Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

I have restrained myself from calling you out lately (I mean, really, Palin a better option? I don't think so. They don't come much nuttier). But as I was thinking the exact same thing, I think they must be smoking something pretty strong. Perhaps we agree for all the wrong reasons, but it must be a miracle!

It is not unusual for neocons and liberal interventionists (ie, Reckless Interventionists) to find common cause when it comes to warmongering and imperialism.  It is dressed up in the most beautiful political language imaginable - promoting democracy, ensuring "human rights", variants of defending our allies or the helpless, etc - but it requires naïve beliefs in both the beneficence and effectiveness of US power. 

Reckless Interventionists can take solace in the extremely high probability (near 100%) that the next President, be it Hillary or any Republican, will be far more aggressive in foreign policy matters than the current President. 

[Florestan]

Well, some gentlemen here have taught me a lesson or two, viz:

1. To rely on international treatises and to expect the signatory parts to abide by them is folly.

2. Poland and Romania should defend themselves, but to recall the last time they did just that, one way or another, is a false historical analogy.

3. WWII (ie, the one historical event from which the actual world order stemmed) is not relevant today, but the rhetoric of an early 19th century statesman (John Quincy Adams) is.

4. Countries formerly belonging to USSR (by forceful annexation) attacked by Russia either directly, or by proxies, or both (in chronological order): Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Attacked by USA: none. Countries formerly belonging to the USSR-led Communist camp (by Red Army invasion and occupation) verbally threatened by various Russian officials or non-officials: Poland, Latvia, Romania. Verbally threatened by USA: none. Yet when it comes to it, USA is the aggressor.

5. The best, surest and most effective way of ensuring international peace and order (relatively, as all human affairs are) is by simultaneously (1) immediate USA withdrawal from all her international engagements, miltary or diplomatic, and (2) enforcing existing, or creating new, international organizations.

And, saving the best for last:

6. People who are more or less succesful in managing their own lives know exactly what should have been / should be done in order for the whole world to suddenly become better, brighter and more just.

Points well taken. thank you, sirs!

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, some gentlemen here have taught me a lesson or two, viz:

1. To rely on international treatises and to expect the signatory parts to abide by them is folly.

2. Poland and Romania should defend themselves, but to recall the last time they did just that, one way or another, is a false historical analogy.

3. WWII (ie, the one historical event from which the actual world order stemmed) is not relevant today, but the rhetoric of an early 19th century statesman (John Quincy Adams) is.

4. Countries formerly belonging to USSR (by forceful annexation) attacked by Russia either directly, or by proxies, or both (in chronological order): Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Attacked by USA: none. Countries formerly belonging to the USSR-led Communist camp (by Red Army invasion and occupation) verbally threatened by various Russian officials or non-officials: Poland, Latvia, Romania. Verbally threatened by USA: none. Yet when it comes to it, USA is the aggressor.

5. The best, surest and most effective way of ensuring international peace and order (relatively, as all human affairs are) is by simultaneously (1) immediate USA withdrawal from all her international engagements, miltary or diplomatic, and (2) enforcing existing, or creating new, international organizations.

And, saving the best for last:

6. People who are more or less succesful in managing their own lives know exactly what should have been / should be done in order for the whole world to suddenly become better, brighter and more just.

Points well taken. thank you, sirs!

Sometimes it is necessary to talk about what is the best thing for OUR country, which may very well not be what is the best thing for yours. Since it is an intellectual exercise and not a change of policy, there is no need to fret. If the Poles and Romanians go down the tubes, it would probably be a good thing for the world if they would take us along with them; it would be morally correct, yes? 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Well, some gentlemen here have taught me a lesson or two, viz:

1. To rely on international treatises and to expect the signatory parts to abide by them is folly.

Yes. A treaty is just a piece of paper unless you have the will and the means to back it up. That's the real world.

2. Poland and Romania should defend themselves, but to recall the last time they did just that, one way or another, is a false historical analogy.

Why is "the last time they did just that" any more relevant than any other time "they did just that"? Argument by analogy is lazy.

3. WWII (ie, the one historical event from which the actual world order stemmed) is not relevant today, but the rhetoric of an early 19th century statesman (John Quincy Adams) is.

The rhetoric of John Quincy Adams on this matter is very similar to the rhetoric of Washington, Madison, Jefferson et al. on this matter. As these gentlemen played a major role in creating the United States of America, their views on how it should conduct its international affairs remain relevant within that polity.

Designating one particular historical event as the single event that determined the world order is a very arbitrary way to argue. Why not World War I, or the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the War of Jenkins' Ear? This pick-&-choose approach to historical argumentation is characteristic of ideologues.

4. Countries formerly belonging to USSR (by forceful annexation) attacked by Russia either directly, or by proxies, or both (in chronological order): Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Attacked by USA: none. Countries formerly belonging to the USSR-led Communist camp (by Red Army invasion and occupation) verbally threatened by various Russian officials or non-officials: Poland, Latvia, Romania. Verbally threatened by USA: none. Yet when it comes to it, USA is the aggressor.

None of the instances you have cited obligate the USA to take sides in any particular conflict concerning the above-named states.

[Florestan]

If the Poles and Romanians go down the tubes, it would probably be a good thing for the world if they would take us along with them; it would be morally correct, yes? 

Out of love for Haydn I will refrain from replying to this. 

[San Antone]

I've stopped counting the times I've heard complaints of the type, "I hate the US they go swaggering around like cowboys,  interjecting themselves wherever they please and acting like the policemen of the world!"

But when we say, oh, we'll help how we can, but it's your fight and stay out, well, then we are abandoning our obligations ...

[Ken B]

I have restrained myself from calling you out lately (I mean, really, Palin a better option? I don't think so. They don't come much nuttier). But as I was thinking the exact same thing, I think they must be smoking something pretty strong. Perhaps we agree for all the wrong reasons, but it must be a miracle!

Well, I did pick Palin as an extreme example of course, for emphasis.

Actually I think Palin is quite sharp, people are wrong to underestimate her, and she is quite good at being a "media personality": provocative, etc. I gather she was a decent governor, who fought corruption in her own party.  I don't think she has the judgment to be a president, and have never seen evidence that she either understands her shortcomings or felt much need to improve them.

[Ken B]

I've stopped counting the times I've heard complaints of the type, "I hate the US they go swaggering around like cowboys,  interjecting themselves wherever they please and acting like the policemen of the world!"

But when we say, oh, we'll help how we can, but it's your fight and stay out, well, then we are abandoning our obligations ...

Indeed. It's an illustration of Ken's Third Law: Resentment explains much of life. Much being the parts not explained by stupidity or greed. 

[Florestan]

Yes. A treaty is just a piece of paper unless you have the will and the means to back it up. That's the real world.

Germany maintained exactly this position in both world wars yet she was demonized. Why?

Why is "the last time they did just that" any more relevant than any other time "they did just that"?

Actually, you´re right. "[T]he last time they did just that" is like most of any other time they did just that in the last 2 centuries: each time they had to deal with one aggressor which (in slightly different, barely disguised clothes) is still active in threatening them. No, it´s not Turkey, sorry.

The rhetoric of John Quincy Adams on this matter is very similar to the rhetoric of Washington, Madison, Jefferson et al. on this matter. As these gentlemen played a major role in creating the United States of America, their views on how it should conduct its international affairs remain relevant within that polity.

Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams et al. are long since outdated when it comes to the US foreign policy. At least since the Mexican War, probably since 1898, most definitely since WWI and irreversible since WWII.

Designating one particular historical event as the single event that determined the world order is a very arbitrary way to argue. Why not World War I, or the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, or the War of Jenkins' Ear? This pick-&-choose approach to historical argumentation is characteristic of ideologues.

I was just reasoning ad usum Delphini; American politicians and voters are not especially famous for their historical knowledge. You seem to be an exception so I concede your point: actually, it all started in the Garden of Eden.

None of the instances you have cited obligate the USA to take sides in any particular conflict concerning the above-named states.

Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine probably not. Poland, Latvia and Romania are NATO members, though; much to your chagrin, the USA pledged their signature, trust and honor on that treatise. If you mean to say that they are worth nothing, okay --- after all, it´s not you who decide.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

. Poland, Latvia and Romania are NATO members, though; much to your chagrin, the USA pledged their signature, trust and honor on that treatise.

Yes, you are correct about that. In a previous post, I stated that NATO should have been dissolved after the Cold War. I was thinking along those lines - we do have those obligations, but I don't think we should.

But here's what it comes down to. Some people (apparently you among them) want this "Team America - World Police" stance to continue. I don't. I think it's ruining this country.

[Florestan]

Yes, you are correct about that. In a previous post, I stated that NATO should have been dissolved after the Cold War. I was thinking along those lines - we do have those obligations, but I don't think we should.

Write to your congressman. 

Some people (apparently you among them) want this "Team America - World Police" stance to continue. I don't. I think it's ruining this country.

Have you read Theodor Mommsen´s Roman History?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Write to your congressman. 

I did 

Have you read Theodor Mommsen´s Roman History?

No. I've read some of Gibbon, though.

[Todd]

4. Countries formerly belonging to USSR (by forceful annexation) attacked by Russia either directly, or by proxies, or both (in chronological order): Moldavia, Georgia, Ukraine. Attacked by USA: none. Countries formerly belonging to the USSR-led Communist camp (by Red Army invasion and occupation) verbally threatened by various Russian officials or non-officials: Poland, Latvia, Romania. Verbally threatened by USA: none. Yet when it comes to it, USA is the aggressor.

You might want to take a less Eurocentric view.  I'll just stick to the post-war world since to explore US foreign policy up to that point would be an example of land grabs and opportunistic wars and gunboat diplomacy.  I'm not sure some people of Southeast Asia would share the view that the US is more peaceful or less threatening.  It is also possible that some people today across North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia might see the US differently than you do.  Of course, some of these same people, or at least their leaders, might want US protection from even more loathsome neighbors and are therefore willing to let bygones be bygones.  At least for now.

And it is, in historical fact, possible to be outright aggressive without immediately starting a war by firing the first shot.  Look at the Mexican American War.  James Polk sent Zachary Taylor to the border of Mexico.  That was a provocation.  It worked.  It sparked a war.  A war that no less a figure than Ulysses Grant labeled wicked.  (On second thought, an example from the pre-war era is useful.)  Since 1991, the US has actively pushed for an expansion of NATO right up to the borders of Russia.  That is unambiguously a provocation.  This is a war we do not want to spark. 

The easternmost members of NATO offer no security benefits to the US or to more westerly European countries.  They offer the risk of war.  Given that some NATO members do not even meet their treaty obligations as it pertains to defense spending, I see NATO as basically a US subsidy for the defense of Europe, and one that could cause harm with no real benefit.

Let me ask this of those who favor muscular US foreign policy, who favor recklessly heeding NATO obligations: if Russia takes over the Baltic nations, how will it affect 1.) my life directly (market swoons nothwithstanding), and 2.) make the US less safe?

5. The best, surest and most effective way of ensuring international peace and order (relatively, as all human affairs are) is by simultaneously (1) immediate USA withdrawal from all her international engagements, miltary or diplomatic, and (2) enforcing existing, or creating new, international organizations.

The US should not withdraw from all international engagements, not at all.  I don't recall anyone arguing that.  It should, however, reduce its military obligations in various parts of the world, Europe above all, and deploy limited resources and focus where more important issues exist – the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Strait of Malacca come to mind.  This is not to say that the US should start establishing new military bases in the region, though it already has, but rather that it needs to address different issues. 

I'd very much like to see the establishment of meaningful international security.  I hold a dark view of human motivation and the conduct of nations, but that does not preclude the establishment of some type organization or groups of organizations from fulfilling this need.  The post-war framework is weakening and eroding.  It does not reflect the political realities of today quite like it did in 1945.  When the facts change, so should the institutions and policies.

[Florestan]

I did 

Write again! And again and again! Your are the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, the voice of the people cannot go unheard for long...   

No. I've read some of Gibbon, though.

USA is not yet in Gibbon phase. Mommsen, though, explains exactly why Washington, Jefferson and Adams were abandoned. 

[Todd]

USA is not yet in Gibbon phase.

Wait, this implies that the US is an empire.  That cannot be!

[Florestan]

Let me ask this of those who favor muscular US foreign policy, who favor recklessly heeding NATO obligations: if Russia takes over the Baltic nations, how will it affect 1.) my life directly (market swoons nothwithstanding), and 2.) make the US less safe?

How did the WWI up until 1917 directly affected the life of the Americans (market swoons nothwithstanding)? How did it make the US less safe?

How did Germany´s taking over most of Europe up until 1942 directly affected the life of the Americans (market swoons nothwithstanding)? How did it make the US less safe?

These are not rhetorical questions. I am one of those guys who sincerely believe that a German victory both in WWI and WWII would have been better than the actual result, which would have probably been very different were it not for the US intervention.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Let me ask this of those who favor muscular US foreign policy, who favor recklessly heeding NATO obligations: if Russia takes over the Baltic nations, how will it affect 1.) my life directly (market swoons nothwithstanding), and 2.) make the US less safe?

Also absent from pro-NATO rhetoric is any consideration of practicality. Let's say Russia took over Estonia, which it could probably do in a couple of days. What would be our response?:

1. Nuke 'em (yeah right)
2. Engage in a pitched land battle with Russian forces, right on their doorstep, incurring heavy losses (yeah right)
3. Sanctions (like that makes any difference)
4. Strongly worded messages of disapproval

Given the realities of the situation, the only realistic option is #4. What's the point of expanding NATO again?

Write again! And again and again! Your are the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, the voice of the people cannot go unheard for long...   

I only did it as a way to blow off steam. The Best Congress Money Can Buy doesn't pay much attention to us peons. Although every once in a while there is an exception, as with the Syria situation a while back.

[Todd]

How did the WWI up until 1917 directly affected the life of the Americans (market swoons nothwithstanding)? How did it make the US less safe?

How did Germany´s taking over most of Europe up until 1942 directly affected the life of the Americans (market swoons nothwithstanding)? How did it make the US less safe?

To the former, it did not make the US itself less safe.  The people in the US who were primarily affected were financiers and exporters who conducted business with Europe.  The standard presentation of history in US secondary schools, and to a slightly lesser extent in tertiary schools, continues to present the Germans as bad guys in WWI.  That doesn't make it so.  Lenin was right: it was a war between empires.  The US could have sat out the Great War.

To the latter, which was of course only possible because of the former, I will say that the Nazis represented a more significant threat.  Imperial Germany was more or less a variant of other European empires common at the time.  National Socialism, and Bolshevism, represented something more.  They were ideologies led by ideologues.  Carving up countries and splitting loot were not enough.

Now, how would a return to Russian domination of the Baltics affect the security of the US?

[Todd]

Also absent from pro-NATO rhetoric is any consideration of practicality. Let's say Russia took over Estonia, which it could probably do in a couple of days. What would be our response?:

1. Nuke 'em (yeah right)
2. Engage in a pitched land battle with Russian forces, right on their doorstep, incurring heavy losses (yeah right)
3. Sanctions (like that makes any difference)
4. Strongly worded messages of disapproval

Given the realities of the situation, the only realistic option is #4. What's the point of expanding NATO again?

I only did it as a way to blow off steam. The Best Congress Money Can Buy doesn't pay much attention to us peons. Although every once in a while there is an exception, as with the Syria situation a while back.

You should have Option #5: Strongly worded messages of disapproval paired with a meaningless "show of force", where the US and its allies, meaning the US, moves a few ships around, threatens to deploy more missile shields, and so on, but not quite enough to risk actual war.

I'm not convinced that US restraint in Syria has as much to do with popular disapproval at home as it does with concerns of allies in the region and on-going negotiations with other players in the region.  Given that the US is currently engaged in acts of war in multiple countries ranging from northwest Africa to South Asia without so much as a pesky AUMF leads me to think that military policy in the region is conducted with basically no regard to public opinion, to the extent the public even cares.

[Gurn Blanston]

You should have Option #5: Strongly worded messages of disapproval paired with a meaningless "show of force", where the US and its allies, meaning the US, moves a few ships around, threatens to deploy more missile shields, and so on, but not quite enough to risk actual war.

I'm not convinced that US restraint in Syria has as much to do with popular disapproval at home as it does with concerns of allies in the region and on-going negotiations with other players in the region.  Given that the US is currently engaged in acts of war in multiple countries ranging from northwest Africa to South Asia without so much as a pesky AUMF leads me to think that military policy in the region is conducted with basically no regard to public opinion, to the extent the public even cares.

I know you didn't just discover this.

You should never let it too far out of your sight when considering these matters; many in Congress and most of the public are idiots. I know, we like to all move forward together when possible. But 'the consent of the governed' was a much more viable proposition back in the days when the governed were in manageable numbers and it was culturally acceptable to actually be informed and to think before reaching a decision on some course of action. Since that is all passé these days, well, you have to do the prudent thing before Edward Snowden has time to tell WikiLeaks about it and the bad guys are waiting at the border.