On the avoidance of small wars

[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.

[JMA]

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]

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.

[Steve Blair]

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.

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

[blueblood]

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_archiv...6-3/index.html

[Dayuhan]

This might help you in learning some things.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archiv...6-3/index.html

Nothing new or unusual there.

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

[Fuchs]

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.

[Madhu]

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_archiv...6-3/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]

(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.

[Fuchs]

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).

[Ken White]

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.

[blueblood]

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]

Americans are definitely lesser of the evils around 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.

[JMA]

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_archiv...6-3/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]

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]

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?

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

[JMA]

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?

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

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.