posted on March 13, 2003 02:11:09 PM new
It is a long one Rev, but the parts about the asymetrical issues are great, not just the military factors, but the economic and cultural issues.
I think the best analogy would be illegal drug cartels and how funneling all that money to them effects the "legitimate" world.
posted on March 13, 2003 02:26:26 PM new
donny,what article did you read ? This article is in fact a critisism of Wilson's ideas and only mentions Wilson's name as an example of a president that ordered the military use force "unstintingly" in WWI.
"This gives a sense of Greek tragedy, with its dialectic of hubris and nemesis, to what has been unfolding in the Islamic world. If they continue to use terror against the West, their very success will destroy them. If they succeed in terrorizing the West, they will discover that they have in fact only ended by brutalizing it. And if subjected to enough stress, the liberal system will be set aside and the Hobbesian world will return - and with its return, the Islamic world will be crushed. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. And the only way to avoid this horrendous end is to bring the Islamic world back to sanity sooner rather than latter.
Nothing but force can break them from their illusion. Not because there is something wrong with them as a race, but simply because they are acting like any other individual who has been permitted to live in a dream world - they continue to fantasize. And who can blame them? It is only brute fact that shakes any of us from the single most cherished of our illusions - the myth of our own grandeur and omnipotence. And this is as true of a culture as of an individual.
The greatest threat facing us - and one of the greatest ever to threaten mankind - is the collision of this collective fantasy world of Islam with the horrendous reality of weapons of mass destruction.
This doctrine, however, can be only coherently implemented if the U.S. is prepare to negate the other basic principle of the liberal world order, the refusal to use unilateral force, except in those cases of the "straightforward, conventional unprovoked aggression." And this next logical step was taken by the present administration in its declaration of the policy of the pre-emptive strike."
posted on March 13, 2003 03:03:50 PM new
P-dor, I wish I could lay the argument out as well as that article. Paradigm shift is right. If it doesn't occur, the future looks pretty bad for the West and the rest of the World.
If we can't stop Saddam Hussein, we can't stop anyone, and our enemies know it.
posted on March 13, 2003 03:45:25 PM new
Yes, I did read the whole thing. Did you read my comment? A two sentence comment. Don't stop at the first...
"It's not new, not even as new as Wilson."
In other words, imperialism can be dressed up any way you like. It's still imperialism, it's not new, we've seen it before, it always ends badly, for the empire worst of all.
So, your remark re Wilson wasn't so much about Wilson...If you've read the article, then please argue your case, in the context of the article, by specifically countering the author's position...rather than unfounded generalizations of Imperialism...Wilsonian or otherwise.
posted on March 13, 2003 04:55:41 PM new
He uses a lot of words. Yes, I read it. It boils down to this:
He's calling for an American empire. He says it's not imperialism. It is imperialism. He says it's something totally new. It's not new.
How many times does the same thing have to happen, over and over, to recognize it? And yet, this is the way of the world, all through history. Empires rise, are in place for a while, and fall. Another empire rises...
posted on March 13, 2003 04:57:05 PM new
A very thought provoking read. I will have to read it again after the animals and family are put away for the night. The closing sentence, however, speaks volumes.
No one's crystal ball is in such good shape that they can afford to be too vehement in denouncing those who disagree with them.Fear and trembling is the first order of the day, both on the part of those who counsel action and those who do not.
posted on March 13, 2003 05:05:14 PM new
That the current governments don't have the will to use force "unstintingly" has been my complaint and reason they will fail all along.
I agree the Islamic world refuses to see reality - as I might add Christendom often does - but the war in '91 was a perfect example of that misguided restraint.
The only way to bust the fantasy of a "true believer" is completely. Terror? The rest of the Islamic world needs to see someone of their number humbled so completely that they get weak in the knees and have trouble holding their urine any time the name of the crushed state is spoken in the future.
Anything less will not work with fanatics.
They need to awaken at night afraid they might have offended the infidel. Terror indeed. They need to feel it in their bones. When they curse Allah you're about half way there.
posted on March 13, 2003 07:23:01 PM new
I failed to see anything regarding "empire" or imperialism in the piece.
What I found was a well written article painstakingly describing two different "realities" in the world and how they are clashing. One a fantasy "reality" which is unfounded and unacceptable, the other reality is the very foundations of Western civilization. But the author even asks that we examine our own core values and to defend at any price those worth saving. Even to the point of fighting by the terrorists rules.
Is crushing a culture bent on the destruction of open societies imperialism ?
posted on March 13, 2003 07:31:39 PM new
Great article. I agree that it's time to take the gloves off. I'm an optimist, but I'm afraid it's just a matter of time before a US city is destroyed. Hopefully not in my lifetime.
posted on March 13, 2003 07:39:20 PM new
"...a double standard imposed by the U.S. on the rest of the world, whereby the U.S. can unilaterally decide to act, if need be, to override and even to cancel the existence of any state regime that proposes to develop WMD, especially in those cases where the state regime in question has demonstrated its dangerous lack of a sense of the realistic."
That's imperialism.
It's surreal. In another thread I'm trying to convince someone that imperialism is indeed the big picture goal that we're not admitting to, foolishly thinking that if we see this bigger picture, we'll automatically realize what a disasterous course this is, for us, for everyone.
And here in this thread, you're all reading this piece where you don't have to do any reading between the lines at all, although you do have to slog through lines and lines of silliness like "sui generis," "Clausewitzian," and "schaudenfreude," and saying - yes, that's right.
posted on March 13, 2003 08:55:20 PM new
Well, I do think that "empires rise and fall" pretty much does sum up everything. Seems to me it's always been that way; the only thing that changes is the name of the empire.
What war, Gravid, do you think will be horrific enough to preclude any future war, by the terror the memory of the destruction brings? Mankind has been making war since before recorded history, I'd guess, and we haven't found that recipe yet. Is it a matter of adding more ingredients?
Aside from the relativism of "empires rise and fall"; I assume you have an answer/plan of action, as specific as the author's, supportive of your view.
I'd like to hear it.
BTW, his language in this article while arch if judged by your typical web board, is nevertheless appropriate to its purpose.
Language "means" according to the precision of its accepted historical inferences and references. "Sui Generis", "Clauswitizian", etc., have resonance; lend color & nuance to the discussion...and dare I say, elegance.
If you'd like a course re cultural imperialism, I might recommend "plain speak" in Orwell's "1984"
posted on March 13, 2003 10:44:46 PM new
"They were, by one of the bitter paradoxes of history, the pre-eminent beneficiaries of the Western liberalism that they have pledged themselves to destroy. Their power derives entirely from the fact that the West had committed itself, in the aftermath of World War II, to a policy of not robbing other societies of their natural resources simply because it possessed the military might to do so - nor does it matter whether the West followed this policy out of charitable instinct, or out of prudence, or out of a cynical awareness that it was more cost effective to do so. All that really matters is the quite unintended consequence of the West's conduct: the prodigious funding of fantasists who are thereby enabled to pursue their demented agendas unencumbered by any realistic calculation of the risks or costs of their action."
What a crock!
So out of ‘benevolence’ the west decided to ‘create’ a Jewish state, while still managing to avoid ‘robbing other societies’
The reason the western leaders didn’t just march in and take it are the same as now, they feared a public outcry.
We are led by cowards who fear for their own asses. Just look at Bush’s ‘historic’ achievements… Draft dodger.
So they bring on the war with a soft on.
“All that really matters is the quite unintended consequence of the West's conduct: the prodigious funding of fantasists who are thereby enabled to pursue their demented agendas unencumbered by any realistic calculation of the risks or costs of their action. “
Sounds similar to what I said on the topic of “America Wins The Battle & Israel Wins the War.” But more likelely the concequenses for those 'fantasists' ARE intentional.
http://www.auctionwatch.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=172784
Historical precedence has taught Americans to shut up and run and hide if accused of being a communist and in fact even if accused of any belief which may be viewed as inconsistent with the current paradigm.
This is why so many Americans can be observed to call another American that opposes their opinion a ‘communist’, knowing too well that it means others among them will disassociate themselves from the ‘commie’, to dis-empower the ‘commie’.
The same effect is even seen in the use of the word ‘peacenik’.
And attacks can be made on any one as long as that person can not be associated with certain Semites.
Americans dare not even voice an honest opinion on ALL Semites. So quick to cast slurs on any other nation or religion, even their own, but no way do they want to be called anti-some-Semites.
No people are God’s only people, man women and children are God’s people.
So as the coalition of the willing go on to their own Kristallnacht, perhaps the should heed just one line from a book by this Allen Lee Harris drum beater. “from that night on, Jacob would never set his foot down anywhere on earth without wondering, Perhaps this, too, is a holy place. Perhaps this, too, is a place that God has touched.”
posted on March 13, 2003 11:32:39 PM new
Austbounty;
As usual, a well reasoned, thought provoking, pertinent expansion of the topic.
Once again, from the back of the bar, you have gathered yourself up and delivered a telling pronouncement more than worthy of the stunned silence that immediately follows.
posted on March 13, 2003 11:42:39 PM new
Felt like back in school forced to listen to the tedious world theory of some loser psuedo-intellectual lecturer - filled will poliscikobabble and inevitably qualified at the end.
The sky is falling. Mmm,hmmm.
posted on March 14, 2003 12:45:31 AM new
Well, now we have a chorus of two from the nether regions of the bar...I have no doubt that school was tedious for you krs..but take heart, the soft glow from the books you burned lights your way even now.
posted on March 14, 2003 03:05:23 AM new
Pretty much the only inference to be drawn by the use of "sui generis" in other than in the context of a legal writing is that the author is needlessly using a fancy word (and worse yet, two foreign words where one simple English one would do fine) in an attempt to disguise the fact that he's not saying much. "Schaudenfreude" is actually a pretty useful word which, unlike "sui generis," doesn't have a shorter satisfactory English translation. However, "Schaudenfreude" is last year's word. I think this year's word is "parse."
"Clauswitizian," who the heck knows? However, I'm immediately suspicious of any word I have no idea about that pops up almost a dozen times in one day. I suspect it's only doing that to be ostentatious and annoy me.
This guy starts out by saying that "The war with Iraq will constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world."
Not hardly. The American Empire is already set in place. If you doubt it, look at the overwhelming world opposition we're facing now which isn't causing us to change our course one bit. And why should it? The whole world knows, and we know they know, that we're the 800 pound gorilla that can sit anywhere it wants. This won't alter the fundamental state of the world. It's already our world. The rest of the world, frankly, is behaving foolishly by trying to pretend things aren't the way they are. You can see why the administration is becoming more and more angry... lay back and enjoy it alerady, we're almost done, why pretend to struggle now?
To say that "..Wilson was an Idealist...hardly an Imperialist..." is to say that a rose is a plant, hardly a flower. Not only are idealism and imperialism not mutually exclusive, imperialism always has some kind of idealogical component. Wilson shouldn't get all the credit (or blame, whichever), both the idea of "Manifest Destiny," as well as Teddy Roosevelt, predated Wilson's interventions in and occupations of foreign countries. Maybe "Rooseveltonian Imperialism" was too much of a mouthful, so poor old Wilson got stuck with the tag instead.
It should have been able to have gone without saying that imperialism in general, and American imperialism in particular, are not the tradition shatterers this guy makes them out to be. It's actually the opposite, a continuation of an American tradition that's an echo of the history of the world. The old order being replaced by the new order (which then becomes the old order, etc.) is precisely the story of all of history. The author even says as much, and then repeats again that this is something that has never happened before. He's kind of like a teenager who thinks he's invented sex, it's totally unprecedented. But now that he's repeated twice that this is all totally unique in history, while only pausing briefly once to note that it really isn't, he rushes off in declaring that, therefore, there is a trascendence of "the conceptual categories of the old world, call(ing) into existence an entirely novel set of categories."
Or, as you might say, a complete paradigm shift.
He talks about "The Source of Our Uncertainty," when what he means is his own uncertainty. He identifies these as "... 9/11... radical Islam and the War on Terrorism, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." He feels they're related problems, but he's not sure how. He says that "Superficially, of course, they are connected by Islam - and yet we are troubled to think that this could be the genuine source of the problems." A paragraph or so, later, with no basis that I can see, seemingly as a way to end his confusion, he finds the answer. It is Islamic after all. It looks like it was just too difficult for him to actually try to get a handle on. Some of them are somewhat related, but some of them aren't related by more than timely coincidence and geographical proximity. Cut that Gordian knot, it's Islamic.
He throws in something about how people in this region have no sense of the value of things because they're sitting on oil. Their riches weren't created through their own work, so therefore... Apparently, the natural resources of other countries, like America, that contributed to our power bases, didn't ruin us.
Legitimacy is a big theme. If a nation isn't legitimate, it's "honorific." He declares that a nation is a legitimate nation instead of a merely "honorific" nation only if it "can in fact defend itself against all comers."
But that's not stricly true; it's only true in the face of empire builders. While it's true that empires rising, being in power, and then falling again compose the cycle of history, the different stages have different effects. In the face of an ascendant empire, a nation that can't withstand it will be absorbed. As it always turns out, that means nearly every nation of the moment... that's how empires are built. That doesn't reflect the illegitimacy of the falling nation... it's reflective of the peculiarity of that moment in time, a convergence of the stars, the ascendant moments of the empire. To point to Iraq and say - it can't defend itself against us, that proves it's honorofic rather than legitimate is to put the cart before the horse.
He goes on for awhile about how the new enemies aren't waging war by the accepted standards. The English said that same thing about the American Revolutionaries.
Then he gets to wrapping it up by saying that:
"... to call the United States' response a bid for empire is simply silly."
I'm sort of agreeing with him. It's not a bid, it's already been won. Now we're doing what empires do in this phase.
posted on March 14, 2003 03:06:41 AM new
Well as an example the Romans would completely strip the land when they fought with someone - pull every wall down poison the wells and cut every tree, remove all the people and sow the land with salt until it couldn't be farmed.
So it didn't last forever- OK.
But during the time of their empire they had a huge mass of colonies way out of proportion to their size because - as one factor - nobody wanted to fight them knowing what losing meant.
They also were smart enough to SELL citizenship to others. Today people pay smugglers thousands of bucks to get in the US. If you could show up at the border and buy your way in for $100,000 you'd get a little revenue at least.
Too bad though the article didn't have the nerve to point out Bush has just as reality impaired a view of things as Islam in his reliance on Christian faith. If he stops at any point relying on his arms and lets his
God demonstrate a miricle he'll find God favors those with the biggest battalions.
posted on March 14, 2003 03:27:17 AM new
I thought of Carthage myself when I posed that question... but as you note, it didn't last forever, and, I'd say, that means it didn't work.
As you say, at their peak they had colonies way out of proportion to their power because nobody would, or could, fight them. They were the 800 pound gorilla of their day, but in the end, they fell anyway. It was their success, and then the ongoing struggle to hold on to an overextended empire, that led to their downfall. We should hope that the destruction of an American city would be the worst we would experience...
posted on March 14, 2003 04:01:25 AM new
It was complacence that brought down the Roman Empire.
The Roman Empire gave the world the tools it needed to go on. It was time for change.
If we (America) are an Empire, So be it. I can live with it. I'd rather died for it then have to live under the alternatives.
Your references to history are acute but you don't give us any answers as to what form of government you would like to see fill the void of the "American Empire."
I thought the article was very well written. I forgot to read between the lines.
Imperialism, was the call of the anarchist of the early 20th century wasn't it? I believe it's moot in this context.
It's a security thing. It's a survival thing. It's something we either do now or pay the ultimate price down the line.
