The arrogant empire

[Othin 0]

The Arrogant Empire

Pretty well written article, I'm curious to see everyones thoughts on it.

I think it raises a few interesting questions.

Will the rest of world (read Europe) be happy with a more diplomatically engaged United States? That is to say that we make no cuts in our defense budgets, military manpower, or military R&D. Is the issue just the brash (anti)diplomacy of the current administration, or is it the overwhelming force of the military?

Can the wounds caused by this administration be healed? Americans have a short memory but will everyone scorned as of late?

[Guest]

Interesting article, I didn't really care for much of its conclusions at first, but after fully reading it I find it to be an interesting analysis. I've picked out some highlights that I thought were interesting.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

It is true that the United States has some allies in its efforts to topple Saddam. It is also true that some of the governments opposing action in Iraq do so not for love of peace and international harmony but for more cynical reasons. France and Russia have a long history of trying to weaken the containment of Iraq to ensure that they can have good trading relations with it. France, after all, helped Saddam Hussein build a nuclear reactor that was obviously a launching pad for a weapons program. (Why would the world’s second largest oil producer need a nuclear power plant?) And France’s Gaullist tendencies are, of course, simply its own version of unilateralism. But how to explain that the vast majority of the world, with little to gain from it, is in the Franco-Russian camp?

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Some make the argument that Europeans are now pacifists, living in a “postmodern paradise,†shielded from threats and unable to imagine the need for military action.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Countries with immense military and economic might arouse fear and suspicion, and soon others coalesce against them. It happened to the Hapsburg Empire in the 17th century, France in the late 18th and early 19th century, Germany twice in the early 20th century, and the Soviet Union in the latter half of the 20th century. At this point, most Americans will surely protest: “But we’re different!†Americans—this writer included—think of themselves as a nation that has never sought to occupy others, and that through the years has been a progressive and liberating force. But historians tell us that all dominant powers thought they were special. Their very success confirmed for them that they were blessed. But as they became ever more powerful, the world saw them differently. The English satirist John Dryden described this phenomenon in a poem set during the Biblical King David’s reign. “When the chosen people grew too strong,†he wrote, “The rightful cause at length became the wrong.â€

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But there lies a deep historical fallacy in the view that “they hate us because we are strong.†After all, U.S. supremacy is hardly a recent phenomenon. America has been the leading world power for almost a century now. By 1900 the United States was the richest country in the world. By 1919 it had decisively intervened to help win the largest war in history. By 1945 it had led the Allies to victory in World War II. For 10 years thereafter America accounted for 50 percent of world GDP, a much larger share than it holds today.

       Yet for five decades after World War II, there was no general rush to gang up against the United States. Instead countries joined with Washington to confront the Soviet Union, a much poorer country (at best comprising 12 percent of world GDP, or a quarter the size of the American economy). What explains this? How—until now—did America buck the biggest trend in international history?

       To answer this question, go back to 1945. When America had the world at its feet, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman chose not to create an American imperium, but to build a world of alliances and multilateral institutions. They formed the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system of economic cooperation and dozens of other international organizations. America helped get the rest of the world back on its feet by pumping out vast amounts of aid and private investment. The centerpiece of this effort, the Marshall Plan, amounted to $120 billion in today’s dollars.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In its first year the administration withdrew from five international treaties—and did so as brusquely as it could. It reneged on virtually every diplomatic effort that the Clinton administration had engaged in, from North Korea to the Middle East, often overturning public statements from Colin Powell supporting these efforts. It developed a language and diplomatic style that seemed calculated to offend the world. (President Bush has placed a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. TR’s most famous words of advice are worth recalling: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.â€) Key figures in the administration rarely traveled, foreign visitors were treated to perfunctory office visits, and state dinners were unheard of. On an annual basis, George W. Bush has visited fewer foreign countries than any president in 40 years. Still, he does better than Dick Cheney, who has been abroad only once since becoming vice president.

       September 11 only added a new layer of assertiveness to Bush’s foreign policy. Understandably shocked and searching for responses, the administration decided that it needed total freedom of action. When NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked the self-defense clause and offered America carte-blanche assistance, the administration essentially ignored it. It similarly marginalized NATO in the Afghan war. NATO has its limitations, which were powerfully revealed during the Kosovo campaign, but the signal this sent to our closest allies was that America didn’t need them. Thus as seen by the rest of the world, 9-11 had a distressingly paradoxical effect. It produced a mobilization of American power and yet a narrowing of American interests. Suddenly, Washington was more powerful and determined to act. But it would act only for its own core security and even pre-emptively when it needed to.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">President Bush’s favorite verb is “expect.†He announces peremptorily that he “expects†the Palestinians to dump Yasir Arafat, “expects†countries to be with him or against him, “expects†Turkey to cooperate. It is all part of the administration’s basic approach toward foreign policy, which is best described by the phrase used for its war plan—â€shock and awe.†The notion is that the United States needs to intimidate countries with its power and assertiveness, always threatening, always denouncing, never showing weakness. Donald Rumsfeld often quotes a line from Al Capone: “You will get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.â€

       But should the guiding philosophy of the world’s leading democracy really be the tough talk of a Chicago mobster? In terms of effectiveness, this strategy has been a disaster. It has alienated friends and delighted enemies.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Bush administration’s swagger has generated international opposition and active measures to thwart its will. Though countries like France and Russia cannot become great-power competitors simply because they want to—they need economic and military strength—they can use what influence they have to disrupt American policy, as they are doing over Iraq. In fact, the less responsibility we give them, the more freedom smaller powers have to make American goals difficult to achieve.

       In many cases the United States simply can’t “go it alone.†The current crises over North Korea, Iran’s nuclear program and the leakage of fissile materials from Russia are all good examples. And while the United States can act largely by itself in certain special circumstances, such as Iraq, the fewer allies, bases and air rights it has, the higher the costs will be in American lives and treasure. And those costs will become unbearable if the United States has to both wage war and pay for postwar reconstruction on its own.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The war on terror has given the United States a core security interest in the stability of societies. Failed states can become terrorist havens. That means we must focus attention and expenditures on nation-building. For all its flaws, the United Nations is doing on-the-ground work to create stable societies in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Cambodia and Mozambique—and for the most part, it’s succeeding. The European Union and Japan pay most of these bills. Were Washington to move to an entirely ad hoc approach, why would the rest of the world agree to clean up its messes?

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The diplomatic fiasco over Turkey is an excellent example. For well over a year now it has been obvious to anyone watching that the Turkish people were deeply opposed to a war in Iraq. Yet the administration assumed that it could bully or bribe Turkey into giving it basing rights. But Turkey over the last year has become more democratic. The military is less willing to overrule politicians. The new ruling party, AK, is more open to internal debate than Turkey’s other parties. It allowed its members to vote freely on the motion to allow America basing rights, only to have it defeated. Since more than 90 percent of the Turks oppose giving America basing rights, this should not have been surprising.

<span id='postcolor'>

[John C Flett 0]

Good article. I've not read it all yet ( too little time before work ) but I agree with a lot.

I'm British, I don't consider myself anti-american but I am strongly opposed to this war and to the actions of Bush and Blair and, yes, arrogance would seem to be a good word for their behaviour.

I don't believe America is evil but it will make many enemies is it continues on its current course. After 9/11 it looked like the US might be waking up to the way it was viewed outside of its own shores and it might become less isolationist. Instead Bush seems to have driven the opposite course and thats not going to help anybody, American or otherwise.

But how do the Americans here feel?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Fareed Zakaria is one of my favorite journalists- intelligent, insightful, and not caught up in the usual BS that alot of American journalists are obsessed with. Not to mention he provides some of the best analysis of the Arab world that you can find in Western media.

[Oligo 1]

I liked that article a lot. The writer obviously has a lot of skill, since he manages to deliver his message without much provocation.

[Winters 1]

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (John C Flett @ Mar. 17 2003,088)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good article. I've not read it all yet ( too little time before work ) but I agree with a lot.

I'm British, I don't consider myself anti-american but I am strongly opposed to this war and to the actions of Bush and Blair and, yes, arrogance would seem to be a good word for their behaviour.

I don't believe America is evil but it will make many enemies is it continues on its current course. After 9/11 it looked like the US might be waking up to the way it was viewed outside of its own shores and it might become less isolationist. Instead Bush seems to have driven the opposite course and thats not going to help anybody, American or otherwise.

But how do the Americans here feel?<span id='postcolor'>

Bush is using 9/11 as a reason to start this war. he has repeatedly linked Saddam Hussien to 9/11 and his act is getting old. Everytime i see him on TV i wanna smack that "i am better than you, you don't know shit" smirk right off of his face.

Recently i saw a poll that said 42% of americans are against the war outright. and that number jumps to 69% right here in New York City (and we were the ones who bore the brunt of the attack)

I do not like Saddam and i do think he needs to go but i don't like the way my government is going about it. True he has had 10 years to disarm but we should have done it 10 years ago and not let him weasel his way out of the war by saying "i will comply" (thank you very much George Wuss Sr.)

One thing i would like to say is that the American Government is NOT the American People. Just because a government may be screwed up does not mean the citizens are, So you can hate my government but just don't hate me because i was born and live here. Hell i didnt even vote for him.

How much longer until 2004?

[Winters 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 17 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Arrogant Empire

Pretty well written article, I'm curious to see everyones thoughts on it.

I think it raises a few interesting questions.

Will the rest of world (read Europe) be happy with a more diplomatically engaged United States?  That is to say that we make no cuts in our defense budgets, military manpower, or military R&D.  Is the issue just the brash (anti)diplomacy of the current administration, or is it the overwhelming force of the military?

Can the wounds caused by this administration be healed?  Americans have a short memory but will everyone scorned as of late?<span id='postcolor'>

I do NOT have a short memory nor do most Americans.

[Longinius 1]

"One thing i would like to say is that the American Government is NOT the American People. Just because a government may be screwed up does not mean the citizens are, So you can hate my government but just don't hate me because i was born and live here. Hell i didnt even vote for him."

I dont think anyone here hate Americans. Most of us probably have good friends or maybe family in America. I for one actually like most Americans I have met. But as for the American government, well, lets just say I wouldnt invite them to stay for a cup of coffee anytime soon.

[Winters 1]

Me neither, but i guess you already figured that out.  

Also, i didnt mean to imply that people here on the forum hate americans. I just meant to make a distinction between govt. and civ.

[Othin 0]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 17 2003,077)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 17 2003,01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Arrogant Empire

Pretty well written article, I'm curious to see everyones thoughts on it.

I think it raises a few interesting questions.

Will the rest of world (read Europe) be happy with a more diplomatically engaged United States?  That is to say that we make no cuts in our defense budgets, military manpower, or military R&D.  Is the issue just the brash (anti)diplomacy of the current administration, or is it the overwhelming force of the military?

Can the wounds caused by this administration be healed?  Americans have a short memory but will everyone scorned as of late?<span id='postcolor'>

I do NOT have a short memory nor do most Americans.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that.  The  U.S. has a historical tendancy of forgetting both the good and bad that has happened.  

Does the United States still treat Japan or Germany as enemies of the state?  No, Japan is one of our closest allies these days.  

On the other side of the coin (Euro?) we seem to be forgetting that we stood shoulder to shoulder with France in the past.

My point was that we in the past haven't held a grudge.  Will Europeans do the same?

EDIT: Forgot to add that I'm also an American.

[John C Flett 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One thing i would like to say is that the American Government is NOT the American People. Just because a government may be screwed up does not mean the citizens are, So you can hate my government but just don't hate me because i was born and live here. Hell i didnt even vote for him<span id='postcolor'>

Very true. Infact, I believe firmly that Al Gore won the election and Bush stole it in a coup so I have a great deal of pity for you guys having to live under him and having your country's reputation tarnished by him. Perhaps we might ask the UN to help oust Bush and restore the American people their rightful leader.

Of course we have our own problems in the shape of Tony Blair. A man who, by the current numbers, has become the new leader of the Tory party. Bush was raised in a culture which offered very limited horizons. Thats in part an unavoidable fact of US geography. Blair has no such excuse and he will still drag us down a dangerous path. Our special relationship with the US is a good thing and I wouldn't want to end it, but we have neighbours a lot closer to home we should be talking to also.

[Winters 1]

2004 is coming and then we can all sing "Farewell to the Thief" unless he steals another election *groans

[Warin 0]

Sadly, unless the Dems come up with some better candidates, Bush could well win for lack of someone viable to vote for!

Unless of course US casualties run very high, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are illed, and it turns out there arent any chemical weaopons in Iraq. Then the Dems could run a lumpof coal and it would win.

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Mar. 18 2003,00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and it turns out there arent any chemical weaopons in Iraq.  <span id='postcolor'>

Oh I'm pretty sure some WMD's will turn up in Iraq when the US invades, just like the "Cuban" B-26's that turned up and began attacking attacking the Castro regime before the Bay of Pigs took place, proving that some parts of Cuba's military were revolting against Castro

"The photograph at left shows a crashed B-26; it is probably one of the CIA-sponsored invaders (photo source). See another photo of the same aircraft here.

"FAR" in both photos represents the Spanish phrase Fuerza Aerea Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Air Force). FAR was the Cuban Air Force; the CIA chose markings for the invading aircraft to match Cuban FAR aircraft so that Castro's forces would believe its own aircraft had turned against Castro and were supporting the invasion."

link

[110 0]

Bush is just doing what the anti-semitic, anti-US United Nazi's did'nt want to do. what good are UN resolutions anyway? What do terms of surrender mean to the UN?

Appeasement does not work. Only the threat of force and the will to use will stay the killers hand.

Im not happy with the campaign finance reform bill, nor the Patriot act as an intrusion to privacy. So i cant say i support Bush on all matters. But watching all the anti-freedom marxist hippies come out of their closet only helped make my decision for me in supporting the war.

I cant wait to vote for the lesser of two evil come 2004. And i know Hillery Clinton wont recieve a vote from me.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush is just doing what the anti-semitic, anti-US United Nazi's did'nt want to do.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cant wait to vote for the lesser of two evil come 2004.<span id='postcolor'>

Some people should be restricted from voting when I read the abovce written things. But at least you showed us your spirit. Makes me wonder if there are any populated caves where stoneage mentals still live in.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (110 @ Mar. 19 2003,11:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush is just doing what the anti-semitic, anti-US United Nazi's did'nt want to do. what good are UN resolutions anyway? What do terms of surrender mean to the UN?

Appeasement does not work. Only the threat of force and the will to use will stay the killers hand.

Im not happy with the campaign finance reform bill, nor the Patriot act as an intrusion to privacy. So i cant say i support Bush on all matters. But watching all the anti-freedom marxist hippies come out of their closet only helped make my decision for me in supporting the war.

I cant wait to vote for the lesser of two evil come 2004. And i know Hillery Clinton wont recieve a vote from me. <span id='postcolor'>

Great reason to support a war> not liking the opposition. You realy thought the issue through eh? dont waste forum space

[John C Flett 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">watching all the anti-freedom marxist hippies come out of their closet <span id='postcolor'>

Well, I've always considered myself a PRO-freedom hippy. And I was never in the closet about it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anti-semitic, anti-US United Nazi's<span id='postcolor'>. So opposing a dishonest war and needless civilian death is anti American and anti semitic ( Israeli )? I think that says something pretty disturbing about what you believe the US and Israel represent in the world.

I'm afraid I'll keep opposing the Bush regime's foreign policy and the Israeli governments ethnic cleansing. If you think that makes me anti-US / anti-semitic I'd have to say your not actually listening to the arguement.

Violence only begets violence and both these governments are making the world a more dangerous place. I pity all those who will suffer needlessly as a result and strangely I believe that will also include their own people.

Anyway this was a thread about US foreign relations as I understood it so lets quite mudslinging and see if we can show a little more of the intelligence of the original author.

[hellfish6 7]

Very good article. And the author is right - the US is acting like a giant arrogant power.

Sure, we've got the best economy and best military in the world, but do we really need to go around acting like we do? Do we really need to hoard all of our wealth? For the cost of a handful of planes that we have flying arounf Kuwait and Saudi Arabia right now, we'd be able to feed most of the world, clothe most of the world and cure many of the diseases that are running rampant. But we don't.

I think that if we did, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism. Why do we continue to give people a reason to hate us? Is it putting us in a better position? Are we better off with 2 billion muslims hating us? Are we better off keeping most of Africa living in grass huts with skeletal children?

If you take the bleakest perspective of America - that we're fighting in Iraq (which we will be by the end of the week) for the oil, that we're basically creating the 51st state, that America's best interests lie solely with it corporations, doesn't it make sense to make new markets? Wouldn't America be in a better position if we stabilized so much of the world that they could afford to buy our goods and services? So why don't we do it?

It seems to me that much of the US policy, foreign and domestic, is ultimately about how many cars or how big of a house GWB and Cheney will have once they are out of office. I think this explains a lot of the short-sightedness of our government at the moment.

I remember that the only time I ever liked GWB was in the days after Sept 11. When the world offered it's support and even Libya was offering any assistance that they could. But, like this article states, we told everyone to "fuck off". And since then, we've proceeded to alienate half of the world. So that Bush will be able to afford the lawyers he'll need when his daughter starts driving drunk again. Or gets busted with cocaine.

And the absolute worst thing about all of this is that Bush will probably get reelected. Why? Because the democrats are castrated. There is not one recognizeable household name amongst all of them. They are weak and have already given Bush far more than he needs to run the war on terror. Don't forget that a democratic Congress gave Bush his mandate to blow the hell out of anyone he wants to.

I've never been opposed to a war or the American government in my life. I actually consider myself a bit of a hawk. I think we were right to go into Afghanistan and I'd support us blowing the hell out of North Korea. I don't support this new Iraqi war, though. I've actually caught myself thinking "I hope we have a lot of casualities so that Bush won't get reelected." How horrible is that? I was in the Army, in Kuwait, and here I am wishing, however briefly, that my friends get killed so that Bush won't get reelected? I hate that man for creating such a mindset in me.

I hate that man because I love the middle east and now I'll probably never get to go there again.

I hate that man because now whenever I travel outside of the US, I'll have to be held accountable for my country's evil actions.

I hate that man because I am no longer proud of my government.

[Winters 1]

Hellfish,

I am sure that other vets of '91 feel the same way we do.

[Guest]

Good post Hellfish. Do you know what's really sad? You could have had all the international support you wanted had Bush acted with a bit of consideration instead of trying to bully the world into doing what he wanted. USA is the world's only superpower (or hyperpower if you wish) but that's not enough if everybody gangs up on you. I hope that mr. Wolfowitz has learned a lesson on the troubles of asipring to total world domination.

Turkey is an excellent example. The Bush administration assumed that they could bribe and bully them into complying. It failed and because of that no real northern front is possible. That will prolong the war and cost the lives of US servicemen. While I understand why the Bush administration assumed that pressuring Turkey would work, I don't know what they were thinking when they were trying to bully Russia into following. Russians have never, never responded well to threats so the outcome was given. It would have not worked during Jeltsin's rule and certainly not under Putin's.

So now after these self-inflicted failures, what do they do? Blame France! Well, that's certainly a good continuation of the spirit of cooperation that has been evident since Bush started to get an interest in foregin policy.

USA had every possible support after September 11th. Everybody gave you unconditional support and sympathy. Less then two years after that Bush has squandered all of it. While you might say "so what? we'll just do it alone" you have to realize that it means that you will have to pay for the war all by yourself and that the absence of foregin support translates into casualties of your servicemen. Think about that before you give Bush your unconditional love and support.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

When you say pay for it, all that money doesnt leave the US does it?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Mmmm if id had time i would have posted a while ago what Denoir has just said

Domestic politics is primarily an issue for americans (even if it affects the rest of the world)

Having said that Bush is not serving America internationally very well that is clear(to say the least).

In fact Bushs behaviour could be interpreted as anti-american (if not intentionally)

Unfortunatly a lot of what Hellfish6 has said is true.

I fear it will indeed not be as pleasant for americans to travel abroad in the present climate- i have already witnessed a little bit of 'grilling' of americans over Bush (which could easily enforce feeling of american isolation or at worst hostility to other countries)