Fair catch...
Not what I said, I said the US -- not "we" -- defers to the British on their former colonies (and to a slightly lesser extent, to the French on theirs). That means we are unlikely to do anything IF they ask us not to or that we are generally liable to take action in concert with them -- sometimes playing the good cop / bad cop game. As in Iraq where they and we went together...Originally Posted by JMA
That is due, I think, to the fact that we know we forced the British out of the Colony business while allied with them in WW II for international commercial advantage. It, BTW, would go by the wayside IF further advantage were deemed needed or a significant threat were discerned.
Do the British or Afghans know that Afghanistan is a former British colony?Should not be if one pays attention to what is written and thinks for a second.Confusing yes I know.What a difference a deposit makes...Sudan has oil. So this brings the Chinese into play.Can't speak for the Brits, I can say that the US' lack of involvement in Zimbabwe cued on the British example and was guided by a distinct lack of any significant affect on US interests. Sudan, oil not withstanding, falls in almost the same category. The slight -- perhaps inconsequential, perhaps not, dependent upon how it plays out -- difference with Sudan is the proximity to the Gulf of Aden. We like the choke points to be open (that commercial interest I cited...).What did the Brits and the US do about Zimbabwe?
NOTHING... so don't expect any action on Sudan... especially with the Chinese daddy standing there and wagging his finger at uncle Sam and the Brits hanging onto uncle Sam's coat tails.
We will accord China the respect due a nation of over a billion people, just as we accord India the same respect. Respect and fear are two different things and in our childish way, we tend to react negatively to wagging fingers. Thine, Chine or other...
You do the British a disservice with the coat tail remark. One could almost sense that you were upset over British and US refusal to help in Rhodesia. If so, understandable and certainly your prerogative. Many probably agree with you.
Been my observation that one is not advised to let emotions or old wrongs affect affect the application of basic logic to current actions and events. Not being a psychologist, I know little or nothing about that, certainly can't apply such thoughts to this or any other discussion. I cite it only because our daughter is one of the Psych types and she contends that happens occasionally...
""Originally Posted by Ken White View Post:
"Every war we've been involved with for over 220 years occurred in large part because someone made the stupid assumption that "the Americans won't fight." ...""No that's not what I was saying -- or said. However, that is a fair catch and a logical inference. It is reasonably accurate. We seem gauche, blase and more concerned with beer and barbecue than with the broader world -- and we are. Most Americans really wish the rest of the world would tend to itself and leave us alone to ponder the Kardashians. So others tend to think we can be pushed about; sadly true -- to a point...So what you are saying is that had you (the US) made its position clear right up front then all those wars could have been avoided?
Unfortunately, those two political parties start jockeying for power and tend to get over involved in one thing or another and the next thing you know, somebody decides we are so frivolous that we won't fight over a minor point. Not a good plan; we can be irrational about that, one never knows what's going to punch into our comfort zone or when that might happen. IOW, the point at which we get excited is difficult to predict.
You can rely on the fact that impinging on our commercial ability or a firm physical threat will bring action -- but a lot of people seem to miss that.
Good example is Iraq. We got pinged and probed by a number of folks from all over the ME for years and really sort of took it and just yapped about it instead of really deterring it. Bad mistake on our part, it only encouraged escalation of the probes and minor attacks. So we inadvertently, trying to be nice guys and not escalate did little and thereby did not make our position clear.
In the event, Bush decided we needed to send the ME a message to back off. He realized that the lack of adequate response by his four predecessors from 1979 until 2001 were a significant factor in causation and he feared that his successor might not take the action he believed (as do I) was needed. The fact that France, Germany and Russia had supplanted us and the UK in local commercial dominance there was considered but the US Congress likely wouldn't buy that as an adequate reason (regardless, that folded into the actual as opposed to publicly stated rationale for the attack). A Threat -- even one that was insignificant -- OTOH would if used arouse enough (not all; that politically dissenting 1/3 again...) of Congress to allow a strike. So away we went...
Wasn't about oil other than in the sense that we wanted minimum disruption to the world oil supply (we really want China and India to have all the oil they need...). Afghanistan and Pakistan are in South Asia, not the ME -- so no message to the ME would be received from anything done to them. An attack on Iran or Saudi Arabia would have meant a major oil disruption, so they were not options. Iraq, OTOH, was a minor supplier, had a pariah government and was strategically located in the heart of the ME...
Yeah, had the US made its position clear right up front then most of its wars could have been avoided. The War of 1812 was a commercial dominance and potential threat thing, the War with Mexico and the Spanish American War were land grabs that only only partly occurred due to lack of clarity, all the others including Afghanistan and Iraq were due to misconceptions on the part of opponents. Even our Civil War fits that.
Regardless, our seeming cultural introspection and our electoral process are a big factor in causing that recurring problem. Those are unlikely to change...
Bookmarks