’s called leadership. The voters then decide what’s important and what they want to do about it. That’s called democracy: everything gets aired in public and the people decide. Policies aren’t made behind the backs of the voters — that’s called elitism. You seem to think that any sort of leadership implies elitism — that the country should be run by the pure spontaneous sentiment of the voters, something like a Quaker meeting.
Shoey, re: “i was prepared to read a thoughtful article then the writer said this ‘The electorate doesn’t always know what it wants to hear,…’There is nothing else in the article more important than that statement… and it tells me exactly the type of person the writer is.”
David Goldman, the target of your ad hominem attack, is an internationally-respected commentator renowned for his insights into geopolitics and other subjects. In other words, he’s earned his spurs and then some. If you are not willing to consider his work on merit, and instead reject it out of hand for superficial reasons, why should we take your comments seriously? The answer, not to put too fine a point on it, is that I don’t… and I expect other readers feel the same. If you are unwilling to have an open mind, and only expect to have your biases confirmed when you read something, what is the point? Have a nice day…
“And the American public will stand up and cheer.”
Until US $200 a barrel oil for months on end triggers a second economic collapse due to burning oil fields and refinerys in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia as well,(Multi billion dollar Russian arms deals, it’s not just AK-47′s!).
How long could the United States hold together under US $200 oil? Weeks, months (refinerys and bombed oil fields take time to repair/replace)
Iran may not be the cakewalk that Iraq was, you will be up against the best Russian armaments money can buy. You will win, but the cost in blood and treasure will be high.
Personally, I’m with Ron Paul in that I would like to end the interventionist foreign policy. I think its worthless and a complete waste of tax payers’ money.
However, if you want to promote and sell us on the interventionist foreign policy, you need to find a way to make it profitable for the American tax payer. If not, your spiel will fall flat on its face.
The best way to promote foreign interventionism to the American tax payer is to turn it into a profit center rather than a loss center for the tax payer. If you don’t do this, your spiel will not work.
I care. I care very much and I’m annoyed that foreign policy/national defense isn’t now, nor, I suspect, will be a big part of the debate. The world, as always, is a dangerous place and it concerns me greatly that half of us seems hellbent on gutting defense and the other half seems ambivalent about it all. An American military second to none with it’s planet-wide reach is to the world’s advantage and most certainly ours. I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to re-learn this lesson?
The situation will be particularly dicey after the Obamites finish playing in the sandbox. I’d like to have some clue that whoever succeeds Barry has a modicum of competency in this area.
^this
and not to mention the fact that the president is the commander-in-chief (not the chief instigator of civil strife) so, theoretically at least, foreign policy should be at the front of the discussion
linking the economy’s dismal state as a huge breach in national security can easily be justified from this point of view but to do so would be to advocate for the constitution and i guess we cant have that now
seems to me the RINO’s running for office do not want to discuss foreign policy because they will remind people that the disaster of George Bush is what led to the rise of the Obamanation. I have not heard any criticize Bush for what he did to this country. I do not see any of them having a rational policy for fear of offending our enemies. Any attempt to discuss use of american might puts a candidate in single digits. Thanks Bush – for the demise of the USA.
“Any attempt to discuss use of american might puts a candidate in single digits.
Thanks Bush – for the demise of the USA.”
To be fair, I think, blame should also be laid at the feet of those Americans
who preferred a U.S. defeat to another Bush victory.
The list of malefactors is long: the hard left and its media outlets,
factions in State, factions in the Big Five, and so on.
The Bush administration’s first defeat was domestic.
Blame them for that defeat, or for not fighting back,
but blame, too, those who waged war against the Bush administration.
The lesson of Vietnam had not been forgotten.
A generation of American leftists figured out that their best hope for power
was actively to work to defeat their own country.
And so it continues….
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Very good comments here.
But…..
I’d like to defend Geo.Bush going into Afghanistan/Iraq by making the overall observation that Bush’s many critics here in the Blog-Thing (…I think this is a safe assumption…) did not sit anywhere near his desk, looking over his shoulder to kick the corner of that desk when he said such-and-such….and also to have to be the one making those decisions based upon what was passed up to him by his advisors.
The critics should exchange places with those sitting at the desks having literal day to day responsililty, 24/7, and before that, sit at the desks of those way down the line evaluating raw data still dusty from the field.
The next President-elect will have the same exact chain-of-digestion.
“““““““““
The worrisome thing is that we Americans are again snookered into voting for someone as grossly superficial and unqualified as this Obama character. How we allowed that to happen….and then be the aghast witnesses to that strange Nobel award mere days into the job…… should be studied for the next decade or two.
Unfortunately, we tend to throw our own to the wolves (“under the bus”) when it suits us, as long as they are not ideologically pure (and who is?) It was done with Nixon, now with W.
The justification for the Iraq war, from day 1, always appeared to me to be the fact that they clearly supported terrorism. I’ve seen the photo – it’s clearly visible from the air – of the plane they used to train hijackers. The only thing W did wrong, in my opinion, is not to make Iraq cancel the state fo war with ISrael. It is now a capital crime in Iraq to be nice to Israel, IIRC.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-what%E2%80%99s-young-person-supposed-do
David’s been marginally bullish on Japan, despite their demographics/debt ratios arguably being worse than some southern EU countries. I wonder what he thinks of this?
Japan is dying demographically, but it has enormous resources of talent and dedication. I argued that it would bounce back from the tsunami disaster (I guess that’s what “marginally bullish” means) but I don’t own any Japanese stocks. The yen is doing a levitation act that can’t last forever and I don’t want to be sitting under it when it falls.
David,
Who were asking who will run the world, China or India? DK about India, but China, yes:
“China has cleverly agreed to help the EU out of the pit it dug for itself…but with certain conditions.
They obviously want financial guarantees on their investment. What they also want is in essence a silent veto on criticism or opposition to China’s policies, like its opposition to sanctions on Iran, any disagreements with the US or China’s currency policy, which artificially undervalues the renminbi to support Chinese exports at the expense of western producers.
If they get that, China could be willing to throw substantial amounts into the EFSF, the EU’s bailout fund. Another possibility that’s being looked at is a new fund set up under China’s auspices in collaboration with the IMF.
French President Sarkozy is already prepared to take China’s terms. “Our independence would not be put into question by this,” he said in a television interview. “Why would we not accept that the Chinese had confidence in the eurozone and place a part of their surpluses in our funds or our banks? Would you rather they placed it with the US?””
China has popped its own bubble.
It’s possible to foul up by simply misdirecting investment: like empty cities and overpriced high speed rail.
China has managed to hide her fantastic leverage by using Special Investment Vehicles at the provincial level.
Meaning: her national books look a lot better than the whole.
It’s quite meaningful when the world’s largest miner of rare earths is pulling a full month’s production off the market.
Copper looks like the players have put it in action as a store of value — anything but US Dollar instruments.
—–
Hence, any Chinese funding will come at a stiff price.
Perhaps, but I have a feeling that they’re in better shape than the West and that they’ll protect their interests better despite their problems.
They’ll survive. Don’t think the West will.
Who say China WANTS to run the world? What would China do with the world if it had it? China wants secure sources of food, energy and raw materials; it wants access to all markets (on one-sided terms if it can rig things that way); it wants to buy into equity positions in attractive markets; it wants to sop up Western technology and clone it; and it wants to be the dominant player in its own back yard. And some Chinese want a blue-water navy and a first-rate military as a matter of pride. But China couldn’t replace America’s global role if it wanted to, and India is even farther away from the thought or the capability.
The choices are American hegemony or chaos.
David Goldman:
As much as I respect your opinion, it seems to me that China has
often opted for “chaos.” Consider the following examples:
1. They allow North Korea to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
2. They sold Scud-C’s throughout the Mid-East and, when they stopped, they
allows North Korea to sell Scud-C’s instead.
3. They are the main force behind the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Cases
in point: Pakistan, Libya, Syria vis North Korea.
I’m no China expert but it seems to me there are many in the Chinese security apparatus who are stuck in the Cold War, viewing the US and the West as the enemy
and what to do all they can to destabilize it.
It’s hard to see otherwise why they have been the major global force behind the
proliferation of ballistic missiles and nukes to developing countries.
Sorry for the typos in the above.
Hell, and people thought the ‘reset’ was a big deal because Milner bought in big into Silicon Valley, Mordashov bought some steel mills in Michigan/Oregon, and Kudrin got bailed out during Uncle Sam’s bailout of Fannie/Freddie. China’s has a hundred times as much leverage over the West, though this is not to deny that the Kremlins have shrewdly outmanuavered the anti-Russia lobby six ways from Sunday, including via the rapprochement with Israel (Stanislav Mishin of Mat Rodina claims the Russian Orthodox Church is one of the largest private landowners in Israel, an exagerration but one pointed at a particular audience) the neocons pretend doesn’t exist.
Re: “But China couldn’t replace America’s global role if it wanted to, and India is even farther away from the thought or the capability.
The choices are American hegemony or chaos.” Spengler, with due respects, I disagree. Believe me, the last thing I want to see is America replaced by China as global hegemon, but hope – as you may have heard – makes a fine breakfast, but a poor supper. The record of history is clear – nations and empires rise and fall. Why should America be exempt from the laws of history and reality? Are we that special, that exceptional?
Perhaps the foremost authority sounding the alarm on this score, at least among professional historians, is Dr. Niall Ferguson, who speaks regularly on the dangers of sovereign debt to our position in the world. In a nutshell, he sees us going the way of the British Empire, which went from global dominance to insolvency and irrelevence in a few decades, largely from imperial overreach and bankrupting itself (in fairness to England, they at least did it in a good cause, winning WWII). In short, Ferguson argues that our dominance isn’t preordained. Unless we can come up with some innovative solutions to our gigantic debt problem, Ferguson sees us headed towards the same fate as his native England.