On the avoidance of small wars

[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.

[blueblood]

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.

[Firn]

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]

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?

[Ken White]

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...

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.

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.

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.

* 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]

(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.

[blueblood]

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... 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.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.

[Ken White]

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.

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.

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]

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/ho...ts-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.

[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.