PDA

View Full Version : On the avoidance of small wars



Fuchs
11-02-2011, 08:39 AM
Something was missing in this forum, and now I know what: A "How to avoid cutting yourself" thread. Discussing knifes, knife combat techniques and bandages is fine, but it's better to not cut yourself in the first place.


I called this "avoidance" of small wars for a reason; there will likely always be conflicts. The question is about how to not stick your head too much into the dangerous mess of other people.
Some countries can resist such urges better than others, maybe the more self-controlled ones who can resist such urges and thus did not suffer much harm from small wars do something right?

What's the difference between a country that's believing it needs to be involved in distant, foreign and quite often totally irrelevant conflicts and a country that's cool?


I'm fully aware that there are many ideas (I call them "myths") about how sticking your head into distant conflicts somehow keeps the world from exploding or something, but the history of the last decade should have told even those myth-believers that involvement is akin to self-mutilation.


# What does it take to motivate a country to intervene military in distant places without clear national interests (economical, political obligations) to outweight the costs?

# What does it take to counter these motivations?

# Can institutional safeguards help or is it all about political culture and special interests?

# How can a principal-agent problem ('chickenhawks in government') be avoided?

# Do any countries have effective legal counterweights to political aggressiveness (such as conscription of sons of politicians into front-line infantry?)

# What's the role of mass media? Can feeding the media with interestign stories keep them from pushing for war (intentionally or indirectly) because of a lack of good alternative media contents?

Bob's World
11-02-2011, 09:02 AM
Several factors contribute, I'll list a few that I think are important, though certainly not an inclusive list:

1. Hubris

2. A flawed, (generally too expansive) assessment of what one's vital national interests are.

3. A flawed assessment of the nature and extent of the "threat" one is seeking "to defeat overseas so that it does not wash up on our shores."

4. A combination of genuine desire to help a populace or government in distress and jumping into a scuffle that one does not understand; winding up either helping the wrong party or simply getting roughed up by one or both for one's efforts.

5. Being talked into doing something one knows is foolish and risky by one's advisors (this only sounds like I am talking about VP Cheney), or by powerful corporate or national lobbies (this only sounds like I am talking about oil companies, or Israeli/Saudi lobbies) or the media (liberals and conservatives equally at fault here Fox and MSNBC...).

anonamatic
11-02-2011, 09:15 AM
Oh this is a really good topic idea...

I'd add

Having an exit strategy and having one that involves planning for failures too. Wishful thinking prior to an engagement doesn't cut it.

davidbfpo
11-02-2011, 11:42 AM
On the run today, so two items.

There is a similar theme in this SWJ Blog comment:http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-virtue-of-doing-nothing-0

Secondly, we often revert to the intention and capability approach. On quick reflection it might be easier to look at those states that do not get involved. I don't mean the Swiss or traditional neutrals, partly as the Nordic countries of late have been intervening.

Bill Moore
11-02-2011, 04:40 PM
Although never really accepted, in a previous era to counter the growing hubris associated with sticking our nose under everyone's tent with no clear achievable objective several folks formed what is commonly called the Powell Doctrine. Obviously it didn't work (due to some of its inherent flaws and the fact that doctrine alone doesn't constrain hubris).

I think all these points surfaced by Fuchs are worth consideration:


# Can institutional safeguards help or is it all about political culture and special interests?

# How can a principal-agent problem ('chickenhawks in government') be avoided?

# Do any countries have effective legal counterweights to political aggressiveness (such as conscription of sons of politicians into front-line infantry?)

# What's the role of mass media? Can feeding the media with interestign stories keep them from pushing for war (intentionally or indirectly) because of a lack of good alternative media contents?

jmm99
11-02-2011, 05:17 PM
(1) Don't let one onion layer be peeled, lest the core be lost (Integral Rigidity):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NtWch3yJJeg/SUKPMKZVIcI/AAAAAAAAARk/Nkfs8xPCWqI/s400/onion.jpg

(2) Let 'em eat the apple, but protect the core (Concentration of Mass):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/HydrogenOrbitalsN6L0M0.png

The rest of the questions are answered by choice of Worldview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view).

Regards

Mike

Steve Blair
11-02-2011, 05:30 PM
I think you're also ignoring the influence of geography (or how countries apply and understand or perceive their geography) and humanitarian impulses (often fed by celebrities and the media). There's also the matter of different election cycles and basic national culture. Also, some nations don't intervene because they either don't need to or can count on someone else to do it for them.

The point about the media is interesting, but what "interesting stories" are you going to feed them? In addition to the desire to hold politicians accountable, I'd add the need to hold the media responsible for their actions. Sadly, this doesn't often happen (in either case).

Fuchs
11-02-2011, 05:34 PM
Also, some nations don't intervene because they either don't need to or can count on someone else to do it for them.

The latter always appears to me to be systematically exaggerated by U.S. Americans.
U.S.Americans rarely get the idea that often times other nations don't think that this or that intervention, containment or arms race is in their interest.

Bob's World
11-02-2011, 06:13 PM
The latter always appears to me to be systematically exaggerated by U.S. Americans.
U.S.Americans rarely get the idea that often times other nations don't think that this or that intervention, containment or arms race is in their interest.

Sadly this is too true.

Thinking that one has "universal" values, and therefore interests, can cloud one's thinking in this regard...

Afterall, if we all share the same interests and values as defined by the US, then clearly our allies closest to some problem should jump on it if we think it is important, right???

Steve Blair
11-02-2011, 10:07 PM
The latter always appears to me to be systematically exaggerated by U.S. Americans.
U.S.Americans rarely get the idea that often times other nations don't think that this or that intervention, containment or arms race is in their interest.

I'm sure it does. However, you may notice that I didn't frame my comment in that sense. Some nations don't need to intervene for any number of reasons. Others, who may need to, can often count on someone else having the same interest (or perceived interest) and acting first. This isn't a question of "universal" values but rather some nations having the same perceived interests. Nor is it automatically US or Euro-centric.

You can spin it as a US versus others if you wish, but that's not the point of it.

Fuchs
11-02-2011, 10:47 PM
You don't understand the extent.

The whole remark would most likely not have appeared if no U.S. citizen had been involved in the discussion!

M-A Lagrange
11-03-2011, 12:14 PM
Sadly this is too true.

Thinking that one has "universal" values, and therefore interests, can cloud one's thinking in this regard...

Afterall, if we all share the same interests and values as defined by the US, then clearly our allies closest to some problem should jump on it if we think it is important, right???

Wrong. If it is in their particular interrest may be but not if that is part of a global comon interrest.
If you think it's important then you should jump on it. If others think it is important for them then they should jump on it.
if it is in yours and others interrest but with lower interest from US allies... Then it is/should be US problem and no one else. :D

JMA
11-03-2011, 02:26 PM
Fuchs I suggest this thread and your argument is misguided.

As far as the Germans are concerned they can only apply leverage through their current economic strength. The combined German military (of today) could not blow a candle out. Germany does not have a military option for any sized war.

The recent Libyan exercise has shown that the combined European nations of NATO (mainly France and the Brits) couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag without help from Uncle Sam.

That leaves the US of A. Good soldiers at the bottom, good solid brave soldiers who often die needlessly.

Like a fish the US is rotting from the head down.

There are probably more honest and sincere politicians in Outer Mongolia that in the whole of the US. The Presidency has sunk to level of incompetence which only the blindly of patriotic Americans can have any respect for.

General officers and colonels while perhaps having displayed physical courage at some early point in their careers now display an almost universal lack of moral courage.

Small wars and interventions are getting a bad name because they have been unspeakably incompetently handled by the politician/general staff as a Keystone Cops combination.

I have said before that it takes 20 years before they let you command a battalion of infantry (700 men), ten more before you can command a little trot through Kuwait or Iraq but how long before you can run a country or set the strategy for a war. There lies the problem.

It is too late I fear. Once it gets down to majors/captains and the rest questioning the rights and wrongs of a small war or intervention it is time to cash in your chips and head for the hills.

Its gone. it over, its done. Forget it.

Fuchs
11-03-2011, 02:57 PM
You're wrong on so many levels I'm really clueless about how to respond without writing a book chapter.

There's a common thread, though: You simplify too much and don't look beyond the surface.

I wrote here earlier that Europe wasn't really interested in Libya. Libya is unimportant, and we weren't really at war (Germany not at all). The air forces didn't even bother leaving the comfort of main air bases.
Europe cannot do interventions like the U.S. does them because nobody but the U.S. is so crazy to follow such a wasteful approach. If necessary, we could easily improvise and pull things off the old-fashioned way.
Nobody's going to improvise anything big unless there's motivation, though.

JMA
11-05-2011, 04:39 AM
You're wrong on so many levels I'm really clueless about how to respond without writing a book chapter.

Well... just mention three levels where I'm wrong for starters ;)


There's a common thread, though: You simplify too much and don't look beyond the surface.

On the contrary I suggest the tendency is to complicate matters... after all one has to find work for all the staff officers and think tank hangers on and university faculty... I mean if it really were that simple they would all be out of a job, yes?

The trick (learned in the military) is to cut through the crap and get to the crux of the issue. Not done anymore. There, my dear Fuchs, lies the problem.


I wrote here earlier that Europe wasn't really interested in Libya. Libya is unimportant, and we weren't really at war (Germany not at all). The air forces didn't even bother leaving the comfort of main air bases.
Europe cannot do interventions like the U.S. does them because nobody but the U.S. is so crazy to follow such a wasteful approach. If necessary, we could easily improvise and pull things off the old-fashioned way.
Nobody's going to improvise anything big unless there's motivation, though.

Europe is definitely interested in Libya (what with the oil and geographical proximity to Europe). what happened was that without the US holding their hand there were unable to intervene in Libya so when the US called the French and Brit bellicose bluff the house of cards that is the European military collapsed.

...but you are correct Europe (including Germany) can't state in interest when they are in no position to back it up with action (unless Uncle Sam is prepared to hold their hands). Europe can't do it... therefore they must maintain the pretense of it 'not being in their National Interest' (here that phony excuse a lot around here ;) )

Yes, the US are known for a brute force and ignorance approach where they will rather use a sledgehammer to crack open a nut than use a small stone lying nearby on the ground. Do you really need to use a chain saw to cut off his arms and legs when a poke in the eye with a sharp stick will achieve the aim just as well?

A lot of that has to do with a lack of experience among the individuals concerned leading to a lack of confidence in turn leading to an over elaboration in planning by including too many contingencies. This is understandable given the number of politicians looking over shoulder of the military.

Big? What do you class as big?

Fuchs
11-05-2011, 07:27 AM
You were factually wrong about Germany's military, you were factually wrong about Germany's diplomatic options, you were factually wrong about "Europe"'s ability to wage war without the U.S., the whole idea that you could add time needed to master certain levels is wrong as well, junior officers questioning war has been totally common and also occurred prior to the 1940 France campaign (in fact, even many Generals questioned war and campaign plan) and small wars/interventions have in great part a bad rep because they're so marginally useful no matter how successful.

You were basically wrong about everything and it's not about simplify vs. complicate. It's about you having an utterly incomplete look at those things.

JMA
11-05-2011, 01:37 PM
You were factually wrong about Germany's military, you were factually wrong about Germany's diplomatic options, you were factually wrong about "Europe"'s ability to wage war without the U.S., the whole idea that you could add time needed to master certain levels is wrong as well, junior officers questioning war has been totally common and also occurred prior to the 1940 France campaign (in fact, even many Generals questioned war and campaign plan) and small wars/interventions have in great part a bad rep because they're so marginally useful no matter how successful.

You were basically wrong about everything and it's not about simplify vs. complicate. It's about you having an utterly incomplete look at those things.

LOL... OK the German military could take Liechtenstein and Luxemborg and who else. Fuchs you are living in the past. Today the German army is amateur hour. As such it is best to hide behind the excuse that one should only get involved in 'big' wars of existential nature. The martial nature of Germans has been bred out of the national military genetics. Its over, gone, finished and you are probably right that it is only an existential war that will wake the German public up (which is not going to happen). So analyze it. Why do people join the German army? A steady, secure, safe job (with good conditions or service and an early retirement)? To dress in 'cool' uniforms and march behind brass bands? To get to play with expensive toys (like jet aircraft, tanks and assorted military ships) which they could otherwise not afford to and at virtually no safety risk (like from a war or something ridiculous like that) other than from their own negligence?

So what may I ask does Germany have to use as diplomatic leverage? A strong economy?

What the Libyan exercise proved beyond doubt is that only the US has the ability to sustain any such action at a meaningful tempo (as Libya would be classed as a minor intervention).

Correction... small wars have a bad reputation because they are generally micro managed (by politicians and senior commanders) to the extent of being unable to accomplish the mission (or achieve the aim - whatever you prefer).

Remember this clown?

War is too serious a business to be left to the generals. - Georges Clemenceau

... this is the very same clown who was one of the major voices behind the Treaty of Versailles 1919 ... and we all know what that 'masterpiece' led to.

Fuchs
11-05-2011, 01:55 PM
You're living in the past, for you don't seem to see that there's no Red Army any more.

The combined European NATO military forces are superior to the combined military forces of their periphery. This relative strength is what counts for whether you can fight your way out of a wet bag or even withstand an all-out assault of all neighbours.

And you shouldn't imply that in other countries military forces are not first and foremost employers, for that's what they are. There's no Sparta or Templar Order anywhere these days.


You also read too much into genetic and/or cultural effects regarding Germany and the military. The military is a tool, not an object of patriotic passion. Just a tool for the national policy.
Your idea of a martial culture back before '45 is quite mislead as well. There's not a single photo of people cheering the war in 1939, unlike 1914. The war was deeply unpopular till Paris fell.

It wasn't some martial spirit that turned workers and farmers into NCOs who lead assaults after all nearby officers fell; it was a combination of factors in German society and military that's still very much alive.
# great dissatisfaction with poor results
# a strong belief in organising things thoroughly to address issues
# a good basic education
# a strong belief in the importance of education and training
# a strong belief that it's important to take precautions in case things go wrong
# institutional memory about what's important
# the fostering of Kameradschaft in the army


Again; I diagnose that you simplify things way too much.
"Martial spirit" may please you as an explanation, but it's a primitive concept that doesn't fit well to actual history.


We produce good cars for about the same reasons why our grandparent and grand-grandparent generations left such a strong marks in military history.

Dayuhan
11-07-2011, 03:26 AM
"Martial spirit" may please you as an explanation, but it's a primitive concept that doesn't fit well to actual history.

The notion of "German martial spirit" is as poorly founded as the equally lazy notion of "American bellicosity".


We produce good cars for about the same reasons why our grandparent and grand-grandparent generations left such a strong marks in military history.

Good, yes, but too expensive to be worth it. The Japanese generate a better price/performance ratio IMO, though anyone's assessment of "better" is going to be subjective.

I may be biased. My Toyota 4x4 pickup is over 250k km, much of it on absolutely heinous terrain, and still in it. OT, but it wasn't me who brought up cars :eek:

Dayuhan
11-07-2011, 03:35 AM
So what may I ask does Germany have to use as diplomatic leverage? A strong economy?

What the Libyan exercise proved beyond doubt is that only the US has the ability to sustain any such action at a meaningful tempo (as Libya would be classed as a minor intervention).

One might well ask what form of military leverage Germany needs... and the answer would probably be not much, beyond defense of the homeland. Why would the Germans want to project armed force around the world?


Remember this clown?

War is too serious a business to be left to the generals. - Georges Clemenceau

... this is the very same clown who was one of the major voices behind the Treaty of Versailles 1919 ... and we all know what that 'masterpiece' led to.

I'd say allowing Generals to decide when to make war is every bit as foolish as telling Generals how to make war. Determining policy objectives is not the competence or the business of the military.

I'd agree with Fuchs that the great majority of American small wars since WW2 have been pointless and counterproductive from the start, evidence of policy failure, not miitary failure, and most would have been better avoided.

How to stop doing that is another question. Clear, sensible assessments of interests, choice of practical, realistic, achievable goals, more awareness of potential for unintended consequences... that stuff helps, but it's like saying the antidote to stupidity is smartness. How to get some smartness into place is a bit of an issue. It's usually there, but it's all too often ignored.

JMA
11-07-2011, 08:30 AM
One might well ask what form of military leverage Germany needs... and the answer would probably be not much, beyond defense of the homeland. Why would the Germans want to project armed force around the world?

I generally avoid responding to you (for good reason) but in this case I will.

Your point is invalid.

The bottom line is that Germany has no military leverage (the reason for which is immaterial).


I'd say allowing Generals to decide when to make war is every bit as foolish as telling Generals how to make war.

Did I say that the generals should decide when to make war?

No I didn't.

But I do agree that once the Grand Strategy has been decided then the generals should be allowed to get on with it.

Once example of how ludicrous the situation has become is explained in the appointment of civilian oversight (political) of target selection in the recent Libyan debacle. Tell me if you will (or if you can) what qualifications these civilians had for this duty that trumps the 20-30 years experience of the military commanders on that operation?

The final wake up call should have come when a strategic raid (OBL) was micro managed by the White House and then hailed as the making of the presidency. (The US military is not in the clear on this however as there is a common thread running through US raids of this nature and that is helicopter crashes and other failures.)

It should dawn on you that at battalion level and below the US military continues to render outstanding service to their nation in time of need. Above that I'm not sure there is a kind word to be said.


Determining policy objectives is not the competence or the business of the military.

Agreed. Good to see you know this.

The question is that given that you know this the US voter continues to elect Commanders-in-Chief who are barely competent to manage their personal bodily functions let alone to determine policy objectives.

Take Obama for example. He seems to have surrounded himself with all the village idiots. Some retired general staff too who are either not being listened to or are giving bad advice. There is more care (mostly) in selecting CEOs of major corporations than there is in selection a President of the US. Frightening.


I'd agree with Fuchs that the great majority of American small wars since WW2 have been pointless and counterproductive from the start, evidence of policy failure, not miitary failure, and most would have been better avoided.

Better avoided... or conceived and conducted more competently? The Fuchs approach seems to be to do nothing (which is fine if you have been living under the protective umbrella of the US for all this time).


How to stop doing that is another question. Clear, sensible assessments of interests, choice of practical, realistic, achievable goals, more awareness of potential for unintended consequences... that stuff helps, but it's like saying the antidote to stupidity is smartness. How to get some smartness into place is a bit of an issue. It's usually there, but it's all too often ignored.

Give the military the war aims and let them get on with it (watching out for McArthur and Patton type personalities which need to be 'managed'.

Smartness in the White House and in most of the worlds capitals is in short supply. It gets worse when the president surrounds himself with 'yes-men'. Anyone got an idea how sleeping in the White House for eight years qualifies one to be Secretary of State?

Dayuhan
11-07-2011, 09:49 AM
I generally avoid responding to you (for good reason) but in this case I will.

I apologize insincerely for having caused you discomfort.


The bottom line is that Germany has no military leverage (the reason for which is immaterial).

They have as much military leverage as they think they need. They may or may not be correct, but that's for them to determine, and not anyone else's business. If they see their military purely as a device to protect the homeland, so be it. Their call.


But I do agree that once the Grand Strategy has been decided then the generals should be allowed to get on with it.

Once example of how ludicrous the situation has become is explained in the appointment of civilian oversight (political) of target selection in the recent Libyan debacle.

We agree on something, unusual. I also think the politicians should stay out of it, once they've laid down the basic guidelines... including, in this case, the specific provisions that the UK and France should lead to the greatest possible extent, no US ground forces should be committed, and US force should not remove MG. Those are all policy decisions, made for good reasons.


It should dawn on you that at battalion level and below the US military continues to render outstanding service to their nation in time of need. Above that I'm not sure there is a kind word to be said.

I've never said otherwise. Bad policy is a serious problem, has been for a long time.


Better avoided... or conceived and conducted more competently? The Fuchs approach seems to be to do nothing (which is fine if you have been living under the protective umbrella of the US for all this time).

If there's no compelling need to be involved, and no clear, practical objective that's achievable with the time and resources you're willing to commit, why be involved at all? Both of those qualities have been rather lacking from American involvements for some time.

Seems to me that the default choice when it comes to interfering in messy affairs in faraway countries should be exactly what Fuchs suggests: don't. That default would reasonably be overridden if there's a sufficiently compelling interest, but it would need to be very compelling indeed to be sufficient, IMO.


Give the military the war aims and let them get on with it (watching out for McArthur and Patton type personalities which need to be 'managed'.

MacArthur and Patton type personalities should certainly never be allowed to make policy... if that's "management", then it's called for. MacArthur was able to make policy for a very short while in the country where I live, and made a serious hash of it.


Smartness in the White House and in most of the worlds capitals is in short supply.

Agreed.

JMA
11-08-2011, 05:04 PM
I apologize insincerely for having caused you discomfort.

No discomfort... just mild annoyance.


They have as much military leverage as they think they need. They may or may not be correct, but that's for them to determine, and not anyone else's business. If they see their military purely as a device to protect the homeland, so be it. Their call.

... but what they think they need does not translate into any military deterent whatsoever.


We agree on something, unusual. I also think the politicians should stay out of it, once they've laid down the basic guidelines... including, in this case, the specific provisions that the UK and France should lead to the greatest possible extent, no US ground forces should be committed, and US force should not remove MG. Those are all policy decisions, made for good reasons.

Progress ;)


little snip

Seems to me that the default choice when it comes to interfering in messy affairs in faraway countries should be exactly what Fuchs suggests: don't. That default would reasonably be overridden if there's a sufficiently compelling interest, but it would need to be very compelling indeed to be sufficient, IMO.

OK so you and Fuchs may agree on this. I disagree.

"when it comes to interfering in messy affairs in faraway countries" it should be done properly. You can't take the military option off the table because the political direction and the military execution have been poor. Fix the problem.


MacArthur and Patton type personalities should certainly never be allowed to make policy... if that's "management", then it's called for. MacArthur was able to make policy for a very short while in the country where I live, and made a serious hash of it.

Yes keep them focussed on the war and don't let their egotism run wild.


Agreed.

More progress ;)

Fuchs
11-08-2011, 05:23 PM
JMA, keep in mind I am educated in economics. This means I have spent almost five years at a university and was indoctrinated with a huge aversion against wasteful behaviour AND the tools to do the analysis which option is more or less wasteful than the other.
I suspect this is the huge difference between us. You appear to be more guided by sentiments than cost/benefit consideration.


"when it comes to interfering in messy affairs in faraway countries" it should be done properly. You can't take the military option off the table because the political direction and the military execution have been poor. Fix the problem.

(1) The advantages offered by a widely recognised and respected international law system are so strong - especially for the smaller countries - that nuisances far away do not justify damaging the IL system.
An intervention should thus only happen if
a) it's legal in IL (= allowed by UNSC or due to formal alliance obligations)
or
b) morally necessary (intervention against well-proved genocide; ethnic cleansing does not suffice)

(2) The decision pro or contra once (1) is met should be guided by national interest.
This means that the nation should be better off with the intervention (in math speak: I mean the expectation value) than without.

This is extremely difficult, for even the best philosophers have no real clue how to determine a exchange rates between a citizen's (soldier's) life, money, reputation and a foreigner's life. It's thus impossible to sum up costs and benefits.

This should not keep us from understanding (and applying) that intervention has to be better than non-intervention to be justified.

After all, military action means a lot harm - which is undesirable by default and requires a specific justification.


About "being on the table": I don't subscribe to it as totally excluded or as being only a tool of last resort. I have (as mentioned) my reasoning for its use or non-use (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2011/09/war-as-last-resort.html).


edit: Notice the difference between war and intervention when I write. I attempt to stay clear and conscious in my choice of these words.

JMA
11-10-2011, 04:46 AM
JMA, keep in mind I am educated in economics.

I concede the point that the German military budget is and has been constrained by the intelligent application of sound economic principles.

That said, however, the end result is that for this and other reasons the German military is merely a token force.

So yes lack of threat to homeland, economic realities etc etc all all good reasons for this but lets not for one moment consider the German military capable of anything other parades and demonstrations. This is sad but true.

Dayuhan
11-10-2011, 05:50 AM
... but what they think they need does not translate into any military deterent whatsoever.

They've little enough to fear from the Dutch, the Belgians, the French and the Poles. Apparently they see no reason to develop the ability to project power overseas, and they may fear (with some justification) that if they have that ability somebody might be tempted to use it.


"when it comes to interfering in messy affairs in faraway countries" it should be done properly. You can't take the military option off the table because the political direction and the military execution have been poor. Fix the problem.

I said nothing about taking military options off the table. I said they shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary. One of the reasons that so many interventions have been so badly handled is that there was no really compelling reason to be in them in the first place, a situation that tends to produce weak public support and all manner of political restrictions and interference. It's difficult to muster the commitment to do things right if there's no real reason to be doing them at all. As Ken often points out, Americans don't tend to take things seriously or really commit to them unless there's some perceived existential threat in place. If you're not going to be fully in it, better not to be in it at all.

There's no point in even talking about doing something right if we can't start with a clear and compelling national interest and defined, practical, achievable goals. How can you doi something right if you don't even know what you're doing, or why you're doing it?

JMA
11-10-2011, 09:00 AM
They've little enough to fear from the Dutch, the Belgians, the French and the Poles. Apparently they see no reason to develop the ability to project power overseas, and they may fear (with some justification) that if they have that ability somebody might be tempted to use it.

Whatever. The bottom line is, for whatever reason the Germans have no military deterrent. If you don't have it you can't use it so hence the tendency to play down the need for one and/or the additional options such a deterrent provides a nation.

JMA
11-10-2011, 09:16 AM
There's no point in even talking about doing something right if we can't start with a clear and compelling national interest and defined, practical, achievable goals. How can you doi something right if you don't even know what you're doing, or why you're doing it?

We are back to this national interest thing again (which is really boring). If the elected President of the US believes something is in the national interest then your differing personal opinion is irrelevant.

Dayuhan
11-10-2011, 09:57 AM
We are back to this national interest thing again (which is really boring). If the elected President of the US believes something is in the national interest then your differing personal opinion is irrelevant.

Just as irrelevant as your personal opinion of Germany's military deterrent capacity and its impact on Germany's national interests.

The topic of the thread is the avoidance of small wars. I stated that my personal opinion is that we'd avoid a lot of small wars, and an enormous amount of expense and trouble, if we applied a much more rigorous standard of evaluating national interest and avoided commitment in cases where that interest is anything less than clear and compelling and where our goals are not clear, practical, and achievable.

Of course that's only my opinion, and of course it means absolutely nothing: nobody asked my opinion or listened to it before they went about trying to install governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nobody's going to ask my opinion if any subsequent exercise is contemplated. If we only posted about matters where our opinions make a difference we'd be doing threads like "what shall I have for dinner".

I have no doubt whatsoever that the US will continue to do stupid things. My personal opinion is that not doing stupid things is better than trying to do stupid things better... but that opinion, like my other ones and like most opinions expressed here, has no bearing whatsoever on what actually happens.

wm
11-10-2011, 01:52 PM
As a means of trying to organize the discussion going on in this thread, I think that the discussions about interventions flows along three separate, but perhaps related paths. That is, the issue of whether to intervene in some affair in a “God-forsaken hell hole half way around the globe” ;) may be viewed from at least three perspectives: practicality, legality, and morality.

1. The question of practicality is little more than the economic cost-benefit analysis that Fuchs has been pushing. In other words, the following question must be answered affirmatively by a government before it pushes the execute button on the intervention op plan: “Does intervention by my country’s armed forces yield an adequate positive return on the investment of the nation’s blood and treasure? The hard parts here are defining what counts as value to the nation, determining what an adequate ROI would be and deciding how soon that ROI must realized. Of course, national leadership can always “cook the books” when assessing the values and ROI. That comes with the territory of any representative form of government. I think we are all aware of the failure of the checks and balances most countries have in place to rein in their leaders.

2. The question of legality is rather straightforward and aligns with much of Dayuhan's thinking/postings. But it is complicated by whether a given nation feels bound to live by the strictures of the UN or the World Court. Some countries may feel big enough that they can ignore the summons to appear. And of course we then can find ourselves in a spiral of interventions: Country X choose to intervene in Country Y illegally. Country X also chooses to ignore the UN demand to stop the intervention. So, Country Z now intervenes in Country X, Y, or both to enforce the UN demand.

3. On the moral plane, I would argue that interventions are not morally obligatory; they are at, at best, only morally permissible. That is, no country is required to intervene in the affairs of another country to right moral wrongs or prevent the continuation of moral wrongs in another country. The duty to intervene is what Immanuel Kant would describe as an imperfect duty to others. Whether a country chooses to intervene is not a moral issue, however when one does choose to do so, moral strictures apply as to when and how that intervention may happen. (I am here focusing on the distinction between justice of war (interventions may be morally justified) and justice in war (evaluation of the tactics, techniques, and procedures employed by the intervening forces.

AmericanPride
11-11-2011, 01:05 AM
wm,

I posit that there is at least a fourth perspective in which small wars are the external outcome of internal (i.e. domestic) games/conflicts/contradictions. Dominant political groups make decisions within their government's particular framework in order to gain domestic advantages for their own private interests. Not only does this approach predict why nations enter small wars, but also why they choose particular strategies, including the selection of narrow interests for national universalization to promote the chosen strategy. This is not a purely rational process, nor is it always or fully concerned with legality and morality, which often are subordinated as instruments and themes.

JMA
11-12-2011, 12:41 PM
JMA, keep in mind I am educated in economics. This means I have spent almost five years at a university and was indoctrinated with a huge aversion against wasteful behaviour AND the tools to do the analysis which option is more or less wasteful than the other.
I suspect this is the huge difference between us. You appear to be more guided by sentiments than cost/benefit consideration.

Obviously if there is no means to wage and sustain a war no matter how small it would be folly to allow oneself to become embroiled in one. To bankrupt your country through fighting a war in a remote area of the world for dubious advantage is clearly insane.

You blog entry On national defence (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-national-defence.html) speaks to this.

Your following point is well made:


What we're (Europe) lacking is not the capability to defend ourselves, it's the capability to launch punitive strikes and expeditions in U.S. fashion.


About "being on the table": I don't subscribe to it as totally excluded or as being only a tool of last resort. I have (as mentioned) my reasoning for its use or non-use (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2011/09/war-as-last-resort.html).

edit: Notice the difference between war and intervention when I write. I attempt to stay clear and conscious in my choice of these words.

Having been in a war I would tend to believe (and agree with you) that to start a war must surely only be an option of last resort or as you state:


Violence is justified if it's the least terrible choice.

... to act in defence of your sovereign territory is another matter of course (which offers no choice).

However all the above said and done I do believe that the capacity of the US and Britain to project (and indeed use) military violence all across the globe is a valuable option to have and use to contain by deterrent or action those countries which threaten the world trade routes, remote trading partners and oil sources. (here I speak of intervention rather than war)

Countries which are unable to project military force to protect their means of survival are vulnerable to been cut off. To ignore the risk of this on the basis that free trade will prevail is quite frankly irresponsible.

JMA
11-12-2011, 12:48 PM
Just as irrelevant as your personal opinion of Germany's military deterrent capacity and its impact on Germany's national interests.

Silly reply. No the same at all.

That Germany has no military deterrent other than in the most limited local context is a fact... not a personal opinion.

Your personal opinion of what represents US National Interest where it differs from the stated or acted upon view of the current US president is irrelevant.

Fuchs
11-12-2011, 02:50 PM
Countries which are unable to project military force to protect their means of survival are vulnerable to been cut off.

Improvised empirical test:

Countries capable of projecting military force like that: 3-4 (4 if we count Russian paratroopers)

Countries "cut off" during the last decades: 0,
unless we count aggressors who were under a UN blockade


Another approach:
Japan:
* 2nd most powerful fleet in 1941
* biggest or 2nd biggest marine force in 1941
* 4th greatest air force in 1941
* still cut off from crude oil supplies (would not have happened with a more peaceful foreign policy)


Peaceful cooperation 2, big stick 0

selil
11-13-2011, 12:04 PM
I know that the journal Spectrum at the National Defense University is also very interested in something called "Phase Zero Warfare". I'm not sure if this is the same thing as this thread is talking about. I admit to being woefully uninformed about the topic.

As I integrate the elements of conflict into the framework of cyber-power I realized having met with the Spectrum editors that nobody had looked at pre-engagement and the elements of decision processes leading up to a conflict other than as contingency planning.

Sidebar: I contend that small wars is the only paradigm where hybrid warfare is fully ensconced as a principle of conflict. Other conflict proponents refer to "joint" warfare which is not the same as hybrid warfare. I think that the use of cyber-power is inherently a hybrid form of warfare similar to space and air (that ought to raise a few hackles).

So, I'd like to know what the structures and principles of this "before operations" begin likely are. How do you know you're pre-conflict unless you've already decided you're entering conflict (seems circular)? What are the operational steps? I've seen lots of operational plans but they are either assessments "blue sky" that are then "operational plans" but then that brings up the whole circular argument again. That leads to what it means to avoid something via military planning. If you're avoiding it doesn't that mean you've already approached it? I can talk about polar cases (political leadership, military leadership and their failures) but where the defining lines are and how deescalation works in the small wars spectrum works? In large scale conflict of nation state "large" war there is a significant literature but the mechanisms seem ill suited to small wars.

Well that's how it appears.

Bob's World
11-13-2011, 03:56 PM
It is really ridiculous at how fearful the Military community as a whole is of the "P-word"

(yes, the prospect of "Peace" leaves them quaking)

Due to this we have doctrine that:
1 Declares that insurgency and counterinsurgency are complex forms of warfare, when in clear fact they are largely continuous dynamics between a populace and its government, rising only occasionally to a level of violence and activity that resembles "warfare."

2. "Phase 0 operations" I'm sure someone earned a Joint Service medal of some sort for this silly little construct. It's peace. Don't be afraid, its ok to have peace. Peace doesn't make the military irrelevant, it merely means one doesn't need a warfighting sized military and can focus on deterrence and prevention for a while.

Oh I get it, "zero" is an incredibly important number, and it allows modern mathematics to function; but do we really need to consider all peace as a zero-phase of the last/next war? Probably easier to justify more Brigade Combat Teams necessary to wage phase zero that it is to justify the same to execute peace....

Fuchs
11-13-2011, 04:56 PM
2. "Phase 0 operations" I'm sure someone earned a Joint Service medal of some sort for this silly little construct. It's peace. Don't be afraid, its ok to have peace. Peace doesn't make the military irrelevant, it merely means one doesn't need a warfighting sized military and can focus on deterrence and prevention for a while.

Seconded.

Bill Moore
11-13-2011, 05:48 PM
Phase 0 is focused on prevention, and it can be argued that it was and is our phase 0 concept (long before it was called phase 0) that has significantly increased peace around the globe. Deterrence (in the form of fleixible deterrence operations) if needed, comes after phase 0, so you have actually seriously mischaracterized phase 0. All States will conduct shaping operations in peace, and that is what we do, and our intention is to mitigate issues that may lead to conflict or war. Regardless of what phase we're in we continue to conduct contingency planning, which most people would consider prudent.

Since zero isn't a real number, it isn't a real phase, it was simply a means to describe how we strive to maintain the peace.

Fuchs
11-13-2011, 05:51 PM
What increased peace around the globe is the sense of rules and cooperation created with the UN in 1944.

I doubt that the U.S.'s invasions and foreign policy of the post-Cold War period have helped world peace in any way.

Bill Moore
11-13-2011, 06:09 PM
That's a pretty bold statement from someone who hails from a land protected by the U.S. defense establishment and our policies to promote peace to include the Marshal Plan. With the exeception of the Bush Junior administration and its well known hubris and missteps in foreign affairs, the U.S. has promoted global peace unlike any other nation in the history of the world.

Fuchs
11-13-2011, 06:45 PM
Ahh, that's why it attacked more countries in the last 30 years (I count five, excluding DS) than North Korea, Iran and Iraq together (I count three) did in the last 200 years?
If the U.S. is promoting peace, what are the others doing? Working hard on being saints?

12 of 26 divisions guarding Central Europe during the Cold War were German divisions. How many were U.S. divisions ? Six? I forgot. Maybe only four.


Your statement was "bold". (Imo you bought into U.S. propaganda.)


The U.S. hasn't promoted peace as much as it did promote an order which suits its interest - and then it proceeded to violate said order when it wasn't in its interest.
The U.S. are the #1 aggressor nation of our times.

Bill Moore
11-13-2011, 08:51 PM
The U.S. are the #1 aggressor nation of our times.

I wish I could refute that, but that statement may be true since the Cold War ended. Prior to that I think an argument could be made that those countries behind the Iron Curtain were at least as aggressive as we were, and prior to WWII, the European colonial powers were much more aggressive than the U.S..

Like most nations we have parts of our history that we're not proud of, but what other nation has sacrificed so much (men and material) in pursuit of humanitarian efforts, such as our intervention in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, and our diplomatic efforts elsewhere such as Sudan, Burma, China, and several others where we pushed for human rights? Name one if can.

A lot of ugly things happened during the Cold War that in hindsight probably weren't really in our interests, but the intentions at least were based on what perceived as a greater good (ends justify the means). The mass murders that took place in the USSR and China under Stalin and Mao were not myths, the communist system needed to be defeated for the good of all mankind.

blueblood
11-13-2011, 09:11 PM
I wish I could refute that, but that statement may be true since the Cold War ended. Prior to that I think an argument could be made that those countries behind the Iron Curtain were at least as aggressive as we were, and prior to WWII, the European colonial powers were much more aggressive than the U.S..

Like most nations we have parts of our history that we're not proud of, but what other nation has sacrificed so much (men and material) in pursuit of humanitarian efforts, such as our intervention in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, and our diplomatic efforts elsewhere such as Sudan, Burma, China, and several others where we pushed for human rights? Name one if can.

A lot of ugly things happened during the Cold War that in hindsight probably weren't really in our interests, but the intentions at least were based on what perceived as a greater good (ends justify the means). The mass murders that took place in the USSR and China under Stalin and Mao were not myths, the communist system needed to be defeated for the good of all mankind.

For my following statement I may end up as a hated person on this forum.

"American idea of peace and liberation is to bomb every living thing in the country they are about to liberate."

Here are some examples.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039453/How-America-planned-destroy-BRITAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html?ITO=1490

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Taskforce_74

Now please don't tell me that US planned to nuke India to liberate Indians from the tyranny of a democratically elected PM.

Dayuhan
11-13-2011, 09:40 PM
What increased peace around the globe is the sense of rules and cooperation created with the UN in 1944.

That seems to me completely absurd. I don't think anyone has ever taken the UN or the rules associated with it seriously enough to refrain from fighting. In the absence of any argument in support of that contention it can't be taken at all seriously.


I doubt that the U.S.'s invasions and foreign policy of the post-Cold War period have helped world peace in any way.

I share this doubt. I don't think the relatively peaceful world we've had since the Cold War has anything to do with anyone's foreign policy, or with the UN.


The U.S. are the #1 aggressor nation of our times.

That's because the US are the primary military power of our times. Those who have the capacity for aggression use it, always have. If anything the US, given the power disparity in their favor, has been quite moderate. Imagine for a moment that the military dominance the US enjoyed at the end of WW2 had been held by any of the other contending parties in that conflict. Do you think any of them would have controlled their aggressive impulses to the extent that the US has?

I've said this before, but European complaints about American aggression always seem to me reminiscent of a campaign for chastity initiated by a faded whore grown too old to play the trade.

Ken White
11-13-2011, 10:51 PM
I guess.

A large powerful nation acting in its own interest -- how novel is that? :rolleyes:

Kaisers and Moghuls, Rajahs and Chancellors understood the premise.

JMA
11-13-2011, 11:32 PM
For my following statement I may end up as a hated person on this forum.

"American idea of peace and liberation is to bomb every living thing in the country they are about to liberate."

The vast majority of Americans are fine people but they do need to know how they and their country are perceived in the world outside (then they can figure out why this is).

Ken White
11-14-2011, 01:46 AM
The vast majority of Americans are fine people but they do need to know how they and their country are perceived in the world outside (then they can figure out why this is).Don't care and are not concerned with a great deal of change. There are those in the US who do have concerns on that score and hope for change, mostly in academe or journalism. They do not reflect the opinions of most Americans. Fortunately.

It is noted a number of people from elsewhere are 'concerned' for America. Touching, that. :rolleyes:

blueblood
11-14-2011, 04:18 AM
The vast majority of Americans are fine people but they do need to know how they and their country are perceived in the world outside (then they can figure out why this is).

I know, I've worked in an American company. My boss's boss was an white American (born and raised in Arizona) and so were some of my colleagues. Almost all of them were very goodhearted guys. But that hardly changes the fact that US government $crewed the world over again and again.

This might help you in learning some things.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/index.html

Dayuhan
11-14-2011, 04:35 AM
This might help you in learning some things.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/index.html

Nothing new or unusual there.

Since when has any nation's foreign policy been based on a search for global popularity?

blueblood
11-14-2011, 04:43 AM
I guess.

A large powerful nation acting in its own interest -- how novel is that? :rolleyes:

Kaisers and Moghuls, Rajahs and Chancellors understood the premise.

But they never claimed to be the beacon of democracy. Going by your logic, even Hitler wasn't wrong. He hated Jews, so he killed 6 million of them.

PS: Nazi Germany was a democracy and Hitler was an elected leader.

Ken White
11-14-2011, 05:33 AM
You are, however, quite welcome to come to erroneous conclusions based on your perceptions of what I might think.
But they never claimed to be the beacon of democracy. Going by your logic, even Hitler wasn't wrong. He hated Jews, so he killed 6 million of them.We are a beacon of democracy -- just a tarnished and imperfect model. ;)

With respect to Hitler, yes, he did that -- and if you think that was in his or his nations interest, you, not I, have a rather strange sense of what a national interest happens to be...

We the US have done, do and will likely do a lot of stupid things for all sorts of good and bad reasons but that beacon foolishness is really only spouted by politicians (in uniform and not in uniform) who know better but are too political to be honest. Still, disregarding them, take the bad and the good we've done over the years and one gets a better average than one does for most nations. We do some harm fairly often, much not out of malice but because we're big and clumsy. We also do some good and most of us are comfortable with the fact that we do more good than harm. Not many nations can say that though there will be more that can do so in the future, the world's changing. For now, over the last 220 years, I can't think of anyone else that comes close. Can you?
PS: Nazi Germany was a democracy and Hitler was an elected leader.True and broadly irrelevant. Democracy and elections are important but do little to tell one how nations might behave. What can be a determinant are the continuum of a nations interests over many years. The US only has two long term. We do want free commerce and we do not tolerate threats or potential threats for very long. :cool:

Bill Moore
11-14-2011, 05:38 AM
Posted by Dayuhan


Since when has any nation's foreign policy been based on a search for global popularity?

Since you asked,

http://www.state.gov/pdcommission/reports/2010report/chapter6/


The influence outcome is linked to the favorability outcome in that PD officers work to engender positive feelings towards the US, which ideally will lead PD participants to either support US interests or move from anti-American rhetoric or behavior to a neutral state. Favorability is an outcome or goal in itself, but influence is the next level of engagement.

Diplomacy works to directly influence foreign governments, whereas public diplomacy is the effort to indirectly influence foreign governments through their citizens. The vast majority of PD efforts are targeted at the general population or elites rather than government officials. DoS works to build support for the US from the ground up—DoS builds a relationship between the US and civilians so that civilians will pressure their government to support US interests.

Popularity has long been part of our national strategy, because it easier to gain consensus to take action when needed. It is good for the world that we pursue some degree of popularity, other wise we may behave like the Germans during WWII. Of course we pursue our interests, but generally we do so in a way constrained by our values.

blueblood
11-14-2011, 07:30 AM
You are, however, quite welcome to come to erroneous conclusions based on your perceptions of what I might think. We are a beacon of democracy -- just a tarnished and imperfect model. ;)


Thousands dead, millions suffering and still you find my conclusion erroneous. In the above post you'll find a BBC poll, which projects the same erroneous conclusion.


With respect to Hitler, yes, he did that -- and if you think that was in his or his nations interest, you, not I, have a rather strange sense of what a national interest happens to be...

Why? He considered Jews to be backstabbers and believed that when Germany needed Jews, they simply refused to fight. If I were a leader of a nation which is fighting the greatest war the world has ever seen and particular community is refusing to fight then I too will be pissed off.


We the US have done, do and will likely do a lot of stupid things for all sorts of good and bad reasons but that beacon foolishness is really only spouted by politicians (in uniform and not in uniform) who know better but are too political to be honest. Still, disregarding them, take the bad and the good we've done over the years and one gets a better average than one does for most nations. We do some harm fairly often, much not out of malice but because we're big and clumsy. We also do some good and most of us are comfortable with the fact that we do more good than harm.

So what's with the holier than thou nature? I agree that Americans did some great things but none of them were military in nature.


Not many nations can say that though there will be more that can do so in the future, the world's changing. For now, over the last 220 years, I can't think of anyone else that comes close. Can you?

Yes, I think Brits did a far better job, if we are looking over last 220 years.


We do want free commerce and we do not tolerate threats or potential threats for very long.

Yep, that is the key word.:D

Firn
11-14-2011, 08:04 AM
As said before a big powerful state protecting rather often aggressively his interests while claiming that he does it for the high ideals and good reasons is hardly a new in our long history of humankind. As European one could and should see in the proper context.

Available military power can heavily influence the setting of political goals and the strategic opitions, and sometimes it really looks that as country x holds that hammer in hand, a lot of things look like a nail. And if you use a hammer as a problem solver and get good at it having some success despite some misshapes you are more liable to use that "tried and proven" approach.

So some small wars can be the outcome of a state having strong values with clear perceived national interests combined with enough, readily available military might.

Dayuhan
11-14-2011, 09:12 AM
Thousands dead, millions suffering and still you find my conclusion erroneous.

How is that incompatible with being a tarnished beacon of democracy?


Yes, I think Brits did a far better job, if we are looking over last 220 years.

Would that include, say, the use of armed force to open China to the opium trade... among other things?

Steve Blair
11-14-2011, 02:38 PM
Don't care and are not concerned with a great deal of change. There are those in the US who do have concerns on that score and hope for change, mostly in academe or journalism. They do not reflect the opinions of most Americans. Fortunately.

It is noted a number of people from elsewhere are 'concerned' for America. Touching, that. :rolleyes:

And in this, Americans are no different than any other collection of people. Interesting, isn't it?;)

Fuchs
11-14-2011, 03:10 PM
Since when has any nation's foreign policy been based on a search for global popularity?

1949-1998, (West) Germany.
It came very, very close.

Sweden is another candidate, an certain countries with tourism-based economy (or maybe even recently Qatar and UAE?) come close, too.

Ken White
11-14-2011, 03:49 PM
Thousands dead, millions suffering and still you find my conclusion erroneous. In the above post you'll find a BBC poll, which projects the same erroneous conclusion.I think you may have your figures reversed. The US is probably responsible for millions of dead over the years, some reasonable and adjudged legitimate and necessary, others not. The number worldwide directly suffering from US actions is more likely in the thousands and is offset by many more thousands helped with Marshall, Colombo and other plans plus US Aid here and there around the world -- not to mention our disaster responses and the dissuasion of Pirates and military adventurism by others over the last couple of Centuries. Like every nation, every person, we're a mix of good and bad and which characteristics are emphasized in conversations are highly dependent on ones viewpoint.

The Poll shows nothing new. I started wandering about the world outside the US in 1947 -- we were not popular at that time due to excessive wealth and some our more base cultural proclivities. That's been a constant since with some excursions for better or worse -- the Viet Nam era being a far lower point than today. So the conclusion is not erroneous, it is actual and it is pervasive. My question is how much of that lack of trust and / or liking is due simply to the relative size, economic power, cultural influence and willingness to get involved in the affairs of others and perceptions as opposed to real knowledge?

You and I may believe that willingness to intrude to be a part of the problem but it seems to be a function of both that 'free commerce' aspect and having the desire to eliminate threats... :o
Why? He considered Jews to be backstabbers and believed that when Germany needed Jews, they simply refused to fight. If I were a leader of a nation which is fighting the greatest war the world has ever seen and particular community is refusing to fight then I too will be pissed off.Why what? That's a rather erroneous reading of history; his shortsighted mistreatment of the Jews led to their being unwilling to serve in the Wehrmacht -- they weren't welcome in the SS --and that was a self created problem that did not exist in WW I when many Jews fought for Germany. Hitler's insanity with reference to the Jews caused a problem that was not in the interests of Germany, it's that simple. They're still suffering for and from that.
So what's with the holier than thou nature? I agree that Americans did some great things but none of them were military in nature.Depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it? The French, for example might disagree on the military angle -- though they tend to discount it; no one likes to be obligated to another for assisting them with a problem they should have been able to handle themselves.

So might the Koreans, a nation where the generation that recalls the 1950-53 War is very supportive of the US and the younger generations are downright unfriendly. Way of the world...

As to the holier than thou, it's a function of the fact that we are a polyglot crew of people who either themselves or their forebears left other nations to come here and start or build a new nation. As I'm sure you're aware, almost every kid who leaves his or her parents house to do things on their
own has a feeling of superiority. That, too is the way of the world. Good thing, that's how progress occurs. :cool:
Yes, I think Brits did a far better job, if we are looking over last 220 years.Your prerogative. I merely note that a number of trouble spots in the world are a British 'lines on a map' legacy, to include Kashmir -- and much of Africa and the Middle East.

Aside from Dayuhan's good example, the waste that was Crimea (or the closely following Mutiny...) and the imposition of Empire trade rules among others, the British did indeed do a "far better job" with Pax Brittanica than we have with trying to do a Pax Americana * -- but that wasn't the question; that was what other nation has done more worldwide good than harm over those years...
Yep, that is the key word.:DYes it is, indeed. One of the problems with that approach is that one sometimes sees a potential threat when there is none and sometimes doesn't note one that exists and thus has to scramble and be clumsy at correcting that oversight.

* FWIW, I and many other Americans do not hold with that concept. Regrettably, our Foreign Policy 'elite' did in the aftermath of WW II and the US forced draw down of the British Empire. It was an unwise decision, prompted as much by the USSR and the so-called Cold War as by anything the US really wanted to do. IOW, we thought we had to due to circumstances. That may or may not have been correct but much of our international meddling certainly was not strictly an item of US choice. Those lines the British and French drew on maps were no help in all that. ;)

Bob's World
11-14-2011, 06:12 PM
(Neither was a US foreign policy that in many ways appears to have adopted much of the very worse aspects of French and British Colonial rule; without the benefit of greedily sucking up all of the profits in those places we engage as those predecessors did so well.)

When history looks back and assesses the rise of the US, I suspect many will wonder why we were so quick to distribute so much of our capital out to those who we could have simply subjugated to our will, (or forced to take opium in trade...)

Applying a more British model to our problem with rampant opium production in Afghanistan, and rising oil prices in the Middle East, we could just force those Middle Eastern nations to take Afghan Opium in trade instead of dollars....

The problem of being a "reluctant empire," this half in, half out, morally conflicted uncommited approach is really just not very effiecient. But that is indeed very American in of itself.

Madhu
11-15-2011, 04:01 AM
In response to the following (and other comments):


But that hardly changes the fact that US government $crewed the world over again and again.

This might help you in learning some things.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/index.html

No great power is entirely innocent. Abuse of power is a facet of human nature.

At any rate, a NYT article on Harvard Professor Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature":


Since 1945, we have seen a new phenomenon known as the “long peace”: for 66 years now, the great powers, and developed nations in general, have not fought wars against one another. More recently, since the end of the cold war, a broader “new peace” appears to have taken hold. It is not, of course, an absolute peace, but there has been a decline in all kinds of organized conflicts, including civil wars, genocides, repression and terrorism. Pinker admits that followers of our news media will have particular difficulty in believing this, but as always, he produces statistics to back up his assertions.


To readers familiar with the literature in evolutionary psychology and its tendency to denigrate the role reason plays in human behavior, the most striking aspect of Pinker’s account is that the last of his “better angels” is reason. Here he draws on a metaphor I used in my 1981 book “The Expanding Circle.” To indicate that reason can take us to places that we might not expect to reach, I wrote of an “escalator of reason” that can take us to a vantage point from which we see that our own interests are similar to, and from the point of view of the universe do not matter more than, the interests of others.

http://tinyurl.com/3mfpzbp

His argument is complicated, however, and not related entirely to monopolies of violence, international institutions, or American soft/hard power. Instead, he describes an evolutionary process affecting human cultures 'writ large'. Perhaps his theory is a more illuminating way to look at the development of mankind than clashes of culture or East vs. West?

If Dr. Pinker's thesis is correct, this should have implications for American (and other) Foreign Policy and even for our FP elite.

At any rate, Pax Brittanica and Pax Americana are difficult to compare. For example, on the economy of India during the Raj (a complicated topic much outside my areas of expertise), see the following from Amardeep Singh quoting Manmohan Singh:


There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign.

http://tinyurl.com/8xrgqqp


(Moderator: Should I introduce myself to the Council? I chose not to do so because I am a regular commenter on the SWJ blog :)).

Dayuhan
11-15-2011, 04:38 AM
(Moderator: Should I introduce myself to the Council? I chose not to do so because I am a regular commenter on the SWJ blog :)).

Not a moderator, but welcome to the dark side.

I don't think the general increase in peace (yes, the world is more peaceful now than it's been in recorded history, and has been for some time) is necessarily a consequence of a fundamental evolution in human nature, or a consequence of US hegemony. There are a number of more pragmatic factors involved, for example:

Nuclear weapons and mutual assured destruction raised the risks of great power conflict to a hitherto unknown level. That's why the Cold War was fought by proxy: nobody had evolved beyond fighting, the probable consequences of direct conflict had simply become unacceptable.

The dissolution of imperial spheres of trade and the emergence of relatively free trade reduced a major incentive to conflict. Emerging economic players no longer need to conquer territory to gain access to resources and markets.

Commercial interdependence has reduced (not eliminated, but reduced) the incentive to fight.

There are more, of course, but overall I don't think we've become more peaceful as a race. We've just given ourselves fewer good reasons to fight and more good reasons not to.

Ken White
11-15-2011, 04:46 AM
No great power is entirely innocent. Abuse of power is a facet of human nature.Sadly true, that...
If Dr. Pinker's thesis is correct, this should have implications for American (and other) Foreign Policy and even for our FP elite.Hopefully they'll pay some attention. They tend to self fulfilling prophesizing and a lot of group think.

JMA
11-15-2011, 05:11 AM
I know, I've worked in an American company. My boss's boss was an white American (born and raised in Arizona) and so were some of my colleagues. Almost all of them were very goodhearted guys. But that hardly changes the fact that US government $crewed the world over again and again.

This might help you in learning some things.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/index.html

Yes the Americans squandered the opportunity to do good in the world. With their Presidents Wilson and FDR leading the charge to put the boot into the Brit Empire which led to uncontrolled and often chaotic decolonization.

To their credit many Americans are aware of the fact that the end result is that the world is not a better place despite their belief that they were making it so.

Your broad brush condemnation of them is more painful than most will admit.

So you will be accused of being misinformed, misguided etc ... and it will get worse (so you will need broad shoulders).

The bottom line sadly is that unlike the Brits the Americans are not mature enough as a nation to engage in robust rebate on a subject such as this. Around here you will find they can dish it out but they can't take it (and often the moderators take sides). You need to know where you are headed.

Dayuhan
11-15-2011, 05:39 AM
Yes the Americans squandered the opportunity to do good in the world. With their Presidents Wilson and FDR leading the charge to put the boot into the Brit Empire which led to uncontrolled and often chaotic decolonization.

We've been through this before, but at the end of WW2 the Brit Empire was an ex-parrot. it needed no boot to push it into oblivion, nor would anything Americans could have done have held it together.


To their credit many Americans are aware of the fact that the end result is that the world is not a better place despite their belief that they were making it so.

Is the world not a better place? Better than what? When was it ever better than it is now? I certainly wouldn't say it's better because of Americans or America, but that doesn't mean it isn't better. We are neither scourge nor saviour, just another bunch of generally misinformed blunderers trying to muddle through.


Your broad brush condemnation of them is more painful than most will admit.

Only to the very isolated and very thin-skinned. We've all heard far worse.


So you will be accused of being misinformed, misguided etc ... and it will get worse (so you will need broad shoulders).

Broad shoulders might be useful. The ability to support one's arguments might be even more so.


The bottom line sadly is that unlike the Brits the Americans are not mature enough as a nation to engage in robust rebate on a subject such as this. Around here you will find they can dish it out but they can't take it (and often the moderators take sides). You need to know where you are headed.

Bring it on. I will personally request that the moderators be permissive, which may or may not accomplish anything.

What might be a more interesting robust debate would be to get a bunch of people who think America has done everything wrong (no shortage of them around) together and let them argue over what America should have done. They all seem to have quite different and generally incompatible ideas on that score, and of course they all absolutely know that they are right and the others are wrong.

Ken White
11-15-2011, 05:40 AM
Your broad brush condemnation of them is more painful than most will admit.Not really, most of us knew most of our failings before you or he learned of them. We probably also know of a few neither of you might think of. ;)
So you will be accused of being misinformed, misguided etc ... and it will get worse (so you will need broad shoulders).I doubt he will be so accused. He may not understand a random nuance or two but at least he does not flaunt ignorance.
The bottom line sadly is that unlike the Brits the Americans are not mature enough as a nation to engage in robust rebate on a subject such as this. Around here you will find they can dish it out but they can't take it (and often the moderators take sides). You need to know where you are headed.Heh, you're priceless -- any Moderator that tells you that you're off base as generally have several other non-Moderator posters already in many threads is taking sides? :D

Who is it that can't engage in robust debate? :rolleyes:

Fuchs
11-15-2011, 06:21 AM
Commercial interdependence has reduced (not eliminated, but reduced) the incentive to fight.

I never buy into this.

It didn't keep away either World War (and there was a lot of commercial interdependence then already, and a huge rise in it since 1870).

JMA
11-15-2011, 07:06 AM
I never buy into this.

It didn't keep away either World War (and there was a lot of commercial interdependence then already, and a huge rise in it since 1870).

Bear with him Fuchs. He makes this sort of statement all the time.

Dayuhan
11-15-2011, 07:21 AM
I never buy into this.

It didn't keep away either World War (and there was a lot of commercial interdependence then already, and a huge rise in it since 1870).

I did not suggest that the power of commercial interdependence to deter war is in any way absolute: it clearly is not. It is one factor among many. Nobody would say that nations with active trade and commercial interdependence never fight: that would be silly. It's a disincentive, not an absolute bar.

Do you not think, for example, that the potential loss of the US as an export market would be a factor in any calculation China was making that might involve armed conflict with the US? Please note that I do not suggest that this makes such a course impossible, only that it would be a factor in the calculation of cost, risk, and benefit.

Fuchs
11-15-2011, 08:04 AM
Dayuhan, about the special case: I don't think that a trade relationship in which China exports more than it imports (and gets paper or bits and bytes to make of for the difference) is so indispensable for China as many people in the U.S. appear to think.
The Chinese are moving toward strengthening their domestic consumption/demand. Additionally, most of their economic growth is afaik primarily in their construction sector and other domestic investments, not in export to the U.S..


About the general issue: I've heard and read the reference to economic relations as war inhibitor very often and it looks overstated to me. It's not reliable as you write and probably not even powerful. The public perception of it appears to be overstated, and taking peace for granted is not a wise move.
We gotta work for peace continually, for there's a beast in many if not all of us (at least those with balls), it's pretty primitive and inclined to use force.

Dayuhan
11-15-2011, 08:20 AM
Dayuhan, about the special case: I don't think that a trade relationship in which China exports more than it imports (and gets paper or bits and bytes to make of for the difference) is so indispensable for China as many people in the U.S. appear to think.

The paper, bits and bytes are extremely useful to the Chinese, despite their rather hypothetical nature: they can be passed on to folks in the Middle East and Africa in return for oil, to folks in Australia for iron, etc etc.


The Chinese are moving toward strengthening their domestic consumption/demand. Additionally, most of their economic growth is afaik primarily in their construction sector and other domestic investments, not in export to the U.S..

A large percentage of their growth at this point is in construction that's increasingly speculative in nature, which is a very big problem for them, though a different issue. While they are strengthening domestic consumption, it has a long, long way to go. They remain very reliant on exports and removal of any major export market would be a real problem for them, especially if it were removed through a conflict that threatened to disrupt trade with other markets as well.


About the general issue: I've heard and read the reference to economic relations as war inhibitor very often and it looks overstated to me. It's not reliable as you write and probably not even powerful. The public perception of it appears to be overstated, and taking peace for granted is not a wise move.

I don't recall saying that it was powerful, reliable, or even quantifiable, only that it exists. I would certainly not advise anyone to take peace for granted.


We gotta work for peace continually, for there's a beast in many if not all of us (at least those with balls), it's pretty primitive and inclined to use force.

Agreed. However, we can empirically verify that we have more peace than ever before. That would suggest that we are either working more effectively at keeping peace (though I see little evidence of that) or circumstances have evolved that are more conducive to peace. If the latter, we'd want to keep track of those various circumstances and try to help them keep evolving. Obviously there is no single circumstance that assures peace, but that doesn't mean we can't make efforts to expand and continue evolutionary trends that favor peace, no matter how peripherally, over those that do not.

Fuchs
11-15-2011, 09:49 AM
The paper, bits and bytes are extremely useful to the Chinese, despite their rather hypothetical nature: they can be passed on to folks in the Middle East and Africa in return for oil, to folks in Australia for iron, etc etc.

The Chinese have a trade balance surplus, thus much of the paper, bits and bites still have only an imaginary value.


That would suggest that we are either working more effectively at keeping peace (though I see little evidence of that) or circumstances have evolved that are more conducive to peace. If the latter, we'd want to keep track of those various circumstances and try to help them keep evolving. Obviously there is no single circumstance that assures peace, but that doesn't mean we can't make efforts to expand and continue evolutionary trends that favor peace, no matter how peripherally, over those that do not.

The tolerance for robbing other countries has declined drastically both in most countries and in gatherings of the representatives of countries.
I think that's the cause for the rareness of inter-state conflicts.
On the other hand, there weren't that many inter-state conflicts in the 40 years prior to the First World War either. There were mostly small wars far away from home and people forgot what it's like to have a foreign army on your soil and send your sons to war.

Dayuhan
11-15-2011, 11:54 AM
The tolerance for robbing other countries has declined drastically both in most countries and in gatherings of the representatives of countries.

The capacity of countries to resist being robbed has increased, and the capacity of would-be robbers to impose their will has decreased. It's gotten to the point where if someone has something you want it's generally cheaper to buy it than it is to steal it. None of that has anything to do with what anyone's representatives say in gatherings, which has little or no influence on the actual behavior of nations.


There were mostly small wars far away from home and people forgot what it's like to have a foreign army on your soil and send your sons to war.

Far away from whose home, and who exactly forgot what it was like to have an occupying army around? A whole lot of people in a whole lot of places knew exactly what it was like to have an occupying army around during that period. Maybe they weren't European people, but they were still people. Every war is right at home for somebody.

Fuchs
11-15-2011, 11:58 AM
Yeah, but my context was inter-state warfare, and that was kinda hinting at Americas and Europe.

Besides; I'm pretty sure that buying was cheaper than robbing back in the first half of the 20th century in regard to Europe an Americas, too. The only short-term exceptions proved to entangle nations in a major mess every time.

Dayuhan
11-15-2011, 12:13 PM
Yeah, but my context was inter-state warfare, and that was kinda hinting at Americas and Europe.

To some extent yes, as the rest of the world had been largely carved up and appropriated by that point... less a matter of states robbing other states than of states robbing their own overseas possessions. Not a terribly beneficial or stable arrangement either.


Besides; I'm pretty sure that buying was cheaper than robbing back in the first half of the 20th century in regard to Europe an Americas, too. The only short-term exceptions proved to entangle nations in a major mess every time.

To the extent that you could buy, perhaps... Given the fairly rigorous protectionist walls erected to keep possessions trading with the possessor on terms advantageous to the latter, and to keep outsiders from trading within those blocs, it wasn't always easy to source imports or to find markets for exports. That's been changing, though of course we're still a long way from anything resembling a truly free market.

Only natural, I guess, that once there was no more territory left to steal on the frontier the colonizing countries would get back to fighting each other.

Dayuhan
11-15-2011, 12:37 PM
Since it's bedtime in my time zone, a summary question for the next shift:

To what extent is the current high level of global peace a consequence of mediation by the UN and similar organizations, and to what extent is it a consequence of systemic evolutions that are more conducive to peace?

Or is it all because of the beneficient influence of the USA (yeah right)?

Hope y'all come up with answers before I get up.

Personally I'd have to lean toward systemic evolutions conducive to peace as the dominant factor, as the UN and similar organizations have no capacity at all as far as I can see.

Fuchs
11-15-2011, 01:41 PM
Only natural, I guess, that once there was no more territory left to steal on the frontier the colonizing countries would get back to fighting each other.

This was hardly a factor for Europe in either World War (Mussolini's land grabs were about imperial dreams, not about economy).

ganulv
11-15-2011, 02:34 PM
To what extent is the current high level of global peace a consequence of mediation by the UN and similar organizations, and to what extent is it a consequence of systemic evolutions that are more conducive to peace?We may be living in a world with a high level of global peace statistically as compared to other periods but I don’t know how that actually translates substantively. In the early ‘90s I spent a year living in Guatemala as the civil war there was winding down. As grim as the combination of the history weighing on the brains of the living (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm) and ongoing impunity were, there did seem to be a glimpse of a light at the end of the tunnel. It turns out that light was an oncoming train (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all). Ditto post-apartheid South Africa (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027686) and post-PRI Mexico (http://www.npr.org/2011/10/26/141659461/reporting-on-the-front-lines-of-mexicos-drug-war).

My knowledge of the United Nations largely amounts to a couple of personal contacts—a group of observers I played indoor football with a few times in Guatemala (good chaps all, really) and an economist with a position as a report writer at UN Headquarters (an overpaid and overtravelled lass, really, enjoying the benefits of subsidized housing and a tax treaty, to boot). But an institution that gets representatives of the governments of the world together in the same room from time to time is a systemic evolution conducive to peace, IMHO.

Dayuhan
11-16-2011, 12:05 AM
This was hardly a factor for Europe in either World War (Mussolini's land grabs were about imperial dreams, not about economy).

By the time Italy got into the game everything of economic value within Italy's reach had already been stolen... and a land grab based on imperial dreams is still the theft of territory.

It is interesting to note that the period of relative (and very unusual) European peace between the Franco-Prussian war and WW1 coincides with a period in which much European attention was devoted to overseas expansion, and that te resumption of European war occurred as the empires ran out of new ground to conquer. Certainly one would want to be cautious about imposing an assumption of causation on that correlation, but the correlation remains interesting.


We may be living in a world with a high level of global peace statistically as compared to other periods but I don’t know how that actually translates substantively. In the early ‘90s I spent a year living in Guatemala as the civil war there was winding down. As grim as the combination of the history weighing on the brains of the living (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm) and ongoing impunity were, there did seem to be a glimpse of a light at the end of the tunnel. It turns out that light was an oncoming train (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all). Ditto post-apartheid South Africa (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027686) and post-PRI Mexico (http://www.npr.org/2011/10/26/141659461/reporting-on-the-front-lines-of-mexicos-drug-war).

Certainly the decline of conflict among states has not meant an end to conflict within states... but conflict within states also seems measurably in decline, though there's still plenty left to go around. Latin America and Southeast Asia haven't turned into earthly paradises of peace, but they are a whole lot more peaceful than they were during the Cold War. Progress, not perfection.


But an institution that gets representatives of the governments of the world together in the same room from time to time is a systemic evolution conducive to peace, IMHO.

A reasonable observation. I would still question the extent of the impact of that evolution. The idea of a rules-based system is terribly appealing, but the demonstrable inability of that system to enforce the rules and the oft-demonstrated ease with which those rules are ignored suggest that the system probably is not a major contributor to the evolution of peace. I wouldn't advise discarding it, but I wouldn't assign it much credit either.

blueblood
11-16-2011, 02:05 AM
I think you may have your figures reversed.

I was citing the example of Iraq.


The Poll shows nothing new. I started wandering about the world outside the US in 1947 -- we were not popular at that time due to excessive wealth and some our more base cultural proclivities. That's been a constant since with some excursions for better or worse -- the Viet Nam era being a far lower point than today. So the conclusion is not erroneous, it is actual and it is pervasive. My question is how much of that lack of trust and / or liking is due simply to the relative size, economic power, cultural influence and willingness to get involved in the affairs of others and perceptions as opposed to real knowledge?


Brits and French had a much larger empires and Soviets were no less powerful than Americans. I hate to break it to you but Soviets were more popular in the third world but they were no match for American soft power.


You and I may believe that willingness to intrude to be a part of the problem but it seems to be a function of both that 'free commerce' aspect and having the desire to eliminate threats... :oWhy what? That's a rather erroneous reading of history; his shortsighted mistreatment of the Jews led to their being unwilling to serve in the Wehrmacht -- they weren't welcome in the SS --and that was a self created problem that did not exist in WW I when many Jews fought for Germany. Hitler's insanity with reference to the Jews caused a problem that was not in the interests of Germany, it's that simple. They're still suffering for and from that.Depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it? The French, for example might disagree on the military angle -- though they tend to discount it; no one likes to be obligated to another for assisting them with a problem they should have been able to handle themselves.


Jews were very hesitant in joining the forces in WW1 and too less in numbers. Hence, the resentment for Jews.


So might the Koreans, a nation where the generation that recalls the 1950-53 War is very supportive of the US and the younger generations are downright unfriendly. Way of the world...


It's simple. You call animal control when a snake enters your home, but doesn't mean that animal control should set up a tent in front yard and wait for the next snake to enter.


I merely note that a number of trouble spots in the world are a British 'lines on a map' legacy, to include Kashmir -- and much of Africa and the Middle East.


Other concerned parties are equally responsible for the mess. As a citizen of a nation with faulty map lines, I can assure you that Nehru was equally responsible as Jinaah, Mountabatten and Mao.


Aside from Dayuhan's good example, the waste that was Crimea (or the closely following Mutiny...) and the imposition of Empire trade rules among others, the British did indeed do a "far better job" with Pax Brittanica than we have with trying to do a Pax Americana * -- but that wasn't the question; that was what other nation has done more worldwide good than harm over those years...Yes it is, indeed. One of the problems with that approach is that one sometimes sees a potential threat when there is none and sometimes doesn't note one that exists and thus has to scramble and be clumsy at correcting that oversight.


Brits never came to liberate anyone, they came to conquer. But they did some good things too which includes social reforms, educational infrastructure and railways etc. Despite being the conquers, I have yet to find to an instance where drunk British soldiers wiped out an entire village of women and children. The most atrocious incident that took place in the Indian subcontinent was Jallianwala Bagh massacre. But even they never pulled off an Abu Gharib or Mai Lai, especially at the time when there was no such thing as human rights.

blueblood
11-16-2011, 02:23 AM
No great power is entirely innocent. Abuse of power is a facet of human nature.

At any rate, a NYT article on Harvard Professor Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of Our Nature":

Never said nor implied it.

In what world, Brits were more "evil" than the Gaznavis and Aurangzebs they replaced. The 22% you mentioned, much of it belonged to these rulers and they for certain were not Indians. For the sake of minority votes, Dr. Singh may not want to point this out but a common man wasn't living with the fear of being slaughtered under Brits or a woman wasn't supposed to be raped because she was a Hindu or Sikh.

blueblood
11-16-2011, 02:28 AM
Americans are definitely lesser of the evils around :p and probably the best hope. Most people, sooner or later will find that it is easier to deal with the Americans than it is to deal with the Chinese.

Ken White
11-16-2011, 03:36 AM
Brits and French had a much larger empires and Soviets were no less powerful than Americans. I hate to break it to you but Soviets were more popular in the third world but they were no match for American soft power.Portugal -- among others -- also had a much larger Empire. The US with a few Pacific Islands, The Philippines for a bit and Puerto Rico in an ambiguous status do not constitute an empire in any sense. Most Americans my age are quite aware the USSR was more popular with the third world -- particularly those that wore Nehru jackets. :D

Dallas and Levi's ® trump Pravda. Who knew.
Jews were very hesitant in joining the forces in WW1 and too less in numbers. Hence, the resentment for Jews.There was a bit more to it than that...
It's simple. You call animal control when a snake enters your home, but doesn't mean that animal control should set up a tent in front yard and wait for the next snake to enter.Bad simile. For Korea, Animal Control was asked to stay -- and in the house, not in a tent outside. ;)

In France, we didn't even stay in the yard -- except for the Cemetery plots.

We generally stay only where invited but I'll acknowledge we can be pushy about getting an invite on occasion. :wry:
Other concerned parties are equally responsible for the mess. As a citizen of a nation with faulty map lines, I can assure you that Nehru was equally responsible as Jinaah, Mountabatten and Mao.No question. My reference to the KGB Retirees watching TV in Ekaterinburg was an acknowledgement of the truly outstanding job they did from the mid-20s until the late 80s of exploiting those fault lines. They did that exceptionally well.
Brits never came to liberate anyone, they came to conquer. But they did some good things too which includes social reforms, educational infrastructure and railways etc. Despite being the conquers, I have yet to find to an instance where drunk British soldiers wiped out an entire village of women and children. The most atrocious incident that took place in the Indian subcontinent was Jallianwala Bagh massacre. But even they never pulled off an Abu Gharib or Mai Lai, especially at the time when there was no such thing as human rights.Let me remove the skipping about. Yes on the British and conquer / hold. Also yes on their generally better discipline and on their doing much good while they were there. Any Army the British trained is one to be reckoned with. Most are better trained and disciplined than is the US Army. So no quarrel on that aspect.

However, in addition to Jallianwala Bagh I think you could add Peshawar and, outside south Asia, several in Burma and Malaya -- without getting into the 1857 battles and aftermath.

I'm drawing a blank on the reference to drunk soldiers? If the implication was that US troops did that, certainly could've happened but I'm truly not recalling any at this time. If you mean in Korea or Viet Nam, there were incidents -- wars do that -- but not involving drunken troops. Poorly trained and disciplined, perhaps scared or exhausted, yes. Drunk, no.

Abu Gharaib we can agree was totally wrong and both the perpetrators and particularly their superiors deserved more harsh punishment than they got.

My Lai was wrong, no question, and numerically about on the scale of Peshawar, far fewer killed than at Amritsar -- unlike Peshawar, though, My Lai happened during a war rather than during peacetime thus it is more akin to the excesses of 1857-58 than to the others. That is not to excuse it, there is no excuse, simply to say the context is rather different.

There have always been human rights. Both the US and the British have long recognized that and both nations have done a better job of caring for them than have many others. Between the two, there are variances in approaches and both are improving as time passes. Still, I repeat my initial contention -- in spite of bumbling and stupidity, on balance we've done more good than harm. As you said:
Brits never came to liberate anyone, they came to conquer.Other than the Philippines, we've avoided that. We just asked that one open ones markets... ;)

Dayuhan
11-16-2011, 04:51 AM
I hate to break it to you but Soviets were more popular in the third world but they were no match for American soft power.

In parts of the third world yes, in other parts no.

The Soviets did read the writing on the wall relatively early, and wisely got an early foothold in supporting anti-colonial movements and leaders, often before they became leaders. The US very foolishly (IMO of course) often responded, once anti-colonial movements emerged, by propping up crumbling colonial regimes of by replacing them with oafish dictators charged with repressing the commie menace. In that sense the Russians got ahead in the perception wars... but I've been to few places where an actual Russian presence is fondly remembered.


But even they never pulled off an Abu Gharib or Mai Lai, especially at the time when there was no such thing as human rights.

http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-holocausts/

By the standards of the colonial age My Lai or Abu Ghraib would have ranked too low on the atrocity charts to even deserve a mention. Business as usual.

blueblood
11-16-2011, 08:26 AM
Portugal -- among others -- also had a much larger Empire. The US with a few Pacific Islands, The Philippines for a bit and Puerto Rico in an ambiguous status do not constitute an empire in any sense. Most Americans my age are quite aware the USSR was more popular with the third world -- particularly those that wore Nehru jackets. :D

Dallas and Levi's ® trump Pravda. Who knew.

He he, I prefer Wrangler, they use better fabric.:rolleyes:. As I said, Nehru jacket or not, Soviet policy of "Worker's paradise" fits perfectly when helping out with infrastructure in the third world.

[Portuguese and Spaniards were bad bad people.]


There was a bit more to it than that...

This is what Hitler told in Mein Kampf.


Bad simile. For Korea, Animal Control was asked to stay -- and in the house, not in a tent outside.

In France, we didn't even stay in the yard -- except for the Cemetery plots.

We generally stay only where invited but I'll acknowledge we can be pushy about getting an invite on occasion. :wry:No question. My reference to the KGB Retirees watching TV in Ekaterinburg was an acknowledgement of the truly outstanding job they did from the mid-20s until the late 80s of exploiting those fault lines. They did that exceptionally well.Let me remove the skipping about.

Maybe. France was a different case though. Unlike Korea, they were not in the habit of being a colony and their hate for English speakers is very much visible, even today. You do remember the France-NATO drama, right.


Yes on the British and conquer / hold. Also yes on their generally better discipline and on their doing much good while they were there. Any Army the British trained is one to be reckoned with. Most are better trained and disciplined than is the US Army. So no quarrel on that aspect.

However, in addition to Jallianwala Bagh I think you could add Peshawar and, outside south Asia, several in Burma and Malaya -- without getting into the 1857 battles and aftermath.


I never knew about the Peshawar incident. I guess our Pak hating politicians and bureaucrats did a fine job in neglecting that part from our history books.
I will have to study it first before commenting on it.


I'm drawing a blank on the reference to drunk soldiers? If the implication was that US troops did that, certainly could've happened but I'm truly not recalling any at this time. If you mean in Korea or Viet Nam, there were incidents -- wars do that -- but not involving drunken troops. Poorly trained and disciplined, perhaps scared or exhausted, yes. Drunk, no.

Abu Gharaib we can agree was totally wrong and both the perpetrators and particularly their superiors deserved more harsh punishment than they got.

My Lai was wrong, no question, and numerically about on the scale of Peshawar, far fewer killed than at Amritsar -- unlike Peshawar, though, My Lai happened during a war rather than during peacetime thus it is more akin to the excesses of 1857-58 than to the others. That is not to excuse it, there is no excuse, simply to say the context is rather different.

I read it somewhere, given time I might be able to recall it. But we agree on Abu Gharib and My Lai. Amritsar was the result of a single madman and I have yet to learn about Peshawar.

1857 - the supposed "First freedom struggle", had nothing to do with freedom but was a conflict between handful of Indian princely states and the East India Company, just like the wars that took place earlier during the conquest. AFAIK, these wars and conflicts were fought in the battlegrounds except Delhi. Aside from the blurbs of a few right wing historians (both Indian and British), not much info is available, at least not to my recollection, but I could be wrong.


There have always been human rights. Both the US and the British have long recognized that and both nations have done a better job of caring for them than have many others. Between the two, there are variances in approaches and both are improving as time passes. Still, I repeat my initial contention -- in spite of bumbling and stupidity, on balance we've done more good than harm. As you said:Other than the Philippines, we've avoided that.

Well, then you have much to learn about the Muslim conquests around the world and some of them could be as recent as Cyprus. I never said that Americans sucked at this but the proclamation of being the best is a bit hard to digest. As for the Philippines, I am not the one to judge as Americans are fairly popular in that country.


We just asked that one open ones markets... ;)

And you have yet to open a McDonalds in North Korea. Kim Jong Il is forced to import burgers. True story.

blueblood
11-16-2011, 08:43 AM
In parts of the third world yes, in other parts no.

The Soviets did read the writing on the wall relatively early, and wisely got an early foothold in supporting anti-colonial movements and leaders, often before they became leaders. The US very foolishly (IMO of course) often responded, once anti-colonial movements emerged, by propping up crumbling colonial regimes of by replacing them with oafish dictators charged with repressing the commie menace. In that sense the Russians got ahead in the perception wars... but I've been to few places where an actual Russian presence is fondly remembered.

It wasn't just that. In case of India, the cultural exchange was also very high. As per many Indians, these white folks were the completely different from the ones that left a few years earlier. They were the good guys.


http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-holocausts/

By the standards of the colonial age My Lai or Abu Ghraib would have ranked too low on the atrocity charts to even deserve a mention. Business as usual.

People are dying even today, despite the fact that India hasn't faced a severe famine in last 40 years or so and every year hundreds of thousands of tonnes of grains are left to rot in the storage rooms. Post green revolution, India never faced a severe famine and most of the time produced a little surplus. Sad but true, governments come and go but most people stand exactly where they were in 1947.

JMA
11-16-2011, 09:12 AM
Not really, most of us knew most of our failings before you or he learned of them. We probably also know of a few neither of you might think of. ;)I doubt he will be so accused. He may not understand a random nuance or two but at least he does not flaunt ignorance.Heh, you're priceless -- any Moderator that tells you that you're off base as generally have several other non-Moderator posters already in many threads is taking sides? :D

Who is it that can't engage in robust debate? :rolleyes:

Ken, your disconnect with current reality is growing.

The odd brush I have had with moderators have been minor but sadly those moderators have tended to be involved in the discussion themselves and at a given point changed to moderator mode to straighten the "opposition" out. Rule 1 should be that moderators who are personally involved in a particular thread must not act as moderator when it suits them. In true coyboy style I note moderators have a tendency to be trigger happy and too quick on the draw - if you know what I mean. The bias is disgraceful, but then again that is to be expected.

Dayuhan
11-16-2011, 09:39 AM
In true coyboy style I note moderators have a tendency to be trigger happy and too quick on the draw - if you know what I mean. The bias is disgraceful, but then again that is to be expected.

I've yet to see anyone here chastised by a moderator for the substance of their arguments. Those who go all blustery and ad hominem when someone points out flaws in those arguments tend to draw fairly rapid reactions. In my experience you can say pretty much any damned thing you please as long as you say it politely and it's not totally irrelevant to the discussion, which seems a reasonable rule set that should not be too difficult to adjust to.

Fuchs
11-16-2011, 09:51 AM
Other than the Philippines, we've avoided that. We just asked that one open ones markets... ;)

Lol, Ken. The U.S. was built on conquering and staying.
(The Louisiana and Alaska purchases don't really count as non-conquers imo)

On top of CONUS conquered and "stayed":
Hawaii
Samoa
Puerto Rico

The methods may have been a bit subtle on Hawaii and Samoa for the most part, but they still fit.

Not sure about the base on Okinawa. The Japanese gov may like it, the locals were not neccessarily in favour of keeping their occupiers afaik.

JMA
11-16-2011, 10:16 AM
Still, I repeat my initial contention -- in spite of bumbling and stupidity, on balance we've done more good than harm.

Given that the US had 100 odd years to observe and learn from other countries colonial experiences on balance the performance has been poor. No sign of any improvement on the horizon either.

JMA
11-16-2011, 10:19 AM
I've yet to see anyone here chastised by a moderator for the substance of their arguments. Those who go all blustery and ad hominem when someone points out flaws in those arguments tend to draw fairly rapid reactions. In my experience you can say pretty much any damned thing you please as long as you say it politely and it's not totally irrelevant to the discussion, which seems a reasonable rule set that should not be too difficult to adjust to.

I'm sure you will have scored points with the moderators with that comment. Never know when you may need to call in that marker, hey?

davidbfpo
11-16-2011, 12:03 PM
Ken,

You cited, with my emphasis:
However, in addition to Jallianwala Bagh I think you could add Peshawar and, outside south Asia, several in Burma and Malaya -- without getting into the 1857 battles and aftermath.

I've done some reading on Imperial India and have been to the city. What was the Peshawar Incident?

The British ruled the city for nearly one hundred years (1849-1947) and I exclude, as you do, the 1857 Indian Mutiny period - when the punishment for mutiny was - well - harsh and vivid:
...where freedom fighters of the 1857 independence movement were blown from guns

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshawar

Dayuhan
11-16-2011, 12:39 PM
Given that the US had 100 odd years to observe and learn from other countries colonial experiences on balance the performance has been poor. No sign of any improvement on the horizon either.

Possibly the US does not aspire to recreate a colonial experience. I see no reason why we should.


I'm sure you will have scored points with the moderators with that comment. Never know when you may need to call in that marker, hey?

I've yet to complain about anyone here to a moderator, or to request assistance from a moderator. No reason to, really. Their tolerance for incivility is far lower than mine, but it's their playpen and their rules.

If you've had problems with them I'd suggest couching the same message in a less abrasive style... not that abrasiveness is an issue for me, but I don't make or enforce the rules here, and it is an issue for those who do. I think you'd find that nobody minds the message. It's really not terribly threatening or offensive in any event, no reason why they should mind.

Dayuhan
11-16-2011, 12:48 PM
It wasn't just that. In case of India, the cultural exchange was also very high. As per many Indians, these white folks were the completely different from the ones that left a few years earlier. They were the good guys.

Interesting. I've never discussed Russians with Indians who have had direct experience, but I have with numerous Vietnamese. Even those ideologically inclined to the Russian side seem to have a quite negative perception on a personal level, with arrogance and racism often cited. "Unpleasant and smelly" would summarize. Oddly even those who had a very negative perception of US policy often spoke well of individual Americans they'd dealt with.

That is purely anecdotal observation of course, with nothing even vaguely systematic or scientific about it.

ganulv
11-16-2011, 01:29 PM
Not sure about the base on Okinawa. The Japanese gov may like it, the locals were not neccessarily in favour of keeping their occupiers afaik.Of course the Japanese were occupiers before the Marines got there in the eyes of many Okinawans. There’s a book (http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13890-1/okinawa-and-the-us-military) by an anthropologist at UK (https://www.as.uky.edu/users/msinoue)that I am very fond of about the tough spot they find themselves in sovereignty- and identity-wise.


Unlike Korea, they were not in the habit of being a colony and their hate for English speakers is very much visible, even today.Koreans can be stubborn pains in the ass and all and that can make them hard to deal with, but I have always enjoyed their company because if there is one thing I think you can say about Koreans is that they never have been and never will be in the habit of being anyone’s colony.

JMA
11-16-2011, 01:34 PM
Possibly the US does not aspire to recreate a colonial experience. I see no reason why we should.

Did you even stop to think and consider the context of my comment before you fired off a reply? Obviously not.

Talking about drawing from the lessons of the past (don't worry it doesn't happen in the military either).

Now do read up on neo-colonialism in the sense the US has used it and how the Chinese version is playing out.

Ken White
11-16-2011, 04:58 PM
blueblood
This is what Hitler told in Mein Kampf. Now that takes "biased source" to a new high -- or new low. :D
I never said that Americans sucked at this but the proclamation of being the best is a bit hard to digest.That may be what I said or implied but I certainly believe 'least bad' might be far more appopriate...

JMA:
Ken, your disconnect with current reality is growing.This from the crowd acknowledged master of diconnectedness. What a compliment. Thank you.

With respect to your moderator comment, I presume you can offer concrete examples? Other than my one time telling you that even though we were in a discusssion, I wouldn't hesitate to shut things down if you crossed the line; you did not, I did not -- and while I certainly may have missed one or more incidents -- I can recall no other incident where another Moderator has done what you flatly state:
In true coyboy style I note moderators have a tendency to be trigger happy and too quick on the draw - if you know what I mean. The bias is disgraceful, but then again that is to be expected.I presume you can show evidence to confirm that assertion?

It would be nice if you could also discuss coyboys a bit, I'm sure that'll be fascinating. :D
Given that the US had 100 odd years to observe and learn from other countries colonial experiences on balance the performance has been poor. No sign of any improvement on the horizon either.With that, I can agree. As I wrote to blueblood, "least bad" would've been a better phrase...


Fuchs:
On top of CONUS conquered and "stayed": Hawaii, Samoa, Puerto RicoCONUS was accepted if not stated as the topic was going elsewhere to conquer. You can count the Louisiana and Alaska purchases as conquering if you wish. ;)

I included both Samoa and Hawaii in the catch all "Pacific Islands" and mentioned Puerto Rico. Other than the latter, there was no conquering involved for the rest; occupying, yes -- conquering no. :wry:

Still your point's valid and my attempt at brevity by not writing 'foreign' in front of conquer(ing) and expanding that a bit was not totally accurate.

davidbfpo:

The Qissa Khwani Bazaar incident. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qissa_Khwani_bazaar_massacre), 23 April 1930. Note the Wiki entry has links to several others of lesser import including some post-Raj as well.

Dayuhan
11-16-2011, 10:33 PM
Now do read up on neo-colonialism in the sense the US has used it and how the Chinese version is playing out.

I have. I also live in one of the American experiments in neo-colonialism (one that, like most of them, hasn't worked out terribly well). The US experience with neo-colonialism has been neither economically nor strategically profitable, and we'd do well to back away from it, especially if, in keeping with the thread, avoidance of small wars is a goal. The Chinese are certainly jumping into the game in a big way, and I expect they'll get a small war out of it somewhere down the line... but that's their problem.

The colonial age offers a vast depth of illustrated instruction on what not to do, rather less on what to do... especially in a very different set of circumstances.

JMA
11-17-2011, 06:15 PM
I have. I also live in one of the American experiments in neo-colonialism (one that, like most of them, hasn't worked out terribly well). The US experience with neo-colonialism has been neither economically nor strategically profitable, and we'd do well to back away from it, especially if, in keeping with the thread, avoidance of small wars is a goal. The Chinese are certainly jumping into the game in a big way, and I expect they'll get a small war out of it somewhere down the line... but that's their problem.

The colonial age offers a vast depth of illustrated instruction on what not to do, rather less on what to do... especially in a very different set of circumstances.

That's better.

Now compare this reply to your previous one.

You see the problem I have?

JMA
11-17-2011, 06:50 PM
JMA:This from the crowd acknowledged master of diconnectedness. What a compliment. Thank you.

With respect to your moderator comment, I presume you can offer concrete examples? Other than my one time telling you that even though we were in a discusssion, I wouldn't hesitate to shut things down if you crossed the line; you did not, I did not -- and while I certainly may have missed one or more incidents -- I can recall no other incident where another Moderator has done what you flatly state:I presume you can show evidence to confirm that assertion?

It would be nice if you could also discuss coyboys a bit, I'm sure that'll be fascinating. :DWith that, I can agree. As I wrote to blueblood, "least bad" would've been a better phrase...

You have access to the log files for this site I assume. Go sit with your cronies and do a little research. I will wait.

The term 'crossing the line' is very subjective and even more so if you are involved in the discussion yourself. Do you appreciate that?

Take the thread UK in Afghanistan where I will concede I was only 99% correct and you and many others were up to 99% wrong. All you could come up with was a complaint about my posting style and use of words.

Remember the furore over my one time use of the word poser? Pathetic.

Remember what a storm my comments on that pathetic US ambush caused? Sad that rank incompetence can be so blindly protected.

As moderators one should deal rapidly with the emotional knee-jerk replies rather than suppress the truth no matter how painful. You can figure out how to do that yourself.

Ken White
11-17-2011, 08:07 PM
You have access to the log files for this site I assume. Go sit with your cronies and do a little research. I will wait.You made the accusation, not I.:rolleyes:
The term 'crossing the line' is very subjective and even more so if you are involved in the discussion yourself. Do you appreciate that?Certainly I appreciate both those factors. I would not have written what I did had I not. What you do not seem to 'appreciate' is that approach gives you more, not less, latitude to be egregious... ;)
Take the thread UK in Afghanistan where I will concede I was only 99% correct and you and many others were up to 99% wrong. All you could come up with was a complaint about my posting style and use of words.Uh, I hate to break this to you but your 99% is probably overstatement. Regardless I agree with much of substance you wrote in that thread. I did not and do not agree with your posting style and use of words on many occasions, thus my complaints were directed at what I saw as a problem. That comment applies to several other threads as well; what you see as speaking the truth as you see it is often seen by others as condescending, arrogant and unnecessarily abrasive. If your intent in to annoy, you're quite successful; if it is to teach or aid progress, I'm afraid that IMO and based on some comments from others on this and various threads (certainly including The UK in Afghanistan), you are not doing as well as one could hope.
Remember the furore over my one time use of the word poser? Pathetic.Yes I do and I agree that your use of the word was wrong and possibly uncalled for if not pathetic -- that usage is just what I and others repeatedly complain about to you to little avail. That exemplifies the ability to do some good can get lost in a poor choice of words -- and ignorance or misunderstanding what one sees casually in a photograph to make a standing broad jump at a wrong conclusion and then defend it unto death can be counterproductive...
Remember what a storm my comments on that pathetic US ambush caused? Sad that rank incompetence can be so blindly protected.As the Actress said to the Bishop, "It's not what you said, it's how you said it, Ducks..."

You may think you're merely being forthright and not mincing words, others often seem to perceive it quite differently.
As moderators one should deal rapidly with the emotional knee-jerk replies rather than suppress the truth no matter how painful. You can figure out how to do that yourself.I've seen no truth suppression here -- distortion, yes, suppression no. Though I'll acknowledge that blithefully ignoring the valid comment of others with a differing point of view and continually beating the same drum(s) in spite of some evidence that a re-look may be in order can be, in a sense, tantamount to suppression. ;)

Let me point out, not as a Moderator, merely as another poster, that none of this has much to do with the thread topic. Nor, also off thread, did you answer my question about your accusatory foray that took us off-thread in the first place, thus it is safe to presume you have no such case to support your accusation. :rolleyes:

Fuchs
11-17-2011, 08:58 PM
When a monkey hits a key and gets an electric shock in response, he's not going to repeat that often. He's not going to try to do it better often. (S)He'll finally settle with the understanding that this key is bad.


Could someone please tell my why humans have so much trouble learning that war isn't profitable and cannot really be done 'right', so it should be avoided unless forced on you?
It can't possibly be a lack of memory, for I see people discussing here in the general tone of 'do small wars right / wrong', and these people are still trembling due to recent electroshocks.

Ken White
11-17-2011, 09:05 PM
Could someone please tell my why humans have so much trouble learning that war isn't profitable and cannot really be done 'right', so it should be avoided unless forced on you?Egos... :(

"WE won't make those mistake..." they say as they go blindly forward. :mad:

And then they go ahead and perpetrate the same foolish errors

Dayuhan
11-17-2011, 09:55 PM
When a monkey hits a key and gets an electric shock in response, he's not going to repeat that often. He's not going to try to do it better often. (S)He'll finally settle with the understanding that this key is bad.

Could someone please tell my why humans have so much trouble learning that war isn't profitable and cannot really be done 'right', so it should be avoided unless forced on you?
It can't possibly be a lack of memory, for I see people discussing here in the general tone of 'do small wars right / wrong', and these people are still trembling due to recent electroshocks.

What Ken said... plus all too often the monkeys hitting the keys aren't the ones getting the shocks, which messes up the feedback loop a bit.

Fuchs
11-17-2011, 10:04 PM
What Ken said... plus all too often the monkeys hitting the keys aren't the ones getting the shocks, which messes up the feedback loop a bit.

Ahhh, I've got something related to this:


Recalls for peace?

Quick thought:

The U.S. Americans are practising a thing called "recall". Recently, a couple state senators were replaced by special elections that were triggered by petitions (that met a certain quantity requirement).

This made me think about something.

How about an automatic triggering of a special (potential recall) election for all federal politicians who supported military action without obvious self-defence character (= repelling an invading army, defending in air war or breaking a naval blockade) or unambiguously worded UNSC approval?

They wouldn't have to fear much if they have much popular support (= almost a necessity for successful modern warfare), after all!

Ken White
11-17-2011, 10:37 PM
Better is a constitutional and legal design that precludes military action without strong, better than simple majority Legislative assent. The US Constitution laid the groundwork for that but over 200+ years, the governing mandarins have figured out several ways to circumvent the intent. Good start, just didn't go quite far enough...

Even more comprehensive rulings probably wouldn't work totally. People are quite adept at figuring out the loopholes and shortfalls in any system or process. Flaw in the human condition. I suspect in the end analysis the Marines have it right "Nobody really wants a war but somebody better know how." :(

JMA
11-18-2011, 01:40 AM
When a monkey hits a key and gets an electric shock in response, he's not going to repeat that often. He's not going to try to do it better often. (S)He'll finally settle with the understanding that this key is bad.

Amazingly Dayuhan got this one correct.

There is a quote which has many variations:

"Wars are started by old men for greed and power but are left to young men to do the fighting and the dying."


Could someone please tell my why humans have so much trouble learning that war isn't profitable and cannot really be done 'right', so it should be avoided unless forced on you?
It can't possibly be a lack of memory, for I see people discussing here in the general tone of 'do small wars right / wrong', and these people are still trembling due to recent electroshocks.

Actually small wars can be done right. The Romans handled their provinces for quite a while that way. The US don't know how, the Brits have forgotten and the French have been reduced to minor interventions for a long time now.

It has more to do with the Grand Strategy (being the desired end result) and the political will than the ability of soldiers. If you end up controlling the Saudi oil fields (for example) and the sea lanes to import the stuff there are no doubt benefits.

Profitable is a difficult word to use. In the case of Iraq the war was extremely 'unprofitable' for the American people (taxpayers) while being 'highly profitable' for the likes of Haliburton.

But we know who the war mongers are and know when wars are about to break out. We have had some laughs about my "three cruise missiles theory" but a serious case can be made for such short sharp interventions in order to prevent wars (where a lot less people die in the process).

Back to reality then, when you look at avoiding war you need to focus your attention on methods to constrain megalomanic politicians rather than the military.

JMA
11-18-2011, 01:43 AM
Better is a constitutional and legal design that precludes military action without strong, better than simple majority Legislative assent. The US Constitution laid the groundwork for that but over 200+ years, the governing mandarins have figured out several ways to circumvent the intent. Good start, just didn't go quite far enough...

Even more comprehensive rulings probably wouldn't work totally. People are quite adept at figuring out the loopholes and shortfalls in any system or process. Flaw in the human condition. I suspect in the end analysis the Marines have it right "Nobody really wants a war but somebody better know how." :(

That idea has never worked and will not work in the future.

The US problem is their political system that allows 'very strange people' to be elected to the Presidency.

Deal with that issue and the problem goes away.

Misifus
11-18-2011, 02:19 AM
...The US problem is their political system that allows 'very strange people' to be elected to the Presidency.

Okay. This one made me chuckle. +1

JMA
11-18-2011, 02:25 AM
You made the accusation, not I.:rolleyes:

Yes I did and I stand by it.


Certainly I appreciate both those factors. I would not have written what I did had I not. What you do not seem to 'appreciate' is that approach gives you more, not less, latitude to be egregious... ;)

Nonsense. The line that you perceive to be crossed is too subjective. There are many statements made here which are only contestable to this very US-centric grouping. Outside this site they would be accepted as a simple statement of fact rather than raise a furore.


Uh, I hate to break this to you but your 99% is probably overstatement.

Following your logic (above) you made the statement now you substantiate it.


Regardless I agree with much of substance you wrote in that thread. I did not and do not agree with your posting style and use of words on many occasions, thus my complaints were directed at what I saw as a problem.

That was your problem not mine (yet you and others sought to make it mine). The truth often hurts and there is little to be said for pussy-footing around the issues.


That comment applies to several other threads as well; what you see as speaking the truth as you see it is often seen by others as condescending, arrogant and unnecessarily abrasive.

Yes I know if you can't deal with the facts then find some other angle to deal with the unwelcome information.


If your intent in to annoy, you're quite successful; if it is to teach or aid progress, I'm afraid that IMO and based on some comments from others on this and various threads (certainly including The UK in Afghanistan), you are not doing as well as one could hope.

Just stating the facts. How people respond to them is their problem. This (the council) is little more than a superficial discussion group. That balances well against the other aspects of this site. 'Teach'? Maybe there are some lurkers here who come for information and to learn, but for most of those active here their minds are already made up on most matters.


Yes I do and I agree that your use of the word was wrong and possibly uncalled for if not pathetic -- that usage is just what I and others repeatedly complain about to you to little avail. That exemplifies the ability to do some good can get lost in a poor choice of words -- and ignorance or misunderstanding what one sees casually in a photograph to make a standing broad jump at a wrong conclusion and then defend it unto death can be counterproductive...As the Actress said to the Bishop, "It's not what you said, it's how you said it, Ducks..."

Well I saw someone who regularly posts here recently called a poser with no similar response... which supports my view that such responses are more using any method to deal with the bearer of unwelcome news. That we must just accept as a fact and as I said to Blueblood that certainly among those who post here the majority of Americans are not emotionally mature enough to get into nitty gritty debates. Fortunately there are some who can and do. So there is really a choice here, does SWC want discussion to be vanilla and bland with the usual 'me-too's' and back slapping or is there supposed to be more to this.

The serious/sensitive/of nervous disposition people can stay in the blog and the Journal and there can be a simple warning when entering the discussions:

"In the discussion area people tell it as they see it. If you can't handle robust discussion don't go here."


You may think you're merely being forthright and not mincing words, others often seem to perceive it quite differently.I've seen no truth suppression here -- distortion, yes, suppression no.

Now whose problem is that?

distortion/suppression... call it what you like.


Though I'll acknowledge that blithefully ignoring the valid comment of others with a differing point of view and continually beating the same drum(s) in spite of some evidence that a re-look may be in order can be, in a sense, tantamount to suppression. ;)

Valid comment in whose eyes? Restating the obvious is irritating? Yes, I suppose it would be. Its like twisting the knife.

Its like saying "yes that is true, you can say it once but any more and you start to make the people uncomfortable".


Let me point out, not as a Moderator, merely as another poster, that none of this has much to do with the thread topic. Nor, also off thread, did you answer my question about your accusatory foray that took us off-thread in the first place, thus it is safe to presume you have no such case to support your accusation. :rolleyes:

And I say to you Ken, that it is improper to take part in a discussion and intervening as a moderator when it suits you. I am too old to naively expect fairness but you need to know that it is just plain wrong and inexcusable.

Dayuhan
11-18-2011, 02:27 AM
Actually small wars can be done right. The Romans handled their provinces for quite a while that way. The US don't know how, the Brits have forgotten and the French have been reduced to minor interventions for a long time now.

Wrong problem, I think. The US doesn't know why, and you can't do "how" unless you know "why". If the policy objectives are uncertain, unrealistic, unclear, or just plain absent, the "how" is always going to be deficient.

The Romans knew why they were doing what they were doing: they were an imperial power, they wanted to preserve and extend direct control over subject peoples. The policy objective was clear. The Brits and the french once had that clarity, but they no longer do. The US doesn't have it, and while it complicates matters a lot, it's not necessarily a bad thing. An imperial America is about the last thing the world needs (IMO, of course).


It has more to do with the Grand Strategy (being the desired end result) and the political will than the ability of soldiers.

Is there a difference between "grand strategy" and "policy"? If so, what is it?


If you end up controlling the Saudi oil fields (for example) and the sea lanes to import the stuff there are no doubt benefits.

Unless you end up bleeding yourself into exhaustion trying to sustain that control. Great powers fall more often from hubris, overextension, and excessive ambition than from restraint and a focus on their internal affairs.


But we know who the war mongers are and know when wars are about to break out. We have had some laughs about my "three cruise missiles theory" but a serious case can be made for such short sharp interventions in order to prevent wars (where a lot less people die in the process).

What you typically overlook is to make this method practical you'd have to grant leaders an almost unlimited ability to decide where and when violence is applied, and the risk of that outweighs any benefit. You'd have to trust politicians, and nobody sane does that.


The US problem is their political system that allows 'very strange people' to be elected to the Presidency.

Deal with that issue and the problem goes away.

Yes, it's all down to that pesky and intractable phenomenon called democracy. Alas, we've yet to find a way to "deal with that issue" without creating far worse ones.

JMA
11-18-2011, 02:43 AM
When a monkey hits a key and gets an electric shock in response, he's not going to repeat that often. He's not going to try to do it better often. (S)He'll finally settle with the understanding that this key is bad.

Could someone please tell my why humans have so much trouble learning that war isn't profitable and cannot really be done 'right', so it should be avoided unless forced on you?
It can't possibly be a lack of memory, for I see people discussing here in the general tone of 'do small wars right / wrong', and these people are still trembling due to recent electroshocks.

Just thought I would add a quote from Basil Liddell-Hart to this:


The germs of war find a focus in the convenient belief that “the end justifies the means.” Each new generation repeats this argument—while succeeding generations have had reason to say that the end their predecessors thus pursued was never justified by the fulfillment conceived. If there is one lesson that should be clear from history it is that bad means deform the end, or deflect its course thither. I would suggest the corollary that, if we take care of the means, the end will take care of itself.

Ken White
11-18-2011, 03:09 AM
Yes I did and I stand by it.Well of course you do.

This is off thread, petty sniping with no substance and idle back and forth between two old, overweening egos with too little to do. I may be bored but I'm not that bored and it's almost certainly boring to everyone else so I'll leave you to it. Enjoy.

blueblood
11-18-2011, 04:25 AM
Interesting. I've never discussed Russians with Indians who have had direct experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhilai_Steel_Plant

My grandfather after his retirement from the army, worked as the police chief of the township. My mother and aunts studied Russian as kids (optional, ofcourse).

Fuchs
11-18-2011, 06:06 AM
The Romans handled their provinces for quite a while that way.

(1) Not by today's standards.

(2) See the history of the Gracchi brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchus) to see that for Rome, it was only the aristocracy that had lasting benefits from imperialism and the subsequent economic changes.
The empire lead to grain imports and slaves influx. Italy turned agriculturally towards slave-based plantations for food that couldn't be transported easily over the Med. The aristocrats got the spoils of war, the plebs didn't even get the spoils they deserved officially. Many of Rome's plebs became proletarians, while others were hard-pressed to earn a decent income because of the abundance of slaves.


It's not difficult to make that kind of profit off a war. All you need is an unscrupulous government and no French-style war profiteer crackdown after the war.


Now if this was desirable - why not simply hand the money to the rich and skip the war part?

Madhu
11-19-2011, 02:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhilai_Steel_Plant

My grandfather after his retirement from the army, worked as the police chief of the township. My mother and aunts studied Russian as kids (optional, ofcourse).

That is interesting :)

Some of my family members describe "model villages" in India visited by Russian (Soviet) dignitaries. The visits are remembered with some fondness and pride. And I've had older Russian emigres tell me of their love for old-school Bollywood films. "How I loved Raj Kumar," one told me.

On the other hand, I know a number of Polish and other Eastern European emigres whose stories are truly remarkable: courageous and heart-breaking. (That's part of the cultural mix around me - Asians of a variety and Eastern Europeans). A few years ago I was reading a novel by Herta Muller - the Nobel prize winner whose books cover the time under Ceausescu - and I mentioned the book to such an emigre. It was sort of sad - my friend was surprised anyone remembered or cared how people had suffered under that system. I like hearing all these different stories and vantage points. It humanizes.


Anyway, back to Pax Americana vs. Pax Brittanica. I agree with other commenters that the British are better at discussing their past empire (their current neo-colonialisms, not so much :) ). Aw, just kidding. I am an Anglophile even though not a fan of the Raj.

Americans are touchy, I suppose. Who wants to admit we are an empire when that is not supposed to be the plan? Economic neo-colonialism is an almost logical second order effect of Bretton Wood institutions. How have we concluded that the Marshall plan would work outside of Germany and Japan? I contend that we have had a South Asian Marshall plan over the past sixty years, which along with Chinese and Saudi money, supported a nuclear weapons program in Pakistan. Inconvenient fact for Western internationalists.

Well, I don't know. I've gone far off of the main subject. There is this, too, on the various colonialisms:


No issue divides India's historians more sharply than the impact of colonialism. Did British rule ruthlessly fracture the patterns of Indian society, or was it compelled to adapt to native styles, and merely preside in glorified manner over the more subterranean movements of India's history?....The state which the British built in India came to stand in a peculiar cultural relationship with Indian society: the British considered their most urgent task the Hobbesian one of keeping order over a bounded territory, but the Raj could not rely on preserving the peace simply through coercion or even by the deft manipulation of interests. It had to govern opinion. This it did by ostentatious spectacle, imperial Durbars and ceremonial progresses. These despotic tea parties won over a small circle of British loyalists, but there was no reshaping of common beliefs in the society at large. The barrier was essentially linguistic, and it endured after 1947. The language of administration used by the Raj -- for example, for revenue collection and property law -- had to be understood if it was to be effective, and so an elaborate and sonorous mongrel jargon of everyday usage was created, a Hobson-Jobson vernacular vocabulary. But the language of politics and legislation did not stray from the Queen's English. The British rulers swathed themselves in mystique by proclaiming in an alien and powerful language, but few among the ruled could actually comprehend what was said,

Link: http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/k/khilnani-india.html

For ten Indians that I meet, I find twenty opinions about the British Raj. I've never heard the exact opinion twice. History is still being written. Scholarship that mines the Indian experience continues. What materials exist of peoples outside the traditional written tracts left over from the Raj that one might study? Much work to be done, it appears.

(BK Ambedekar is interesting to read on this subject. As a dalit, it made sense that he had ambiguous feelings about the British leaving. Is there anything more horrible than the caste system and the notion of an untouchable? The cruelty is unimaginable. Not everything the British did was terrible. And not everything bad that has happened since they left is due to the residua of colonialism. People had different experiences under the Raj. The experiences must have varied enormously. Incidentally - or not so incidentally - that is why the Pakistani elite feudal system exists, in part. They didn't want to give up their privileged position, or so my teaching has been.)

selil
11-20-2011, 02:15 PM
When a monkey hits a key and gets an electric shock in response, he's not going to repeat that often. He's not going to try to do it better often. (S)He'll finally settle with the understanding that this key is bad.


Could someone please tell my why humans have so much trouble learning that war isn't profitable and cannot really be done 'right', so it should be avoided unless forced on you?
It can't possibly be a lack of memory, for I see people discussing here in the general tone of 'do small wars right / wrong', and these people are still trembling due to recent electroshocks.

Fuchs, I'm not sure there is a shock or it doesn't get sent where you think. In the last few hundred years war has been fought primarily by the populace who take on the death, destruction, and general mayhem aspects (the shock). The rewards though go to the merchant political class and they are the one deciding who/when goes to war. They garner reward and general pleasure from the war in a variety of ways.

Not sure I can put a full faith in evidence argument together but it seems there is a substantive disconnect between who puts their finger on the button, and who gets shocked.