On the avoidance of small wars

[Fuchs]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/arti....html?ITO=1490

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_...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]

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]

I guess.

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

Kaisers and Moghuls, Rajahs and Chancellors understood the premise.

[blueblood]

I guess.

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

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]

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.

[Bill Moore]

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/re...port/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.