Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[drogulus]

Nope.  The Second Iraq War was a disaster and is the root, or at least catalyst, of the current situation.  It should not have happened, and it offers a warning against foolish interventionism, whether of the liberal interventionist, neo-con, or old fashioned imperialist sort.  Obama's current strategy is better than anything else being offered publicly.  But the urge to do more, to be tough, is overwhelming.  If Hillary is our next President, there will be more toughness.  Maybe she will play The Fabulous Thunderbirds at her coronation inauguration.

And I would have thought the Somalia strike from a couple weeks ago and the Yemen strike today was tough enough, but no, it's not tough enough.

    It's forward defense, not toughness. We are not the world policeman because we decided to "get tough", that's neither here nor there, it's the set of circumstance an empire like ours inherits from previous occupants of the position. It involves a number of types of military action of the "we never should have occupied Hawaii" kind. The country inherited British continental imperialism from day one, and the last century saw us take over the British world role. When and if some other power is ready to take over, we'll quit.

    If defense becomes less forward we have to worry about Brussels and Britain and Germany and not merely Syria. The closer it gets to Watertown, Massachusetts the more urgent it gets. I live here. Two blocks away a terrorist hid in a boat in a yard. We can choose war or it can choose us, and if it chooses us our options no longer include peace. It becomes a question of how much war, where and when.

[Todd]

It's forward defense

That reads just like one of my favorite euphemisms for wars of aggression: Preemptive Counter-Attack.

You embrace your imperialism - though the Hawaii analogy is woefully off, unless you are asserting that 1.) the Monroe Doctrine still holds, and 2.) it applies to the whole world - now you just need to embrace your taste for spilling foreigners' blood.

[drogulus]

     I don't think this is in any sense "my imperialism" as much as an understanding of the function imperial systems have. It's not set in stone that a city state or nation is the highest level of organization. Empires have advantages and disadvantages, too. You can't assume certain pacifists stances while being one, except as rhetoric people can safely disbelieve.

     It would be foolish in the extreme to think we're not an empire because it makes our head hurt to think about it like that, and equally foolish to think that an empire can quit on itself.

     There's no evidence that either the Monroe Doctrine nor its extension to the world are not descriptions of fact as they are. There's some room for maneuver about what kind of empire we are and no room at all not to be one.

[Todd]

Yes, it applies to the world.

Well, there you go.  Were that all warmongers so clear-eyed and forthright in their adherence to outdated concepts.  Incidentally, Secretary Kerry has publicly refuted your assertion.

[Pat B]

    It's forward defense, not toughness. We are not the world policeman because we decided to "get tough", that's neither here nor there, it's the set of circumstance an empire like ours inherits from previous occupants of the position. It involves a number of types of military action of the "we never should have occupied Hawaii" kind. The country inherited British continental imperialism from day one, and the last century saw us take over the British world role. When and if some other power is ready to take over, we'll quit.

    If defense becomes less forward we have to worry about Brussels and Britain and Germany and not merely Syria. The closer it gets to Watertown, Massachusetts the more urgent it gets. I live here. Two blocks away a terrorist hid in a boat in a yard. We can choose war or it can choose us, and if it chooses us our options no longer include peace. It becomes a question of how much war, where and when.

This makes no sense to me. The Second Iraq War did not make us safer. It was a disaster both ethically and practically.

[Madiel]

The country inherited British continental imperialism from day one, and the last century saw us take over the British world role. When and if some other power is ready to take over, we'll quit.

The US belief that the world needs it as its policeman is one of the most irritating things about the US.

It's also a fallacy, of course. You don't go places on behalf of the world, mostly you go there on behalf of yourselves. You secure your own interests. It might be oil. Helping Pinochet topple an elected government in Chile was about reassuring yourself about your copper supply.

And large parts of the unholy mess of the last several decades were driven by a total obsession with being against Iran because, you know, the 1979 hostage thing was so terrible that it has to dictate absolutely everything for a generation.

It's a chain reaction arguably reaching back to some time between the World Wars, and the one thing that seems impossible for you guys (and often us supporting you) is to stop meddling. Because hey, you've got to be there, right? The world needs you. Even if the world keeps repeatedly telling you that one of the most upsetting things in their life is the fact that you're shoving your presence in their faces.

Obama has actually being trying fairly hard to reverse this, but now you've got candidates declaring that no, what America really needs to do is carpet bomb places on the other side of the world, until the sand glows.

You're a country that's actually founded on the idea of local control, freedom from distant interference, and yet you do more distant interference than anyone else on the planet.

[drogulus]

Well, there you go.  Were that all warmongers so clear-eyed and forthright in their adherence to outdated concepts.  Incidentally, Secretary Kerry has publicly refuted your assertion.

    He'd better. It makes people uncomfortable. However, this applies to Americans largely. Non-Americans know better.

[Todd]

    He'd better. It makes people uncomfortable. However, this applies to Americans largely. Non-Americans know better.

Well, he did tell it to a group of Latin American leaders.  By the way, the Monroe Doctrine cannot, strictly speaking, apply to the whole world since it is specific to Latin America.  Current foreign policy foundations and military deployments are legacies of the Cold War more than anything else, as you well know.  However, since Russians still insist on being "bad guys", breaking with the past is more difficult for some.

It's a shame that Trump has to be the one to bring up non-interventionism and scaling back on NATO.  Sort of right message, wrong messenger.

[drogulus]

The US belief that the world needs it as its policeman is one of the most irritating things about the US.

     That's an interesting way of putting it. You're irritated by what we believe. What would you believe if the whole world looked to you for rescue by war or peace, as ultimate guarantor of any agreement, as we must be for any matter of significance anywhere. What would you think, and would it matter if you were "pro" or "anti"? In my case understanding must precede approval or disapproval.

     I think it matters if we understand why Kerry says one thing and acts in a different way. I understand that this isn't cynical, ideals can shift reality to some degree. I don't believe what Kerry says and totally approve of what he means.

[drogulus]

By the way, the Monroe Doctrine cannot, strictly speaking, apply to the whole world since it is specific to Latin America. 

      Strictly speaking we are not an empire. Therefore we should not strictly speak, if we want to talk about reality without resorting to "neo-imperialism" every time. It's a kind of empire enforcing a kind of Monroe doctrine on a kind of world basis. The facts make the case, but you can believe anything you want. People will be so not irritated.

[Todd]

Strictly speaking we are not an empire.

True.  The US has not officially declared itself an empire, nor is the President officially an emperor.  The US does, however, maintain a military presence throughout the world, with varying degrees of acceptance by host nations, manages the primary global reserve currency, relies on its own judiciary to issue rulings that affect foreign nationals and entities, and it replaces heads of state of sovereign nations from time-to-time.  The US is global hegemon that uses coercive power, up to and including war, to obtain its political and economic goals.  The US has a scope of power exceeding any empire in history, even in its comparatively diminished current state.  You can pretend that it is not the same as an empire, just as you can pretend that James Monroe's "doctrine" was something other than a Presidential edict uttered to try to deter Europeans from acting in the Western Hemisphere and that the European leaders of the time cared, and you can also pretend that it still has meaning in the post-Trinity age.

[drogulus]

You're a country that's actually founded on the idea of local control, freedom from distant interference, and yet you do more distant interference than anyone else on the planet.

     Yes, it bears that interpretation, that we interfere for our own interests, distantly. Being the empire we are, while we say we're not, does change how self interest is defined. We are defending a system that benefits us, and many others who are not consulted as much as they'd like since they tend to free ride a little. That's something we accept, not liking it much, but it's in our self interest to defend others in the process of defending ourselves. We had better provide security all over the world if we want to defend our interests all over the world. And we have to be willing to have people under our protection think badly of the choices we make, sometimes rightly. A thick skin helps.

     

True.  The US has not officially declared itself an empire, nor is the President officially an emperor.  The US does, however, maintain a military presence throughout the world, with varying degrees of acceptance by host nations, manages the primary global reserve currency, relies on its own judiciary to issue rulings that affect foreign nationals and entities, and it replaces heads of state of sovereign nations from time-to-time.  The US is global hegemon that uses coercive power, up to and including war, to obtain its political and economic goals.  The US has a scope of power exceeding any empire in history, even in its comparatively diminished current state.  You can pretend that it is not the same as an empire, just as you can pretend that James Monroe's "doctrine" was something other than a Presidential edict uttered to try to deter Europeans from acting in the Western Hemisphere and that the European leaders of the time cared, and you can also pretend that it still has meaning in the post-Trinity age.

     Exactly, we are that. The Monroe Doctrine ratified a set of facts in the style of the day. We don't do that, the doctrine is implicit in the actions. As much as we can we monopolize coercive force. Imagine if we didn't? I mean its only fair if we split fifty fifty with our enemies, while all the pacifists who hate us cower on the sidelines and plead for a fair outcome.

[Todd]

Imagine if we didn't?

I do.  The world becomes a better place in such thought experiments, with the greatest benefits accruing to Americans.

[Johnll]

Lordy a little huffie and puffie Trump style sutffie.

True.  The US has not officially declared itself an empire, nor is the President officially an emperor.  The US does, however, maintain a military presence throughout the world, with varying degrees of acceptance by host nations, manages the primary global reserve currency, relies on its own judiciary to issue rulings that affect foreign nationals and entities, and it replaces heads of state of sovereign nations from time-to-time.  The US is global hegemon that uses coercive power, up to and including war, to obtain its political and economic goals.  The US has a scope of power exceeding any empire in history, even in its comparatively diminished current state.  You can pretend that it is not the same as an empire, just as you can pretend that James Monroe's "doctrine" was something other than a Presidential edict uttered to try to deter Europeans from acting in the Western Hemisphere and that the European leaders of the time cared, and you can also pretend that it still has meaning in the post-Trinity age.

[Todd]

Lordy a little huffie and puffie Trump style sutffie.

Huh?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

     That's an interesting way of putting it. You're irritated by what we believe.

People are irritated by actions, not by beliefs. Beliefs may compound the irritation, however.

What would you believe if the whole world looked to you for rescue by war or peace,

Really? The "whole world" looks to us for rescue? Doesn't that contradict the notion that everyone is irritated with us?

"Rescue by war or peace" is a deliciously slippery phrase. In the last couple of decades, the "war" part seems to be the default mode.

The sooner we get out of the empire business, the better it will be for the American people - you know, the only people our government is constitutionally mandated to protect.

[Johnll]

True.  The US has not officially declared itself an empire, nor is the President officially an emperor.  The US does, however, maintain a military presence throughout the world, with varying degrees of acceptance by host nations, manages the primary global reserve currency, relies on its own judiciary to issue rulings that affect foreign nationals and entities, and it replaces heads of state of sovereign nations from time-to-time.  The US is global hegemon that uses coercive power, up to and including war, to obtain its political and economic goals.  The US has a scope of power exceeding any empire in history, even in its comparatively diminished current state.  You can pretend that it is not the same as an empire, just as you can pretend that James Monroe's "doctrine" was something other than a Presidential edict uttered to try to deter Europeans from acting in the Western Hemisphere and that the European leaders of the time cared, and you can also pretend that it still has meaning in the post-Trinity age.

I suspect you would like to bury this huffie and puffie trump style stuffie. Please conservative up Todd.

[kishnevi]

Or, you know, you can be a child playing outside who gets shot by police. Or a person who pulls into the wrong driveway and gets blasted by the homeowner as you're reversing out again.

But hey, we can trade anecdotes until the cows come home, or you can just tell me how many notional "bad people" it takes to even up with 1 "good person". I think it's about 10,000 gun deaths a year in America, so let me know if that's enough to cover the apparent difference in value between human lives.

The number of guns owned by individuals in the US is roughly 270 million.   In 2013, roughly 33,000 people died from gunshots, of whom about a third were suicides ( and therefore can be presumed to have killed themselves by other means if guns were not available).  If my math is correct, that means 99.9% of the guns in the US were not used to kill people.  In other words, 269 million guns were used safely.

Better enforcement of the gun laws now on the books to keep them out of reach of felons and mentally unstable is the only solution needed.

I might add that from a Yank perspective, the draconian laws of Australia are the crazy laws.  If I understand them correctly,  all guns must be approved by police and self defense is not a recognized reason.   So if you find youself targeted by a crazy stalker,  best option is move to the US.

[kishnevi]

And large parts of the unholy mess of the last several decades were driven by a total obsession with being against Iran because, you know, the 1979 hostage thing was so terrible that it has to dictate absolutely everything for a generation.

It would be more precise to say that the unholy mess is driven by the mullahcratic ideology in which America is the Great Satan and Israel must be destroyed.

[drogulus]

Really? The "whole world" looks to us for rescue? Doesn't that contradict the notion that everyone is irritated with us?

      Yes, it's very strange. Sometimes I wonder about how in the ME the Americans are hated for supporting Israel, and how Muslims want us to help them remedy the situation. If only we understood their plight! Why would it matter if people in a faraway country understood your plight? Why are we supposed to help people in trouble? I mean I know why, but why do so many people around the world with varying attitudes think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the U.S. to do some big important thing to make the world better?

     Most of the world isn't asking for rescue at the moment, and we aren't always rescuing. But if they ask, they ask us, and if it's provided, we provide it. We even provide food and medical supplies to people who hate us. That might be a little irritating in a humiliating sort of way. Again I understand this and have no trouble explaining how self interest and wider interest have evolved over centuries. How to explain it with fairly unimpressive and largely emotive ideas commonly held, you can't. That's mostly good guy bad guy stuff with no structure in it.