On the avoidance of small wars

[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...

[blueblood]

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.

He he, I prefer Wrangler, they use better fabric.. 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. 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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[ganulv]

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 by an anthropologist at UK 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]

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.

[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.

[blueblood]

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/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.

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

[blueblood]

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).