Do we require a victory or a Triumph?

[slapout9]

Rob, I guess that is a picture of you. Either way it is a lot better than the 2 naked guys.

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Slapout,
I thought the 2 greek wrestlers would appeal to Crocket's pastel side and sockless loafers - My wife asked why I did not put a photo up of myself - the reason I had not before was we're an open community, it was pretty obvious where I was at and I did not want to provide a mug shot. The moustache is now gone - a victim of having 3 daughters who did not like it
Its interesting - we talked about this once - how avatars and photos and such are symbols and influence perception. Its also interesting that the user can see it one way, but the audience can see it another way.

[slapout9]

Hi Rob, yea I know what you mean about perceptions. I told my wife I was getting a realy cool t-shirt from this guy I talk to on the computer. She looked over my shoulder and saw the avatar and then looked me rather strange for some reason I was looking for a cool picture of Steve McQeen from his Wanted Dead or Alive days as bounty hunter Josh Randall. I couldn't find one until after I put up Crockett. I found several all Black and White photos but they don't really show up that well so I went with Crockett. My wife chose a cartoon of a Tazmainian devil dressed as a police officer with his nightstick in one hand and a pair of handcuffs in the other(no I want be using that one)

Send your shirt size for your Slapout CSI t-shirt. Later

Here is a link to an article on the Mares leg sawed off winchester 92 he carried.
http://www.mcqueenonline.com/gunsquarterlyarticle.htm

[Ski]

I am not in favor of trying to bring liberal democracy to the rest of the world. Forcing any kind of political system on another state will never work in my limited opinion. Legitimate political change in 95% of the cases must come from bottom up, intra state efforts, not from top down, external efforts. There are exceptions such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Nippon, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Rob - your last paragraph is the crux of the matter:

"Some places may not be ready, and as long as they are not imposing on others or conducting some form of resource blackmail which causes conflict (Michael Howard wrote the 3 main reasons states go to war are Interests, Fear and Honor/Prestige) maybe the best course is to just let them progress and to help their peoples in other ways - if they will allow it. If those states do use violence against a neighbor then somebody must decide what the fallout is and if its worth taking action - if someone does then you still have to deal with how to win the peace. Eventually though, those people of that state will assert themselves through some form of redress - you cannot keep the world out anymore, it is invasive and growing more so everyday. The world is growing smaller – kind of an oxymoron, but I think it describes the situation as one of inevitable pain – but how do we try and make it a smoother transition, or do we just hang on and ride?"

Who are we to become the arbitrator of violence in the world? This is Wilsonian at best and Jacobin at worst.

The world might be getting smaller, but it's also becoming more fragmented. The 2006 Failed States Index is an excellent look at how this phenomena is occuring. Also ask yourself if the US Military is involved in some way in the worst of these countries..you'll see a trend develop here. It's Barnett's Gap theory being instituted, which I think is a recipe for disaster in the long run.

One thing will bring our aggressive foreign policy (which is both a hallmark of the last 30 years of both Republican and Democratic leadership in this country - they just differentiate between causes) to a grinding halt: the economy. If the economy ever tanks, like a mid-70's stagflation tank, then it will be impossible to support our military budget. One can easily make a case that we cannot support our military budget now considering the levels of foreign owned debt in the US.

This is a tranistional period for the world. In the last 100 years, we've seen the death of two major politcal factions in the world - Communism and Imperialism/Colonialism - that have had huge geo-political impacts upon the planet. The map lines are literally being redrawn on an annual basis, and it's because of the deaths of Marxism and Imperialism that we are involved in most of the failed states in one form or another. We are trying to develop democracies and republics, which is noble, but it is expensive, demanding, and overall, will have a success/failure rate to be determined. We cannot state whether this will be worthwhile or not, but my gut tells me that the American people will only support this internationalist foreign policy when the country is either successful at war (perceptions drive the train here) or if the economy stays afloat.

If wars go bad, or if the economy sours, all bets are off. We return to the days of inner reflection and internal demand. We take care of ourselves first. We have not experienced a really bad sustained economy since the late 80's, and we are past due on that cycle coming back around. Perhaps we are in a new world where we can temper or even avoid major economic downturns, but it would take some economist to explain why that is.

[Tacitus]

Who are we to become the arbitrator of violence in the world? This is Wilsonian at best and Jacobin at worst.

This is a tranistional period for the world. In the last 100 years, we've seen the death of two major politcal factions in the world - Communism and Imperialism/Colonialism - that have had huge geo-political impacts upon the planet. The map lines are literally being redrawn on an annual basis, and it's because of the deaths of Marxism and Imperialism that we are involved in most of the failed states in one form or another.

Outstanding post, Ski.

If a Kurd in the North or Shi'ite in the South gets at the head of a mass movement to create their own country as a response to the chaos there, what should be our response? What we call a failed state needing democracy to become healed, he might call an illegitimate artificial state imposed on them after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialists. It never had any legitimacy and was only maintained by Saddam's Sunni dominated dictatorship.

If he is really clever he would write a document that echoed our own Declaration of Independence. It would take some nerve to try to tell them they couldn't do it. I can just see him selectively quoting our Founding Fathers in response to justify their bid for independence.

Unlikely as it seems, a George Washington might emerge to unify the country. He'll have no credibility if we appoint him, or arrange for his selection, that's for sure.

Or they just might really need to go their separate ways. If so, I do not see what moral authority we would have to deny them that course. We are just going to have to get used to the idea that the waxing of states has ended and the waning of states is in motion. Sending a bunch of troops around the world to prop up disintegrating unions is just a losing proposition, whether they are sitting on petroleum or not.

I have no idea what the future holds, but it just seems like we are hoping to preserve an old order in the Middle East and elsewhere, that is disappearing due to forces beyond our control. Better to stand aside, set the best example we can as a nation, and deal with whoever is sitting across the poker table from us than try to engineer who the new poker players will be. It just isn't our bailiwick.

[Rob Thornton]

I would have been here earlier, but my wife gave birth to our first child late Wednesday night, and I've been just about as drained as I can be...or as a buddy of mine said, "Dude, the first few weeks are like Ranger School without the fun of jumping out of planes or carrying weapons."

We've got 4 now - I'd like to tell you it gets easier, but its just a different set of problems However, I will tell you they are worth every ounce of effort, and then some - Congratulations

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Tacitus,

I have no idea what the future holds, but it just seems like we are hoping to preserve an old order in the Middle East and elsewhere, that is disappearing due to forces beyond our control. Better to stand aside, set the best example we can as a nation, and deal with whoever is sitting across the poker table from us than try to engineer who the new poker players will be. It just isn't our bailiwick.

So are saying just take a step back, figure out who the winner is going to be and when the dust settles deal with them. I'm not trying to be flippant about your response, only that I'm not sure where you are going with it. When you say setting the best example we can as a nation - what do you mean? However, "dealing with whoever is sitting across the table" is pretty explanatory. How far do you go though? If Hugo Chavez decides he really likes selling us oil so he can buy more weapons - what does that do to us - why should we care? Aside from the fact that his geography puts him in a unique position? Maybe we deal with some and not others - the standard is set the old way - based on how much media coverage it will get?

Unlikely as it seems, a George Washington might emerge to unify the country. He'll have no credibility if we appoint him, or arrange for his selection, that's for sure.

Or they just might really need to go their separate ways. If so, I do not see what moral authority we would have to deny them that course. We are just going to have to get used to the idea that the waxing of states has ended and the waning of states is in motion. Sending a bunch of troops around the world to prop up disintegrating unions is just a losing proposition, whether they are sitting on petroleum or not.

I do agree here to an extent. A george Washington might emerge, and we could not appoint him without possibly sacrificing his credibility. But what does it take to build a Washington? How would he best get his hands on parts of a political philosophy that he could build on and make work based on his culture? How do strong leaders and emerge and take root? How many potential candidates never quite make it? How can we help without hand selecting somebody that we like because he looks most like us? The founding fathers were not average - they were all educated and articulate - they were also experienced and had qualities that our own professional politicians lack.

I also agree that some states probably will not make it - but what happens after that, and why did they not make it? Is it a sort of natural selection? We were fairly close to not making it a couple of times. Would the world be better off without us? What is worth fighting for then? What is worth saving? Without some form of government I think we'd devolve into anarchy - chaos. I think that is what Osama is after - a plowed field upon which to build his caliphate. The thought of weathering the storm without trying to do something - be it humanitarian aid, economic assistance, or security goes against what I signed up for - its too much like a PMC - a business transaction.

This is a tough question. It has allot of us looking both ways. Its why I thought it important to raise it. Personally I see more of the same strife and suffering we've seen , but there would be much more were we to sit back and wait it out. Politically (in the big broad world sense) who would trust us? Why should they anyway? We may not be perfect, but would you rather be Putin? What did the English PM Tony Blair say about a year ago - something like "you can judge the greatness of a country by the number of people wishing to come to it." The United States is great not because of its ability to conserve resources for ourselves, but for our generosity and compassion. These are national values. They may be a tragic flaw, but the are also a strength in that they unify and call for self sacrifice of the individual for something better - where would we be wthout them -individually richer, but collectively poore I guess. A nation of individuals - I'd argue that before we go and change our values with regard to those outside of the U.S. - we take a look at how it would change ourselves.

[Firestaller]

If he is really clever he would write a document that echoed our own Declaration of Independence. It would take some nerve to try to tell them they couldn't do it. I can just see him selectively quoting our Founding Fathers in response to justify their bid for independence.

Unlikely as it seems, a George Washington might emerge to unify the country. He'll have no credibility if we appoint him, or arrange for his selection, that's for sure.

Iraq doesn't need a Ho Chi Minh.

Ho Chi Minh's Speech, Ba Dinh Square, September 2, 1945



"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights."

These are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.

In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.

They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center, and the South of Viet-Nam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.

They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.

They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.

To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.

In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people and devastated our land.

They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank notes and the export trade.

They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.

They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.

In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese fascists violated Indochina's territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them.

Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that, from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quang Tri Province to the North of Viet-Nam, more than two million of our fellow citizens died from starvation. On March 9 [1945], the French troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered, showing that not only were they incapable of "protecting" us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese.

On several occasions before March 9, the Viet Minh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Viet Minh members, that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bay and Cao Bang.

Notwithstanding all this, our fellow citizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese Putsch of March, 1945, the Viet Minh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property.

From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession.

After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam.

The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French.

The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligations that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Viet-Nam, and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.

The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country.

We are convinced that the Allied nations, which at Teheran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Viet-Nam.

A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, solemnly declare to the world that Viet-Nam has the right to be a free and independent country - and in fact it is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safe guard their independence and liberty.

[Rob Thornton]

Not to switch gears too much in the thread, but I think its kind of an evolution. Is the way we have largely thought about the use of National Power in the past appropriate for today? We'll define Power as the elements of national power DIME and its ability to influence and shape events. Slapout or Steve (1st cup of coffee) had proposed on another thread changing the way we think of using force as necessary as well. Force has largely a kinetic connotation. Is the way we have thought of security appropriate, or does that need to change in light of globalization and its many issues?

In my mind more and more issues are linked, and you can exhaust yourself stamping on the effects of the causes. How much effort should we reserve toward neutralizing or containing effects (conflict), and how much toward treating the causes (conflict prevention)?

You see all sort of great threads, blogs and print about topics like force structure, Inter-Agency fixes etc, but you really cannot (or maybe should not) proceed to far down that line until you've decided why you are changing it and what you are going to do with it.

9/11, Iraq, GWOT, Tsunamis, Pandemics, Global Warming, etc. - have all shaped this debate. It was not one in and of itself, it was the recognition that all these are related. I'm going to stray for a moment - Consider this site, with its accessibility to the International public. Look at who participates - we have a regular contributor who is a professor of anthropology ( Marc - you're citizenship and profession are what I'm looking for - when I tell folks I know this Canadian antrhopologist who had a great online idea - I get some interesting looks). I think open, decentralized organizations like the SWC are way out in front - they are cost free for most - you can assume an avatar and pseudonym if you like and discuss things in an open forum - I think this is useful and popular is also a reflection of the changing world - people are somewhat evaluated on their arguments and how they argue. It is a more neutral field - people can step outside the confines of their other responsibilities somewhat. It is the proliferation of ideas, made better by discourse and the ability to reach a sort of consensus, or at least acknowledgement.

Why is that important? I think by showing the many different perspectives we can get our solutions to big problems (in our case about Power, Force, National Security, etc.) less wrong or more right. The problems facing us are so complex, and have so many side effects, that are accentuated by outside forces that we are recognizing the need to discuss them outside of our immediate circles.

OK - back to the topic - I think this is an extension of the changing world. Unilateral solutions are fewer and farther between. The difference between the "justifiable Interest" rationale and the "morally defining" rationale for involvement are increasingly blurred since all of these problems are connected through globalization - Terror groups have global reach to an extent - they finance, communicate, plan, compare over the vast communication networks that fuel global economies. The identify, analyze and target remote populations of states that unable or unwilling to meet those populations needs, then they find similiar interests from all segments of those populations and work to destabilize them. It is in their interests to do so because it provides the conditions for furthering their own agendas - more crime and instability provides more revenue and forces states in favor of stabilty to exhaust resources. The enemy is pursuing a strategy of exhaustion. I think we can do a better job of making the forces of instability less relevant to the populations they target by going after the conditions which instability takes root.

This is hard, hard work I think. I'm not sure we are organized for it optimally, but like many others I'm not sure we can get there with out sacrificing some abilities and interests either - there are no easy fixes. Everybody wants total certainty that a commitment to one course or the other is a way to go - but the only certainty available I'm aware of it the historical past - and after something passes into history it is done - all you can do is either toast it or lament it.

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Ski, glad you are on the thread

If wars go bad, or if the economy sours, all bets are off. We return to the days of inner reflection and internal demand. We take care of ourselves first. We have not experienced a really bad sustained economy since the late 80's, and we are past due on that cycle coming back around. Perhaps we are in a new world where we can temper or even avoid major economic downturns, but it would take some economist to explain why that is.

Man, I don't know - I think our economy is global. We sell, we consume, we provide services to a global audience. We have goods made all over the world, and many foreign companies make goods here to sell both here and abroad. We have trade agreements, partnerships, insourcing, out sourcing, off shoring arrangements, etc. that fuel our economy. We do research and development both at home and abroad. We are global.

Why haven't we recruited and economist yet to SWC? Hey Marc - any Canadian economist you know who might want to contribute?

[Ski]

Rob

I would have been here earlier, but my wife gave birth to our first child late Wednesday night, and I've been just about as drained as I can be...or as a buddy of mine said, "Dude, the first few weeks are like Ranger School without the fun of jumping out of planes or carrying weapons."

Back to the topic - I'd offer that global economics is inhernetly more unstable, simply because of the complexities involved. There are limits built in to economic systems that can reduce the possibilities of downturns or loss, but none the less, the sheer complexity and size of the global economy means that a small problem can ripple into a larger problem.

Think back to 9/11, and the problems the airline industry had. What happens if the Federal Government doesn't bail out the airline industry? How often can the Federal Government actually do this - I've seen it twice in the past two Presidencies - the airline and steel industries bailout under Bush, and the bailout of the Mexican economy under Clinton. At some point, there are going to be diminishing returns, and all of that money is coming out of our taxpayers pockets.