It sometimes seems as though discussion boils down to kinetic ops OR population centered ops. The reality is, it takes both in situations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. What I would argue is the strategy must center on the population; that the strategic goal should be development of a viable, self -sustaining state (a political entity); and that can only be accomplished as an outgrowth of the culture of the indigenous nation(s) (social entities). The role of armed forces and kinetic operations is creation of an environment where rule of law can be established, allowing people to freely determine their own political and economic fates. That involves security operations (patrolling neighborhoods), support (training police and, military), and occasionally highly kinetic ops (pitched battles against large groups of insurgents).
Capitalism, free trade, private property, all protected by rule of law. Incidentally, it would be well for everyone to remember that our first shot at forming a national government was the Articles of Confederation - adopted in 1977, ratified in 1781. It was universally regarded a failure, which led to the Constitution, 1788. That's an eleven year span. Demanding the Iraqis do (or criticizing them for not doing) the same in a bit over four years is ... inappropriate.Originally Posted by Surferbeetle
One outcome of the Twentieth Century is that socialism, in any form was completely discredited. (Before the fur starts flying, I said "discredited" not "abandoned.") Whether Communism (Soviet Union, PRC, N. Korea, Cuba), Nazism (Germany), Fascism (Italy and Spain), Third Way (Sweden), or the mild form the US is drifting around, national economies performed in inverse proportion to the degree they embraced socialism. (An interesting bone of contention between Ireland and the rest of the EU has been Ireland's performance after throwing off a lot of its socialist economic policies. The result was embarrassing - to the EU.) It was this, not good fortune, that has clobbered so many countries. I am leaving out states such as Zimbabwe, Zaire under Mobutu and Iraq under Hussein. These were kleptocracies. The only reason they use the term like "socialist" in their official names is so western "intelligentsia" will give them a pass.
Which, I think, is what Ms. Klein is guilty of. Any reading of history shows numerous examples of strong nations enforcing their will on weaker ones at the point of a gun. Colonialism involved more than imposition of will, it involved dominance. That history phased out after WW II. To present one example, it was certainly the intent of the French in Indochina. It was certainlly not the goal of the US in Indochina.
What Ms. Klein refers to as "Neo-Colonialism" seems to involve "cultural dominance." And while it is clear to her, it is unclear to me whether any such thing exists. If the term has any useful meaning, it has to involve more than the purchase of Britney Spears or Michael Jackson CDs. (Which, in any event, are not what I would hold up as an example of culture.)
I only read summaries of her positions, but they seem to define "Neo-Colonialism" as the "export" of ... capitalism, free trade, private property, all protected by rule of law. I.e. everything that led to our good fortune. And that is the reason I referred, in a previous post, to her "high school grasp of economics." I would add, her knowledge of history and understanding of social structure seem equally deficient.
(As an aside, in the 1970's I took a course in International Relations. I got hammered in discussions for asserting:
1. The Soviet Union was attempting to maintain a First World military with a Third World economy.
2. They couldn't sell enough raw materials (oil, etc.) to make up the deficiency.
3. Their economy would would collapse under the strain, sooner rather than later.
4. As a state, the USSR would probably dissolve before the end of century.
I was told I clearly didn't understand the nature and structure of socialist states. In hindsight, I think it's clear somebody didn't.)
Bookmarks