Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Where's Harry Turtledove when we need him...



Interesting. I read JJs comment with interest also. FWIW, I didn't take Steve's premise that way -- perhaps because I'm in broad agreement. In any event, I have no doubt many could and some would desire to take it that way as the Great American Empire, Act II. I just don't see that happening nor do I believe that most in the world, given a little reflection time would.

The British -- like most in Europe -- after all are basically Arab centric and goodness knows we've given them enough provocation to dislike us intensely so JJs reaction was unsurprising . It was also essentially fair; I could quibble a bit about events and interpretations but on balance, I understand where he's coming from.



Possibly my error as I assumed given what I know of Steve's background and his writing, it was sort of implied...

As for middle of the road, yep -- and most Americans are essentially moderates; that's why it's acceptable...



Hate is a bad word, Penta used it and I did not. However, I didn't correct his over statement to a more accurate "while a very few hate us, many more are in a state of mild dislike, distrust or envy and the majority of the world doesn't care much unless we do something that effects them personally. the bad news is that due to our size, sometimes our minor efforts create a ripple effect that can exacerbate their perception into a state of active dislike..." or words to that effect. I'm wordy enough without over editing someone else's basically correct comment.

You are, of course, correct in saying that we are not resoundingly hated -- I've said here and elsewhere that dislike of the US today is not nearly as bad as it was during and directly after Viet Nam -- and there are some American who want "them to like us" (though not many IMO, most could care less). Still, other than that, Penta's points were valid, I thought.



To you too -- do you have an alternative?

My alternative is very much like what you described, Ken. The things I would add to it all fall into the realm of balancing strategy with other elements of power including economics, political/IO, and soft power as described by Joe Nye. Finally I would also add that I firmly believe that unilateral action in any but the most dire or most immediate circumstances is laden with costs. Coalitions of interests--fleeting or semi-permanent--have their own costs but at the end of the day prove their worth. If you routienly act alone you will be alone.

Steve,

With what you said in clarification I am more at ease with the concept. As Ken is wont to say when someone uses the word "victory" in reference to briush fire wars or COIN, words are important. In this case, taging Israeli to it--yes Ken I am somewhat conceding your point--is not merely distracting. Israeli security strategy is not a rehash of TR's famous big stick. Again however I believe that discussing strategy in purely military terms is inherently limiting in the choices one can make.

Best to both of you. As usual, good discussion.

Tom