A bunch of us went to see the movie “Fog of War” on Friday night. This is a very interesting documentary by a local director consisting almost entirely of an interview with Robert S. McNamara who was Secretary of Defense during the first half of the U.S. war in Vietnam and subsequently president of the World Bank. The film concentrates on McNamara’s efforts in bombing Japan and Germany during World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam War.
The first depressing take-away from the movie is that our intelligence efforts are almost worthless. The CIA assured JFK that the Russians did not have nuclear warheads in Cuba at the time of the crisis. The missiles were in place and the warheads on their way. In fact it seems that the warheads were already in Cuba at the time of the dispute. Not only that but Fidel Castro met McNamara face-to-face in the 1990s and said that he’d recommended to the Russians that they use them even though he knew that Cuba would be destroyed and all of its citizens killed. (N.B.: Personal ownership of a third-world country is a beautiful thing!)
The second conclusion from watching the film is that the U.S. has never won the hearts and minds of foreigners or even succeeded in changing foreigners’ minds. We won WWII by using our industrial power to destroy the capacity of the Japanese and Germans to carry out their objectives, not by convincing the Japanese or the Germans of anything or changing their minds or objectives.
>The second conclusion from watching the film is that the U.S. has never won the hearts and minds of foreigners or even succeeded in changing foreigners’ minds
Wars aren’t about changing people’s minds. They are about killing as many people as possible and causing as much damage as possible to the other side until they give up.
Note to Dare Obasanjo: Did you see the movie? If not, check out the reasons why the US went to war in Vietnam (or the purported reasons for the Iraq Invasion); you will see that this is not the only reason nations go to war.
But I agree with Philip about intelligence. My father told me a lot of stories about his Airforce Intelligence experience growing up. What I took away from the movie was how supposedly intelligent McNamara was / is, and yet in hindsight how really short-sighted, how easily influenced by charismatic people around him and how dead wrong he was about a lot of things. Some of them he admits to, some of them he can’t. The real kicker for me was when he went to Vietnam to meet his retired counterpart only to find out that the whole reason the US was fighting against the Vietnamese was off by 1000 miles. It really undermined my hope in the human race, especially now when the stakes are so much higher.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but it’s on my must-see list since this was my generations war.
Having read a LOT of history, I don’t think McNamara (or Dubya for that matter unfortunately) was particularly unusual… the folks at the top believe what they want to believe & the palace courtiers tell Da Man what he wants to hear… this unfortunately is NOT news. These guys can’t get into the field to see what’s really going on & by the time “facts” filter up to them, said facts are well spun to suit dozens of agendas.
Just because we choose to delude ourselves with fancy TV shows showing instant access to timely & accurate satellite “intelligence” (gag, choke, sputter) is not to say there is any foundation in fact about such pipe dreams.
Okay, I haven’t seen the movie, and I probably won’t until it gets picked up by the history channel or pbs. However I have read some information regarding Mcnamara and ‘streamlining’ the military in regards to the development of the m-16: http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/M16part2.html
Pretty interesting stuff, and more than a few servicemen angry (or dead) due to modern business practices being used in military procurement.
In regards to point 1. If there was the ability to launch nukes from Cuba, then there is a lot of credence given to the position from the Soviets that their nukes were in fact Defensive weapons and that nukes on Cuba only existed because we had nukes in Turkey and the Soviets needed a Defensive strike capability close to the US border…
As far as point 2 goes, War IS intended to destroy the capacity of agressor countries to carry out there objectives. What makes for continues peace are the efforts that are carried out after the war. In the case of WWII, the Marshall Plan and MacArthur’s efforts in Japan (creating a constitutional democracy) were the best efforts put forward by the Allies (not just the US) to promote continued peace. It may even be possible to find European and Japanese citizens of that era who give the US some credit in the effort.
In this time, it is more the Idea of America (rather than its military/political efforts) that influence people all over the world. From every Jazz musician in Prague to each child in India that believes (for at least a short time) that Star Trek is real there is a strong influence given that the US is a really special place and that they may want to make their own country more like it. Maybe it is just propaganda, but its influence may just “win the hearts and minds” of the world more than any brutal showing of military force.
Well winning people over is a difficult thing and is a question of give and take. I find that US going to war is more about the “US is doing the right thing for the world”(and a little bit for the elections too), than winning over people or hearts….
The problem is not the intelligence itself, it’s the political use of the intelligence.
McNamara recounts in his book “In Retrospect” how one of the top election campaign issues of 1960 was the “Missile Gap”. Kennedy had charged during the campaign that President Eisenhower had neglected to build up the US nuclear missile arsenal, and that the Russians had consequently achieved numerical superiority. McNamara, as the incoming Secretary of Defence, made it a priority to get to the bottom of the issue; three weeks later he held a press conference to announce that he had determined that if there was a gap, it was in the US’s favor.
The result was a huge embarrassment for Kennedy; McNamara offered to resign, but Kennedy forgave him; the lesson he learned was not to be so “stupid” again. Like treating intelligence as something non-political.
Ofcourse you don’t change people’s hearts and minds by carpet bombing their cities. All they’ll want is revenge, even though their country started the whole thing.
Unfortunately, that is a lesson lost. Just look at the Palastinians and Israel. No matter how wrong Israel is to steal land (for “settlements”) from the Palistinians, blowing up busses in Tel Aviv is only going to want many Israellis to crack down on these “terrorists” and therby perpetuating the cycle of violence.
Baz sez : –
> Ofcourse you don’t change people’s hearts and minds by carpet bombing their cities. All they’ll want is revenge, even though their country started the whole thing.
Yep, that’s why there have been German terrorist attacks on the US & the USSR endlessly since 1945. It’s rubbish, and it takes a second to verify. The hearts & minds of Germany & Japan *were* won over after WWII.
Matthew –
re: “Missle Gap”
I’ll have to pull generational rank here & roll back to the “bomber gap.”
I don’t know precisely when this started, but at some point (before missles) the Ruskies were making a big May Day/Kremlin show of “darkening the skies with intercontinental bombers.” Very impressive stuff. (I’m still impressed with the memory of being buzzed by a B-58 Hustler at an air show).
Since putting agents on the ground in Russia is always a problem (I believe that one connotation of the Russian word for “foreigner” is spy), we did have observers on rooftops spotting these fleets of Russian bombers. Someone was sharp enough to ask the question… “Gee… I wonder why there aren’t any numbers on those planes?”
Ike subsequently authorized the U2 effort to determine the substance (or lack thereof) of the Russian bomber fleet. While it’s entirely feasible to completely hide the factories that make airplanes, it’s 100% impossible to hide 15,000′ runways & hundreds/thousands of bombers sitting on air base curtains.
Lo & behold, the U2 found runways… with no many planes on them.
But Ike was between a rock & a hard place… admit he had proof (illegally obtained via U2 reconnaissance flights) or keep his mouth shut. While the AMERICAN industrial lobby was clammoring to gear up with huge new weapons plans (great for jobs, political clout, pork barrels, etc.).
Sooooo…. by a show of hands in the audience… who knows the meaning of “Potempkin village”?
Dave says:
>The hearts & minds of Germany & Japan *were* won over after WWII
Yes, you said it, _after_ WWII, not during. While the US and British were carpet bombing the germans, instead of saying enough is enough they chose to send any boy with a 2 digit age of to the front. In Japan, when the US got closer, civilians would rather throw theirselves off a cliff than be taken by the “evil” US soldiers.
After the war, those countries were broken and didn’t have any fight left in them. Compare that to Iraq and you could say that it was overrun too quick, so instead of smart weapons and avoiding civilian areas, maybe the US should go back to carpet bombing? A few million Iraqi dead might have won their hearts and minds as well…
And while you were making your list: there have been no terrorist attacks on the US by the Vietnamese, the country that I presume much of the film was about. Does that mean the US did succeed in capturing the hearts and minds of that population?
On the Hearts & Minds issue, it it interesting that the Vietnamese population today, much like what we hear of the Iranian people (as opposed to the mullahs) are very pro American. Ditto the Poles today. So the real way to win Hearts & Minds is to let the population stew under a totaltarian regime for a generation or so while continuing to do what we do best: make cool music, movies and techno-geek stuff.
A Modest Proposal:
Of course a good demonstration of pure power is occasionally neccessary, but under My Regime(tm) it would be applied precisely and lethally as an occasional demo. Like, for example, Let’s Bash Mecca Day. ( I could let Phil pick targets). I would just vaporize shit once in awhile and airlift cool shit to the population the rest of the time.
There seems to be confusion in the comments on “winning the hearts and minds.” That confusion is the failure to distinguish between the government of a nation and the people of the nation. The U. S. government defeated the governments of Germany and Japan. This had little to do with the characteristics of the people involved, since it was done by overwhelming industrial power, and has no relation to why American culture was accepted. American society was open, affluent, relatively forgiving, creative and modern compared to Germany and Japan. And it was possible for the U. S. government to be somewhat generous once the war was won. The U. S. government hadn’t swallowed these characteristics (yet) in the attempt to reach objective goals set by military and industrial elites. As America ages, we not only exhaust our resources, needing to get them from other places, but the political system also evolves, moving from an age of informality and common goals toward a organization intended to concentrate wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands
You guys aren’t reading what Philip said! He said “We won WWII by using our industrial power […] not by convincing the Japanese or the Germans of anything or changing their minds or objectives.”
All the hearts and minds changes came after the wars. How ever many pamflets they airdropped or radio broadcasts they did or (in Vietnam) food and medical aid they provided, the people never stopped backing their own goverment or changed their way of thinking about the US. Carpet bombing cities was also designed to change the people’s thinking into “this isn’t worth it, what has our goverment gotten us into?” Instead, they become more supportive of their goverments, to stop this “terror” unleashed upon them. Remember that without these bombardments, life would have been pretty normal, except that some men were away from home, with a bunch of them getting killed.
And war works like a Nigerian 411 scam: after you put in 50.000 dead, are you going to say, we’ve tried and failed, let’s just give up? Nope, doesn’t work that way; the more casualties, the stronger the desire to end it by winning, to get back at these bastards that killed your people, even when your country was the one that started it all.
So yes, these people became pro American, or rather became pro American _again_, as before the war, they already looked up to American culture and freedom. But the US never won a war because of it. You just can’t love the people that are trying to kill you or your friends and family.
The Japanese were still very capable of carrying out their objectives at the end of the war. Their objectives had changed from the start of the war though, now they had changed from “take over the world” to “don’t let them take our country alive”. In the end the minds of the Japanese were changed very drastically. They realized that we had the capability to completely annihilate them and they changed their hearts and minds.
War is about changing the hearts and minds of the other guy. It’s about making them give up the will to fight; Whether that’s accomplished using propaganda, which hardly ever works on a mass scale, or by putting a bullet or bomb in enough of their people is beside the point.
In a civilized world, reasonnable nations go to war when they have no choice. Economic pressure and propaganda are more efficient (less ressource, including men, consumming) weapons to get what one wants.
Make a quick survey of the current wars on the planet. Most of the war (civil or not) are lead by poor, chaotic countries (haiti anyone ?) and big undemocratic government (china, russia) and… the USA.
It’s sad that nobody consider the ethical question of war nowadays (mainly “what worth killing/dying?”) but it’s not the main point. for a rich country, going to war is unreasonnable, the sign of an emotive and therefore biased view of the world.
On a side note, the vietnam war was lost by the USA because of their inferior propaganda (they had superior firepower).
On the inteligence part, it’s true that a despised country have weaker intel than another with a better image. Intel at its most basic level is about people. For example, in south america, many criminals will kill american people but not other caucasians (they will only rob them). Why ? Because they hate them for historic reasons. Imagine being an american spy in those countries…much much harder than being a spanish one.
Since it was U.S. intelligence that found the missiles in Cuba in the first place, I’m not sure how that merits being called “almost worthless”. In any case, the public only learns of intelligence successes or failures when they make the press. I.e., almost never.
And, as far as I know, WW2 was not about getting Nazis and fascists to change their minds. It was about defeating and eliminating them. Changing someone’s mind is nice, but stopping them from killing you takes precedence.
Lionel,
The Vietnam war was lost because MacNamara was bad at math.
1 soldier for every 1 of theirs = too many of our dead soldiers.
Scott: McNamara was brilliant at math. You, on the other hand, are off by a factor of about 20.
JunkSTOP said:
” […] I don’t think McNamara […] was particularly unusual… the folks at the top believe what they want to believe & the palace courtiers tell Da Man what he wants to hear… this unfortunately is NOT news. These guys can’t get into the field to see what’s really going on & by the time ‘facts’ filter up to them, said facts are well spun to suit dozens of agendas.”
similarly, Matthew echoed:
“The problem is not the intelligence itself, it’s the political use of the intelligence.”
This is definitely what I took away from studying McNamara and Vietnam as a whole. _In Retrospect_ is an interesting look, as is “Fog of War”. This willingness to be both informed directly by knowledgeable people in the field and yet advise superiors of the exact opposite is expounded upon to great effect by Daniel Ellsberg in _Secrets_ , his memoir on the Pentagon Papers, as well as in the Pentagon Papers themselves, which are a simply *astounding* read.
Not to say that there isn’t erroneous and worthless intelligence, but more to point out that even when the intelligence couldn’t be better, it hardly matters.
enloop, finding those missiles, or rather the US reaction to that finding has brought us closer to nuclear war than anything else in the past. (that we know of anyway)
JFK, that can-do-no-harm great president, as history seems to remember him, was ready to go to war over the Russians doing the same thing as the US was doing in Europe. If they had told the Russians they knew and left it at that, the status quo would have been maintained and we could all sleep well at night.
Luckily, the russian leadership recognized the insanity of JFK and his advisors and brokered a deal where the US would remove the Turkey missiles in exchange for the russians removing theirs from Cuba. The sweet thing was that other US nuclear sites in Europe were untouched and that Russia would not tell the world it had forced the US to remove it’s missiles, so the US could claim victory.
Now who is the bad guy?
Bas, that’s bunk. You’re assuming moral parity between U.S. actions and Russian actions. I don’t. U.S. actions in the Cold War were justified in response to Soviet aggression. The Soviet Union, like all nondemocratic regimes, did not deserve to exist.
Sometimes people need to remember that respect for other beliefs doesn’t mean removing your backbone or your brain.
whoops, that was supposed to be 1 of ours for every 10 of theirs. I think that’s the original estimate Westmoreland gave him.
Seriously, enloop, what agression? The Soviets were as afraid of you as you were afraid of them. The US had nukes first, remember? If someone shouts at you that you are evil and have no right to exists and they have weapons that powerfull, wouldn’t you want to have some of them as well to defend yourself?
I am not defending internal Soviet policy at all, it was disgusting and criminal and the purpetrators should by hung by their balls and burn in hell.
But that doesn’t mean that when it comes to foreign policy, your country was any better than the Soviets or made the world a safer place.
Soviet agression, Bas? How about Eastern Europe, for starters? You seem to be reading a history book that says there was no need for NATO. In retrospect, most Americans would rather have spent all that money on ourselves rather than spend 50 years protecting an ungrateful and clueless Europe. Maybe we should have returned to isolationism.
As for nukes, well, it is the purpose you intend to put weapons to that counts, not who had them first.
Equating U.S. Cold War policy to Soviet policy is an act of moral distortion. The Soviet Union was, in fact, an evil state and had no right to exist. The same can, and ought to be, said about any nondemocratic regime. Your assertion that Soviet expansion and aggression was in response to U.S. defense policy is demonstrably bogus. The Soviets were the aggressors and their regime threatened the existence and spread of democracy. If saying so frightened them, well, too bad.
enloop: would isolatism have spared Iran, Chile, Afghanistan, and many others from the dictatorships that you bestowed on them during the cold war (and which had no right to exist as you might say)? If so then bring it on!
Chris, those governments were intended to be allies in the battle against the Soviets. Last I looked, the Soviet Union was gone.
Are you thinking, by chance, that my earlier statements mean I agree with everything the U.S. did in the Cold War? Why would you think that? Those governments were a means to an end. So was World War Two. In both cases, people committed acts that, at a persoanl level, were morally repugnant, but were necessary to ensure a better world. Only the very selfish protect their own moral purity at the cost of damaging their fellows.
“The U.S. has never won the hearts and minds of foreigners….”
Not actually true; consider West Germany after World War II. Of course the US was helped considerably by the brutality of the Red Army in East Germany — the Red Army raped something like two million German women. See John Lewis Gaddis, “On Moral Equivalency and Cold War History.”
For a discussion of occupied Japan, see John Dower, “War Without Mercy.”
For a discussion of the Philippines (as well as unsuccessful attempts at reform in Nationalist China and in Vietnam), see Douglas Macdonald, “Adventures in Chaos.”
To back up enloop, here’s a quote from historian Jerald Combs regarding Soviet military capabilities:
“Soviet mobilization in 1948 and afterward did indeed provide the capability of an attack on Western Europe. Nikita Khrushchev admitted in his famous speech of 1960 that the Soviet armed forces (and therefore presumably the army as well) nearly doubled between 1948 and 1955. Western intelligence certainly detected a growth in the Soviet army in Eastern Europe and the Western zones of the Soviet Union during that time. In 1948, three of the four mechanized Soviet armies stationed in Eastern Europe were cadred at about 1/3 of their TO/E manpower (but 100% of their armament, including tanks). By May 1949 all of those divisions were at 70% of their manpower, a level at which they could either go into combat immediately at this reduced strength or be quickly brought up to full strength by mobilization. Western intelligence also saw the deployment of ten armies (40 divisions) in the Western zones of the Soviet Union to support the 25 divisions in East Germany and Poland, although they did not have clear knowledge of how much the divisions in the western Soviet Union were building up. By 1952 all of the Soviet divisions in East Germany were at close to 100% of their manpower. This was clearly a transition from an occupation to an offensive army that had both the manpower and armament to invade Western Europe, whether or not Stalin had any intention to do so and whether or not, if he did so, he would have considered it a defensive measure against the superior U.S. atomic force. Meanwhile, NATO did not have more that 18 ready divisions in Western Europe at any time during this period, so it posed no military threat whatever to the Soviet sphere.
“Acheson and Nitze did not fear an immediate Soviet invasion of Europe in 1948, and they only temporarily feared in 1950 that the Soviets might use their conventional superiority in Europe and the diversion of the Korean War to take Berlin or some other limited object in Europe. They did fear however, that once the Soviets had accumulated a hundred or so atomic bombs (perhaps by 1954), even if those could be delivered only by one-way suicide attacks on American cities, the Soviets might think that even though such an attack would not defeat the United States, the potential damage and casualties might be enough to deter the Americans from launching their superior nuclear force in response to a mere conventional attack in Europe. (By the way, NSC-68 said only that the Soviets might think the U.S. would be deterred from a nuclear attack in response to a conventional invasion of Europe, not that it actually would be.) Readers will have to decide for themselves whether that was a rational fear, but I think there is no question that the Soviets had or were developing the capabilities that Nitze and Acheson thought they were.”
From a discussion of John Lewis Gaddis’s “We Now Know” on the H-DIPLO mailing list.
People today don’t often realize that the Soviet Union had conventional military superiority in Europe throughout the Cold War: NATO’s conventional forces in Western Europe provided what was known as a “plate-glass defence”, meaning that the Soviet Union could always punch through it, but that this would trigger a nuclear response. What people were afraid of, right up to the Berlin crises, was that the Soviet atomic capability meant that the US deterrent would be ineffective — the Soviet Union might launch a conventional attack anyway, believing that the US wouldn’t risk the nuclear destruction of its homeland to try to save Western Europe. It wasn’t until the Berlin crises that the logic of mutual assured destruction became clear: when both sides have nuclear weapons, it’s extremely risky to challenge the status quo, so geographical boundaries tend to get frozen, no matter how irrational they are. (West Berlin was in the middle of East Germany.)
For a very good history of the Cold War, see Louis J. Halle, “The Cold War as History” (1967).
“Only the very selfish protect their own moral purity at the cost of damaging their fellows.”
Hans Morgenthau has an interesting comment on this topic. From “Scientific Man vs. Power Politics” (1946), pp. 201-202.
“There is no escape from the evil of power, regardless of what one does. Whenever we act with reference to our fellow men, we must sin, and we must still sin when we refuse to act; for the refusal to be involved in the evil of action carries with it the breach of the obligation to do one’s duty. No ivory tower is remote enough to offer protection against the guilt in which the actor and the bystander, the oppressor and the oppressed, the murderer and his victim are inextricably enmeshed. Political ethics is indeed the ethics of doing evil. While it condemns politics as the domain of evil par excellence, it must reconcile itself to the enduring presence of evil in all political action. Its last resort, then, is the endeavor to choose, since evil there must be, among several possible actions the one that is least evil.
“It is indeed trivial, in the face of so tragic a choice, to invoke justice against expediency and to condemn whatever political action is chosen because of its lack of justice. Such an attitude is but another example of the superficiality of a civilization which, blind to the tragic complexities of human existence, contents itself with an unreal and hypocritical solution of the problem of political ethics. In fact, the invocation of justice pure and simple against a political action makes of justice a mockery; for, since all political actions needs must fall short of justice, the argument against one political action holds true for all. By avoiding a political action because it is unjust, the perfectionist does nothing but exchange blindly one injustice for another which might even be worse than the former. He shrinks from the lesser evil because he does not want to do evil at all. Yet his personal abstention from evil, which is actually a subtle form of egotism with a good conscience, does not at all affect the existence of evil in the world but only destroys the faculty of discriminating between different evils. ‘Man,’ in the words of Pascal, ‘is neither angel nor beast and his misery is that he would act the angel acts the brute.’ Here again it is only the awareness of the tragic presence of evil in all political action which at least enables man to choose the lesser evil and to be as good as he can be in an evil world.”
Phil, comment section on the post about Gibson et al is busted again.
“Ungreatfull and clueless Europe”? You seem to have really lost your marbles now, enloop!
First of all, this worked both ways. Just as Europe relied on US might to keep the Soviets scared (wether this was needed or not is not the question in this post), the US relied as much on having Western Europe (who, with the exception of your lapdog known as the United Kingdom, weren’t strirring them up) as allies as a buffer between them and the Soviet Union. (you use the canadians in the same way to keep them from coming over the north pole) Likewise, the SU decided it needed a buffer against the western european powers that over the centuries have attacked them again and again.
Secondly, in selling military hardware (and hamburgers, softdrinks, cars, etc) to their European allies the US a lot of money and kept many Americans in business.
What annoys people most about Americans is their childish behaviour to not be able to see anything in any other shades than black and white. It doesn’t matter if that is your president, CNN or an anonymous internet user.
Maybe instead of condemning anyone who doesn’t have the same coywboy(-actor)-turned-president inspired opinion, you should start to listen and maybe see issues have shades of grey as well.
Like another poster mentioned, the US, instead of abusing it’s own people, decided to put (and keep) “friendly” goverments in place that, some of whom, made the USSR like like sheep. Both country’s actions were highly questionable, and certainly neither was the good side.
PS: “what you intend to use those nukes for”? May I kindly remind you that the only nation to ever actively use nukes is the US? Not passsing any judgement, just stating a fact.
Hi Philip…I just saw the movie last night thanks to your recommendation. However, I don’t agree with your second conclusion about America not chaning the Japanese and German objectives. I’m not too sure how you came to that conclusion?
Still wrong, Bas.
You forget the presence of the Atlantic Ocean. That seemed to be an adequate buffer against invasion of the U.S. by Soviet troops. Protecting Western Europe was in the interests of the U.S. (or do you think countries should not protect their interests?) and it also meant Western Europeans weren’t sucked into the dismal life-sucking morass the was the Soviet empire. (Although, you probably don’t understand the difference.)
And, yes, the U.S. sold a lot of military hardware to Europeans. Why? Because it was in the strategic interests of the U.S. and because Europeans wanted to but it. Repeat: Because Europeans wanted to buy the stuff. (And, they had the best of reasons to need it.)
If Europeans don’t want American “stuff”, Europeans ought to at least have the backbone to stop importing the stuff. Whining at Americans because Europeans buy so many American products is demeaning.Or, do you want to freeze Europe as a quaint little museum for tourists?
What annoys me about so many Europeans is the willingness to give regimes like the Soviet Union moral and eithical parity with democratic regimes. If the Soviets did something, and the U.S. defended itself in kind, you are willing to condemn both as equally immoral. This is rather like equating damage done by firefighters at an arson fire with the damage caused by the arsonist. It is as if they are blind to reality. Do they really believe that a nation has the right to do whatever it wishes to its citizens? Do Europeans really believe that all personal moral codes are equivalent and can be directly applied to the world arena?
As for nukes, you seem to think use of them is on some kind of higher plane of “evil”. That mere use of them, under any circumstance, is wrong. I don’t accept that.
In any case, no Americans weapons, of any kind, would have been used anywhere in World War Two if the European and Japanese fascists had not started the damn thing in the first place. Hitler, Tojo, and all the rest didn’t come from America. They were produced in sick and failing cultures that made the mistake of putting their confidence in one leader rather than in themselves.
Trust me, Americans haven’t forgotten that.
Come back when you’ve left your indoctrination behind and can admit the truth of what happened in the 20th century.
Enloop, you still sound like you have a black and white view of the world.
I never said anything about all the American Stuff we buy here as being a bad thing. Many people do, I don’t. If I don’t want it, I don’t buy it.
I also never criticised US use of nukes on Japan, just responding to you implying that the russians created nukes to take over the world, whereas the US ones were just for defence.
“If the Soviets did something, and the U.S. defended itself in kind, you are willing to condemn both as equally immoral.”
Nope, I wouldn’t. If they USSR had attacked the US, they would have been the bad guys. That’s black and white, even understandable to you. It becomes a grey area when one soviet supported comunist norther part of a country decides to support an internal revolt against an oppressive (but “democratic”) regime in the south by supporters of it’s comunist party. The US then decides to support the south and in the process is resposible for more than a million dead. How did those million fare better under democracy? Was it worth it?
“it also meant Western Europeans weren’t sucked into the dismal life-sucking morass the was the Soviet empire”
How can you be sure Stalin was going to make a move on Western Europe? What evidence is there to support it? I am all for better safe than sorry, but you are stating it as a fact of life that without US power I would be speaking Russian now.
Now I am indoctrinated? Excuse me, I have spent all my life so far between cultures, listening to both. Reading and tuning into media that aren’t a wholy owned subsidiary of the goverment, not daring to challenge their political leader’s views. Do you ever read about or watch stories on Russian (politcal) life in the cold war? These guys were as afraid of you as you were of them.
Nobody, NOBODY, here in europe ever though the USSR had a right to do what it did to it’s citizens. But let’s be honest, the US never said to Stalin: “stop killing your civilians or we’ll come get you”, did they? Instead they said: “Keep doing what you are doing in your own backyard but don’t come into ours.” Sounds a bit like a middle eastern country currently. Going to war over one thing and when you find no evindence to support that “thing”, you change it to another more socialy acceptable motive.
As for WWII, the US is equaly guilty in allowing it to happen as the european countries are. (and I am saying this as a citizen of a neutral country in that conflict) The US was there at Versialles. WWI was a stupid fight started by aristocrats who thought a nice war would be jolly good fun. If the US hadn’t joined the french and british side at the time both sides were on the breaking point, maybe they would have brokered an amicable peace instead of the Western allies forcing germany into debt and shame, giving Hitler a platform for his ideas.
Now think about that and then call me indoctrinated, ungreatful and clueless.
Bas, sometimes deliberately seeing things in shades of grey is an attempt to avoid taking sides, i.e., feigned moderation. I see no particular virtue in deliberately fashioning your beliefs into gray, wishy-washy tenets. Yes, a lot of people believe a lot of different things. But, the existence of differing beliefs and opinions shouldn’t cause anyone to question the validity of their own beliefs. If that happens, it only means that those beliefs were never held with any deep conviction or understanding.
In others words, I have an obligation to tolerate other beliefs and allow people to entertain them, but I have no obligation to give their beliefs precedence or equivalency with my own.
To address your points, I did not state or imply that the Soviets acquired nukes to “take over the world”. I stated that the Soviet Union was an expansionist regime. History supports that statement.
The Soviets did not attack the U.S. mainland because to do so would have meant their destruction. If we had made that commitment and acquired the means to enforce it 5 years ealrier, perhaps Eastern Europe would have not been cnquured by the Soviets.
The U.S. did not intervene within the borders of the Soviet Union because that would have meant our destruction. Your implication that the U.S. would have done so if it was serious about spreading democracy is, therefore, specious.
Your assertion that the U.S. is equally responsible for WW2 implies that nations, their leaders, and individuals lack free will and are manipulated by the forces of history. That ignores the personal responsibility that leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, etc., must assume for the actions their nations. E.g. I do not believe that the impact of the Treaty of Versailles made the ascent of the Nazis and their attackson their neighbors an inevitability. (And I do not accpet that Versailles, alone, was responsible for Germany’s economic woes. Corrupt and incompentent German leaders must bear responsibilty.) Hitler went to war because he wanted to go to war, not because Versailles set in motion forces that, somehow, led him to make war.
Nor do I agree with your conflation of the combatants in WW1 as simply “aristocrats”. That statement is meant to minimize the differences between the British, for example, and the Prussians,and, as well, to suggest that thjere was little to choose between an Allied victory or a German victory in that war. Both societies fail to measure up to modern expectations of a democracy, but certainly, when a choice needed to be made, U.S. intervention against the spread of Prussian militarism and autocracy was preferrable to remaining isolated.
Finally, it’s fine with me if you don’t buy U.S. products, although you made a point of asserting that the spread of U.S. products was, somwhow, a bad thing. Lot’s of Americans don’t buy imports, either. I think both viewpoints are childish.
Bas writes: “How can you be sure Stalin was going to make a move on Western Europe? What evidence is there to support it?”
The Communist party in France, which was controlled by Moscow, attempted to bring down the government in November 1947. The attempt failed. I can post more details if you like. Of course a similar crisis in Czechoslovakia in February 1948 led to the installation of a Soviet-controlled government there.
Bas, regarding the question of moral equivalence between the US and the USSR: I would suggest that the appropriate question is not, “Is US foreign policy based on self-interest?” Of course; what nation’s foreign policy is not? The question is: is it based on *enlightened, long-term* self-interest, or is it based on vindictiveness and short-sightedness? Comparing Versailles to the Marshall Plan (or Stalin’s treatment of Eastern Europe, e.g. the Katyn Forest massacre), I would have to say that the Marshall Plan was one of the most generous and far-sighted acts of statesmanship in history, for which the Americans deserve full credit.
This isn’t to say that US foreign policy throughout the Cold War was up to the standard of the early Cold War. William Pfaff, writing in 1989:
“Relatively few people in West Germany, or in Europe, are today eager to see the United States remove its troops and terminate its guarantee of European security; but there is no longer a conviction that this guarantee can or will function. There is growing anxiety that the conduct of the United States is itself a source of risk of major war, for which Europe would provide the battleground. A measure of the older sense of solidarity with the United States has been worn away by America’s involvements in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, and Central America, and by the fairly ruthless self-interest of American economic policies. The vacillations of Jimmy Carter and the erratic course of Ronald Reagan produced a belief that the United States was no longer in competent hands. As the scholar and political commentator Raymond Aron said, just before his death in 1983, the United States had become ‘no longer comprehensible to either its enemies or its friends.'”
I saw the movie yesterday afternoon. It was fascinating — the history of the 20th century as seen through the life of one man. What I took away from it: first, that it’s possible for a highly intelligent, humane individual, acting in good faith, to be the architect of a complete disaster. To quote Hans Morgenthau once again: he described the “fear and trembling with which great statesmen have approached their task, knowing that in trying to mould the political world they must act like gods, without the knowledge, the wisdom, the power, and the goodness which their task demands.”
Second: McNamara’s emphasis that the peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was due to luck. The neo-realist political theorists (e.g. Waltz, Mearsheimer) argue that the logic of mutual deterrence is powerful enough that we can rely on it. But if that’s the case, why did the JCS believe that the US ought to go to war?
Russil, the anecdote about France is interesting, but I’m curious why (or, if) Western Europeans don’t see the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe at the end of WW2 as ample evidence of its expansionist nature? If they justify or explain that conquest by reference to a perceived need for a buffer zone protecting the Soviets from attack, don’t they realize that is tantamount to asserting that Europe would, in fact, attack the USSR?
Frankly, setting aside its peculiar Marxist pretensions and its totalitarianism, Soviet expansion, via conquest and the creation of compliant client states, can be viewed as the last breath of Europe’s centuries old effort to expand and conquer. Americans certainly consider Russians to be Europeans, and we certainly believe that European conquest and imperialism always threatened us and, after its demise, left us a hostile and festering world.
American and European interests and perspective are, I suspect, drifting apart following the 50-year aberration of the Cold War. Prior to WW2, isolation was America’s response to what it saw as the failure of the European world. One wonders what that response will be in the future.
“I’m curious why (or, if) Western Europeans don’t see the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe at the end of WW2 as ample evidence of its expansionist nature?”
Hmm. Interesting question. (I suppose I should say that I’m neither European nor American — I’m Canadian.)
At the time, Western Europeans were certainly deathly afraid of Soviet expansion — their societies had been shattered by the war, in the winter of 1946 they were literally in danger of starving to death, the Red Army was at the height of its prestige. But looking at it from Bas’s point of view: according to his website, he was born in 1976, so he grew up when the Soviet Union was visibly stagnating and then collapsing. It’s natural when looking back at history to assume that things couldn’t have turned out any differently — of course Hitler was going to lose World War II, of course the Soviet Union was never going to be able to take over West Berlin — so what were people so afraid of? Wrong, but natural.
I don’t think expansionism is peculiarly European; it’s just human nature. There have certainly been plenty of non-European empires. Nor has the US transcended human nature: consider the war with Mexico, or the war with Spain (in which the US acquired the Philippines).
I agree that the Cold War was an abnormal situation. George F. Kennan, one of the architects of US foreign policy during the early Cold War, suggests in his 1993 book “Around the Cragged Hill” that the US ought to adopt a more modest foreign policy, that of a “fellow worker in the vineyard” rather than superpower or world leader, and focus on addressing its pressing domestic problems. But he also recommends that the US maintain its alliance with Europe and with Japan. They have fundamental interests in common. As Kennan wrote in 1951:
“Today, standing at the end rather than the beginning of this half-century, some of us see certain fundamental elements on which we suspect that American security has rested. We can see that our security has been dependent throughout much of our history on the position of Britain; that Canada, in particular, has been a useful and indispensable hostage to good relations between our country and British Empire; and that Britain’s position, in turn, has depended on the maintenance of a balance of power on the European Continent. Thus it was essential to us, as it was to Britain, that no single Continental land power should come to dominate the entire Eurasian land mass. Our interest has lain rather in the maintenance of some sort of stable balance among the powers of the interior, in order that none of them should effect the subjugation of the others, conquer the seafaring fringes of the land mass, become a great sea power as well as land power, shatter the position of England, and enter—as in these circumstances it certainly would—on an overseas expansion hostile to ourselves and supported by the immense resources of the interior of Europe and Asia. Seeing these things, we can understand that we have had a stake in the prosperity and independence of the peripheral powers of Europe and Asia: those countries whose gazes were oriented outward, across the seas, rather than inward to the conquest of power on land.”
That doesn’t mean that relations will always be easy (they’re certainly highly inflamed right now), but it’s worth it to try to maintain them.
The other problem, of course, is that Osama bin Laden has declared war on the United States, and he’s still out there somewhere. I’m not sure anyone’s really figured out how to fight this war yet. Not too many people buy the Bush administration’s theory that overthrowing Saddam Hussein will lead to the democratic transformation of the Middle East (Anthony Cordesman, a respected military analyst, described it as “crossing the line from neo-conservative to neo-crazy”). Regardless, now that the war’s been fought, the US is going to be stuck in Iraq for a long time to come.
The neo-conservatives argue that the US ought to adopt a posture of maximum strength, rather than restraint. Kennan and the realists would argue that this is exactly wrong. Historically, whenever a single power has threatened to dominate, a coalition of powers has formed against it to maintain a balance of power: Spain under the Hapsburgs, France under Louis XIV and again under Napoleon, Germany under Wilhelm II and Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin. Now that the US is the strongest power in the world, it should make sure that it doesn’t end up in the same situation. Trying to do this and to fight Osama bin Laden at the same time is going to be difficult, to say the least.
I think there are two things being mixed here: doing the right thing and believing you are doing the right thing. As russil points out, I wasn’t around for the first part of the cold war. With that in mind, I believe I am far more open to evidence presented in hindsight as I wasn’t subjected to any goverment indoctrination.
“the existence of differing beliefs and opinions shouldn’t cause anyone to question the validity of their own beliefs.” — But should they question the validity of other people’s beliefs? They do, and that is how wars start.
“we certainly believe that European conquest and imperialism always threatened us” — I hate to point it out, but YOU ARE European conquest and imperialism! You most certainly concoured the land you live on from the native population at a terrible cost to them, more so than most European countries have done to most other conquest. And most of this was done after your country’s independence. And “European enterpeneurs” may have come up with slavery, but it was you who created the market.
“although you made a point of asserting that the spread of U.S. products was, somwhow, a bad thing” Huh!? I pointed out that Europe became a market for US products, thus proving it was beneficial the US to have us a allies. This was never something I belivied was “evil”. Have you seen the quality of many Russian products?
Ofcourse Versailles was not the only reason for WWII, although you are the first person ever to not see the link at all. The point I am making is that something that seems like the right decission turns out to be wong, action and reaction, chaos theory. Drastic actions often have drastic or far greater results. Europe has learned that over the centuries and therefore European goverments tend to be much more cautious. After losing tens of millions of people and the destruction of infrastructure on an entire continent last century, can you blame them?
Europeans have lost enough in wars over the centuries and while all of them would certainly come to the aid of the US if it was attacked on a similar scale as Nazi germany attacked europe over 60 years ago, I am sorry if we’re not helping out too much in your petty little squables that are in no way a threat to your sovereignty and kill less people than your own gun-toting society, let alone car accidents. Also worth remember when picking on France is that they gave you independence in the first place, not matter how Mel Gibson may play down their role. And all the bullying (“you are either with us or against” — Dubya) isn’t giving you any credit either.
Bas, yes, we should question the validity of beliefs held by others. Failure to do so is to give all beliefs intellectual and moral parity. That’s ludicrous. I am obligated to respect your right to believe what you will. I am not obligated to concur with your beliefs, accept that they are correct, valid, or even meaningful.
More importantly, I am in no way obligated to tolerate any actions motivated by your beliefs. Behavior is not belief. We are not obligated to be tolerant of all behavior.
If I understand that certain of your actions, motivated by your beliefs, are harmful to me, I am obligated to oppose those actions. Remember, tolerance of others beliefs does not warrant indifference to the actions of others.
Yes, America owes its existence to European colonialists. But, please note that we are no longer European colonies. The underlying American belief — wrong in parts, correct in parts — is that we threw off European autocracy precisely because is was corrupt and undemocratic.
I reject notions that the demise of native cultures should have prevented the spread of civilization over the Americas. Logically, this belief would argue that all cultures are equivalent, which is a fallacious idea.
I understand Versailles’ role in causing WW2 and did not say I failed to see the link. I said it is necessary to hold leaders and individuals accountable for their own actions and to recognize the role powerful people play in history. It is a common slur on the U.S. to twist the legacy of Versailles into a way to blame that country for Naziism and fascism.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing about choas theory. but I do not beleve that people and leaders are subject to external forces of hisotry (or whatever) that somehow compel them to behave in certain ways. Regardless of what Europe and the U.S> put in the Treaty of Versailles, everything that happened afterwards was teh result of individual decisions made by individual people. If they had made different decisions, different things would have happened. History did not create Naziism. People created Naziism.
And, yes, after spending the greater part of the last the last two millenia killing themselves, I am glad that Europeans have recently decided to try and do better. The jury remains out.
I’m not upset at Europeans for disagreeing with American policy and actions. After all, Americans disagree with much of what happens in Europe. (E.g., what happened to Yugoslavia and the European response.) What I strongly disagree with is the arrogatn Johnny-Come-Lately moral superiority of Europeans who have only in the last generation claimed to have discovered the benefits of cooperation and democracy. Where have you been for the past 500 years? It is all rather like an alcoholic preaching abstinence after being off the bottle for two weeks.
>>”…I believe I am far more open to evidence presented in hindsight as I wasn’t subjected to any goverment indoctrination.”
Well, if you believe that, it is just more evidence that you beleve people are not responsible for their actions and beliefs, but are controlled by strange and mystical powers of history. That’s nonsense.
Enloop, it would be a great world if everyone was of clear mind. Unfortunately, people’s beliefs of what’s right and wrong are influenced by their experiences. Someone who’s bicycle has been stolen over and over again will get enough of buying new ones. Similarly, seeing your buddies shot to pieces, your resources being stolen and your freedom taken away may inspire some young luitenant to think that is acceptable behaviour and do it to others.
That doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t mean they are not responsible for their actions. But it is why you have to be carefull with your actions, there may have unforseen, illogical, reactions. Not recognizing that is foolish and dangerous – as proven by history.
“yes, we should question the validity of beliefs held by others” — To what end? First you say we shouldn’t change our beliefs because someone questions them. Why should others change theirs if you question them? So the two statements you made contradict each other, they cannot exist together.
“I reject notions that the demise of native cultures should have prevented the spread of civilization over the Americas.” — Neither do I, just don’t get on your high horse saying how much superior the US of those days was to European imperialism when that “spread of civilization” was achieved by killing 20 million of the native population. And then there was the slavery. How democratic and cooperative is that? Where have YOU been for the past 500 years?
“I believe I am far more open to evidence presented in hindsight as I wasn’t subjected to any goverment indoctrination.”
Bas, I would agree that the supposed moral superiority of the United States to Europe is more of a narcissistic myth than reality. But with all due respect, I would suggest that when studying the history of the twentieth century — an age of quasi-religious, ideological, and nationalist zeal, partisanship, fear, propaganda, and lies — skepticism would serve you far better than open-mindedness. You seriously believe that Wilson and Clemenceau were equally responsible for Versailles, or that Wilson and Hitler were equally responsible for World War II? You believe that the Soviet threat to Western Europe was vastly exaggerated, a form of “government indoctrination”?
“… by killing 20 million of the native population.”
Mind if I ask where this figure comes from? My understanding from reading Tocqueville is that there wasn’t much actual warfare until the 1800s, e.g. under Andrew Jackson.
From a review of “Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars”, by Robert V. Remini: “After decades of duplicitous treaty-making, Jackson finally triumphed with the 800-mile forced march westward of some 18,000 Cherokees. This was the infamous ‘Trail of Tears,’ in which anywhere from 4,000 to 8,000 tribe members perished. The rushed, bungled, and corrupt operation ‘constitutes one of the great tragedies in the history of the United States,’ Remini writes.”
How and when did the colonists kill 20 million Indians? That’s an incredible number.
One further point:
“I am sorry if we’re not helping out too much in your petty little squabbles that are in no way a threat to your sovereignty and kill less people than your own gun-toting society, let alone car accidents.”
Bas, I have to say that you may not be as well-informed as you think you are. NATO did offer aid to the United States after September 11. Troops from several NATO countries have served in Afghanistan (e.g. Germany, Canada).
I think you miss the significance of the September 11 attacks. Prior to those attacks, the conventional wisdom was that terrorists sought maximum political gain for minimum casualties. The September 11 attacks, on the other hand, were intended to maximize casualties; they were limited only by the means at al-Qaeda’s disposal. I think it’s reasonable to assume that if al-Qaeda obtain nuclear weapons, they will use them. Hence the seriousness of the threat.
This raises the question: what the hell is Osama bin Laden thinking? The best answer I’ve seen so far is Michael Scott Doran’s.
Bas, tolerating others beliefs does not require questioning your beliefs. I was making a distinction between tolerating beliefs you don’t agree with and tolerating behavior prompted by those same beliefs. I can honestly oppose behavior driven by a belief I tolerate or, even, support. It seems to me that a great many people confuse toleration of other beliefs with passive and unthinking acceptance of behavior. (E.g., if someone believes his culture is under attack by what he perceives as “the West”, then he is justified in blowing himself up outside a “Western” cafe.”)
I don’t believe I said U.S. culture was “superior” to European culture. (For starters, there is no such thing as a single U.S. culture or a single European culture.) I said I was annoyed with Europeans — who have “discovered” the benefits of cooperation and unity only within the last few decades (at least, for some of the countries resident on the continent) — yapping at the U.S. for acting in what it sees as its own best interests.
As far as native Americans are concerned, it is impossible to tell how many people lived in North America before colonization (no census, of course.) However, the best estimates I recall seeing place the population in neighborhood of several million in the early 1600’s.
One suspects, however, that the deaths caused by warring between native Americans themselves cannot even be estimated. The deaths of native Americans at the hands of transplanted Europeans are regrettable, but no more so than, say, the deaths attributable to an expansionist tribe like the Lakota.)
And, of course, the deaths caused by the great migrations and upheavals that shaped Europe are largely lost to history. See, for example, Alexander the Great and any number of Roman emporers.
However, it is pointless to lob pot shots at each others cultures based on unfortunate events in the past. Let me sum up what I think about some essential issues:
— Every individual and every culture acts in its own self interest. Democracy, as practiced in the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere, is the optimum way to accommodate conflicting self-interests in a fashion that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.
— Behavior fashioned in accord with an ideology — any ideology — is potentially dangerous because the actor will reject reality when it conflicts with the ideology.
— Modern technology means that totalitarian regimes can effectively prohibit internal revolt. Modern technology also means that these same regimes can, if they choose, threaten any other state anywhere on the planet. Exist democracies have a responsiblity to spread democracy. Since populations of totalitarian regimes will probably not be able to successfully overthrow those regimes, democracies must take concerted action to ensure their demise.
Russil, I have no problem with what happened in Afghanistan, they had it comming and fully support the action there.
I do realise several goverments (including my own) have sent troops to Iraq as well, but that doesn’t mean there is support for the actions by the general public like there is in the US.
My main problems is that by trying to make the world a more stable place, current US action makes it less stable. Instead of _war_ on terror, this seems to be a revenge against terrorism. (Guantanamo Bay’s “illegal combatants”, anyone?) Before the current Iraq conflict, that country wasn’t a threat and has been proven to not have had WMD or be a safe haven for terrorists. Even if stability returns to that country any time soon and people there are better off, you will also have created a whole generation of new terrorists as there will always be those who oppose the new goverment, for which they see the US as responsible for installing. That contradicts with the original goal. If the US was serious about fighting al-Queda, they would have gone after the Saudi Arabian royal family.
On september 11, two landmarks of US power were (partialy) destroyed. That may have been the goal of al-Queda and that unfortunately involved a high number of casualties. That is another way of interpreting what happened. Truth is, there is no proof to what you are saying as there have been no similar attacks since. It may have been the goverment has managed to avoid those, but they are not telling us, so what do we know?
Enloop, I understand what you mean about tollerating and questioning. But if according to you it is impossible to change someones beliefs, that means the (offensive) actions they take based on those beliefs can be stopped by force. I am not willing to accept that. People can change and so can their beliefs and you are best to do that before they take those actions.
And if you cannot change their belief, the first course of action should be to avoid conflict. If supplying support to, say, Isael, or ramming culture down people’s throats ticks them off, it is not in the best interest of the US to do so and avoiding conflict by stopping those practices makes more sense than to let it get out of control and lives getting lost. No matter how illogical the objections of the other party may be.
“yapping at the U.S. for acting in what it sees as its own best interests.” — what may be the US’s best interest may not be everyone’s, so why do you have a problem with objecting to it? The US and it’s citizens would certainly do the same in return!
“However, it is pointless to lob pot shots at each others cultures based on unfortunate events in the past.” — Then why did you keep doing it? US and European culture and history is very similar. Same mistakes, different continents. But for some reason when it is conflict between countries, it is remembered and dragged up every time, but internal conflicts that are just as bad are forgotten. The US pointing fingers at Europe is the pot calling the kettle black.
If democracy is the only way to ensure “the greatest good for the greatest number” then I assume Singapore is next on your hit list? Seriously, I oppose any regime that doesn’t look after the best interest of it’s citizens and allows them freedom of movement and speech. The problem with overthrowing these is that I also oppose the forcing of young men and women who signed up for the military to “protect against all enemies foreign and domestic” to risk their lives to free these people. Now what if this regime you want to overthrow is no enemy to you? Who are you to make the judgement that the well being of those people, that probably let this happen to themselves in the first place, is more valuable than your sons and daughter’s lives?
Avoiding conflict is always best, the US should put a bit more effort into that.
Bas, if I believe I am threatened by you, I will defend myself. I will not put myself at risk by choosing to talk you out of your wayward beliefs. Frankly, I’m pretty sure you’d do the same thing. It would be nice if everyone on the planet was willing to completely abandon force for gentle persuasion in all instances, but tht will not happen so long as humans are runnng the place.
If you are at risk because someone else is acting on their firmly held convictions and they are unwilling to stop that threatening behavior, why would any rational person continue to place himself at risk simply to “avoid conflict”? If the attacker has no intention of altering his behavior, why shouold you not alter yours to render him incapable of attacking you? You appear to be placing as much moral and ethical responsibility for ending violence on the victim as you place on the attacker.
The U.S. and Europe are not all that similar. We share a veneer of similar technology, but our cultures, languages, political structures and, certainly, history, are very, very different. (One example: Europeans often make the mistake of applying their concepts of political parties, leftist, rights, etc., to the U.S., where such notions are completely different.)
You are creating a strawman argument with your Singapore example. I did not say that, as I am sure you are aware. To repeat: Modern totalitarian states cannot be overthrown by internal revolt; can threaten democracies anywhere; democratic states have an obligation to spread democracy; modern totalitarianism poses a challenge to world peace and democracy unseen before. (Now, Singapore is a weird little place, but it is not a totalitarian regime.)
I would counter your assertion about risking the lives of a nation’s troops to end totalitarian regimes by asking how you feel about the lives being ended within the borders of those same regimes? If you have the ability to save lives and end tyranny and do not act to do so, are you not guilty of sustaining death and injustice?
In the sad absence of any international structure with the ability and the intent to end totalitarian regimes that threaten democracies and the lives of their own citizens (the UN is broken and provides safe harbor to those regimes) individual nations must resort to their own devices. (No nation is willing to relinquish the amount of sovereignty needed to make the UN an effective force for peace and democracy. At a minimum, it would require a realignment of powers akin to the EU; more likely, however, akin to the relationship between states and the union in the U.S.)
Hold on, hold on, what attacker? The moment you are attacked, ofcourse you can use any force needed to defend yourself. But if someone threatens to attack you over behaviour you find perfectly normal, you have a choice: either keep doing what you were doing or weigh your options and possibly decide you can live without what you were doing and avoid conflict.
Enloop, are you in the army or otherwise put your life on the line to help these people under totalitarian rule? You seem to speak awefully easy about ordering people into these places. If you feel it is your obligation to overthrow some totalitarian regimes I suggest you get into politics, make it happen and then swap the suit for a uniform. Unless you are willing to do that yourself, get of your high horse of morality because you have no right to tell others what to do.
There’s a lot I could say about American political parties (or lack thereof), but let’s save that for some other time. And it never ceases to amuse me how you can say the histories are so different; untill 250 years ago you were under european rule and after that both continents developed at the same pace, abusing and killing people, at home and abroad, we didn’t like as much as each other!
The reason there is no international structure to end these regimes because they would invlove, basicaly, dying. Few want to do that and nobody wants to order others to.
Saying that the UN is broken means it was working once. It was and it is (well, it would if the US paid their contributions for a change), except the part about invading countries that pose no threat to others. The UN charter simply does not allow that. So all the bullshit propaganda Dubya was spreading about the UN not authorizing him to liberate Iraq, was just that, propaganda: “see, the world is against us”. All the while he knew perfectly well that with the “evidence” he had the other security council members (with the exception of lapdog UK) would vote against it, as evil as Iraq was to it’s citizens, it was no threat to other countries.
You continue to build strawmen and to put words in my mouth.
>>”if someone threatens to attack you over behaviour you find perfectly normal, you have a choice: either keep doing what you were doing or weigh your options and possibly decide you can live without what you were doing and avoid conflict.”
It goes without saying that if you can defeat an opponent by giving up something trivial, that might be your best course of action. Presumab ly, trivial matters are not the issue. In any case, placating an enemy by giving up a triviality does not eliminate the enemy. So long as the enemy exists, the potential threat is real.
>>”If you feel it is your obligation to overthrow some totalitarian regimes…”
I did not say anyone has an “obligation” to overthorw totalitarian regimes. I said they pose a threat and need to be eliminated. Other ways exist to eliminate totalitarian regimes than the military “overthrow” you are suggesting.
One of the hypocrisies of opposition to U.S. action in Iraq is the failure of those opponents to do, or to suggest, or to have done or suggested, anything useful to eleminate the Saddam regime. If they felt they could not soil their pristine ethics by supporting the effort, why then did their rhetoric and behavior align them so strongly with anti-democratic forces?
>>”…until 250 years ago you were under european rule…”
Colonization began only 400 years ago. Europe has been a recognizable political and cultural entity since the Roman Empire, if not before. Europe carries with it a legacy of centuries of warfare, ethnic and class conflict, monarchy and autocracy, militarism, pograms and anti-Semitism, andfalse ideologies. The U.S. (and Canada) not encumbered by that baggage. Equally important, Europe lacks the edifying impact of an expanding frontier. The frontier shaped how Americans looks at the world. From my perspective, Europeans see the world as closed, bordered, limited, etc., in which they have an obligation to find their place and stay there. Americans find that attitude fundamentally oppressive.
>> “The reason there is no international structure to end these regimes because they would invlove, basicaly, dying…”
No, that is wrong. That structure does not exist because it would require sovereign states to relinquish their sovereign right to police their own affairs. In other words, it would require that the threat of force and the means of using that force be resident in a supra-national organization. The fact that the UN has no such force or authority to use it one reason for its weakness.
This has nothing to do with ordering people into combat. May are willing to do that, and many are willing to fight. Peace at any price is not a peace, because peace is not equal to a lack of violence.
The UN served its immediate purpose after 1945, but it has for some decades served only as a useful tool for the large powers to deploy or ignore as meets their needs, and propaganda tool for weak or totalitarian powers. It does serve deliver some beneifts in terms of health, etc., but even those efforts do little to alter the status quo of those it is trying to help.
Your closing paragraph parrots some of the usual ad hominem attacks on the U.S., and, as usual, fails to provide a viable alternative. Would you suggest the “peace” purchased at the price of more dead Iraqis and more years of Saddam’s regime is worth Saddam’s bribes to European politicians and European oil revenues? Are you suggesting that it is OK for the comfortable European status quo to reamin unchallenged, as it profits from Saddam, while Iraqis remain oppressed and tyrannized? Is the “peace” of, say, a citizen of Paris worth more than the freedom of an Iraqi?
“Europeans see the world as closed, bordered, limited, etc., in which they have an obligation to find their place and stay there. Americans find that attitude fundamentally oppressive.” — Most Americans do not have a passport and never leave the country. Most Europeans live their lives in the country they are born, yes, and that country is in every case a smaller region than the US. But moving 400 miles in one country or moving 4000 miles and still being in the same country doesn’t mean any greater world view, no matter how you may feel. That argument is the same as Australians feeling close to nature, experts in outdoor living and wildernes survival, while the truth is that the most people have seen from the outback is the highway between cities and spend all but a few days of their lives on the coast. (or in London)
I can see where this view comes from in your case; like me, you have probably traveled a fair bit and met many Europeans in Europe who haven’t moved much in their life or seen much of the world. But that gives a distorted view and for me it is the same, but the other way around. The percentage of Americans who have traveled substantialy is probably about the same as those europeans who have ventured further than the standard package holiday on the Costa del Sol.
You will never convince anyone of the moral reasons of the US “freeing the people” so long as the countries you choose to do this in are very much in the economic interest of the US (or it’s leaders buddies) while others are left to rot.
“So long as the enemy exists, the potential threat is real.” — Yes, and if you leave the stand-off long enough, both sides will see what jackasses they were and a new generation that forgot why it all began will start to talk.
Ofcourse that is different in a situation than Iraq (or all those other countries the US doesn’t care about), but political presure was never really tried there either. “Food for oil” meant that what little food an medicine went in kept the leaders in good health and spirits, with enough energy to keep supressing the population. And all this time the population did nothing to try and persuade the leadership to step down, instead they cheered him on. If they aren’t willing to risk their lives for their own freedom, why should anyone else? And I am not talking about taking up arms, you are right, there is no way to overthrow them by violence. All they had to do is to stage mass protests in the eyes of the world. If Sadam didn’t step down and instead crushed their resistance, that would have been the signal for foreign help. And you probably wouldn’t have any of these terrorist attacks inside the country as you would have helped them get their freedom, not handed it on a plate. Nobody takes pride in things being handed to them on a plate. It’s illogical, but that’s exactly what people are.
Besides, the greatest problem Europeans have with recent US actions is how it was handled. Just like Bush’s “bring it on” isn’t going to win him many votes from the armed forces this year, he (and by association, your whole nation) didn’t score any points for “you are with us or against us” either.
“Saddam’s bribes to European politicians and European oil revenues” — If that is the case it seems the political systems of our two seperate world regions have more in common than you thought. As opposed to the US, Europe does rely a lot on Middle East oil. But that doesn’t mean that Bush’s Texan oil family and business partners don’t make good money out of the region as well. Some of it filter through to him in the name of “campaign contributions”. At least Europeans call a bribe by it’s name and I can assure you it is not as widespread as in the US; if it were, we would have the same draconian labour laws and tax cuts for the rich as you do.
So don’t lecture Europe on profiting from corrupt regimes, the US is equaly quilty of that.
My stanements about Europeans’ sense of being closed in had nothing to do with travel or movement, but were addressing personal feelings of possibility and opportunity.
I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else of the morality of ant actoins by the U.S. I simply siad, repeatedly, that certain regimes threaten their citizens, their neighbors, and can threaten any nation on the globe. I said they cannot be removed via internal revolt. Combine that with what I definitely feel is a moral obligation to allow everyone, everywhere, to choose their own government in democratic elections, and you see that modern totalitarian regimes pose a new challenge: How to lift the burden of opression and the threat to existing democracies when the people who are oppressed cannot rise in revolt? If you believe that democracy is the only acceptable government, that it should spread, and that modern totalitarian regimes cannot be destroyed without outside intervention of some nature, what would you do? Sacrifice the freedom of others for your own emotional well-being?
Nation’s, like people, operate in their own self-interest. But, to counter your lies about American motivatin in Iraq, we have been doing thet same thing in Afghanistan, a nation with no oil or other resources worth mentioning.
>> ” if you leave the stand-off long enough, both sides will see what jackasses they were and a new generation that forgot why it all began will start to talk.”
No, they won’t. People are people and will continue to behave the same way as long as they exist. If you expect your generation to prove me wrong, you’ll be disappointed. Every generation says the same thing.
You’ve consistenly refused to respond to my basic points, or to suggest viable alternatives to dealing with the specific issues raised beyond hoping for a utopian change in human nature. So long….
“we have been doing thet same thing in Afghanistan, a nation with no oil or other resources worth mentioning” — And didn’t care about untill some terrorists based there decided to crash some planes into buildings. The primary motive of the US was to eliminate that threat, and all the right to them. The change to democracy is a side effect and, knowing Afghan history, probably a temporary one.
So far all I heard from you is talk the talk. If you want to change the world, walk the walk as well before telling anyone else they should. Being supportive of your goverment to sending troops has _nothing_ in common with actualy going there and putting _your_ life on the line. And you really need to start admitting to the flaws in your own society and history before pointing any finger to anyone else.
i think youre second conclusion has a good point !!
i think youre second conclusion has a good point !!
i think youre second conclusion has a good point !!
i think youre second conclusion has a good point !!
i think youre second conclusion has a good point !!