He seems to think W.W.I was a great idea. Wilson a giant? A utopian megalomaniac working on behalf of select bankers and manufacturers is more like it. Not in the mood to debate WWII and the cold war now so I'll skip it as it's too involved.
>And then it ended with one of the great anti-climaxes in history. Without a shot fired, without a revolution, without so much as a press release, the Soviet Union simply gave up and disappeared.
He really sounds disappointed there wasn't a bloodbath!
>And this American Republic has acquired the largest seeming empire in the history of the world--acquired it in a fit of absent-mindedness greater even than Britain’s. And it was not just absent-mindedness; it was sheer inadvertence. We got here because of Europe’s suicide in the world wars of the twentieth century, and then the death of its Eurasian successor, Soviet Russia, for having adopted a political and economic system so inhuman that, like a genetically defective organism, it simply expired in its sleep. Leaving us with global dominion.
Empire by sheer inadventure?!?! We got the Philippines, Guam, etc. by accident? He should try reading history books instead of stale 100 year old propaganda. How is it we got control of Hawaii? We were in China for what reason again?
>unlike Rome, unlike Britain and France and Spain .. we do not hunger for territory. The use of the word “empire” in the American context is ridiculous.
How does "neo- empire" sound? True we don't occupy entire nations and huge tracks of foreign land like our predesessors, no we got smart. We sponcer coups and revolutions, then set up friendly government that deal with us the way we (and our corporations) wish.
>What could we possibly need anywhere else?
Control of the natural resources, exclusive contracts, cutting out the middle men, denying competitors access, in short higher profits.
>Isolationism originally sprang from a view of America as spiritually superior to the Old World. We were too good to be corrupted by its low intrigues, entangled by its cynical alliances.
How about too wise to be draw into unnecessary wars that put the very life of the nation at risk?
>Truman’s and Kennedy’s roles in containing communism
Establishing our far flung outposts for all time and legitimizing a meddling foreign policy and bloating the military in****rial complex.
>liberal passivity in the last half of the Cold War
Why doesn't he call it like it is - the liberals became flat out PRO- COMMUNIST. Oh, then he might sound too much like Ann Culter and offend polite beltway society and risk his invitations to the best cocktail parties.
>[modern] liberal internationalism...Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo were humanitarian ventures--fights for right and good, devoid of raw national interest.
Hatii restored an America hating Marxist to power and stopped the flow of refugee to our shores which at the time was politically expedient. Bosnia - I'll have to ponder that one some more. Kosovo - a gift to Albania so they'd give us a right away for a oil pipeline connecting the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Not in our interests - yeah right.
>the Democratic critique of the war in Iraq is so peculiarly one of process and not of policy.
He inadvertently let the truth slip there. Both parties are tools for big oil. The difference is a socket set to an adjustable wrench.
>[war on Iraq] the French were cross
Sure. We're cutting them out of a great deal they had going. You'd be sore too under the circumstances.
>Everyone would like to have more help in reconstruction ...the argument is cynical
Is he surprised??? In figuring politics one can never be cynical enough.
>First, what holds domestic society together is a supreme central authority wielding a monopoly of power and enforcing norms.
Does this definition sound strangely, er totalitarian somehow? Doesn't sound like limited government to me.
>Second, domestic society rests on the shared goodwill, civility and common values of its individual members.
Nail in the coffin of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." Krauthammer better check with the other neocons before he repeats this too often. They're all for open borders, etc.
>In the unipolar world we inhabit, what stability we do enjoy today is owed to the overwhelming power and deterrent threat of the United States...In the unipolar world, the closest thing to a centralized authority, to an enforcer of norms, is America
There we have it. Benevolent global hegemony, Pax Americana, the indispensable nation, etc.
>Where would South Korea be without America and its landmines along the DMZ? Where would Europe--with its cozy arrogant community--be without America having saved it from the Soviet colossus? Where would the Middle East be had American power not stopped Saddam in 1991?
The question is why is their concerns our business? Other than profits for defense contractors that is. Really now. Think about it. What system of government they have does not affect us one bit. They would still need or products and our markets. He's using the evil bogeyman scare tactic to support intervention not logic.
>Deterrence does not work against people who ache for heaven.
He should try putting our mid east problems in context. If my neighbor doesn't want me on his property should I be surprised if he tries to kill me after repeated requests to bug off are ignored?
>The other great objection to the way American unipolar power has been wielded is its unilateralism.
He's surpised that others do not want an unelected power telling them how to live? particularly when that power is used arbitrarily.
>As we learned from the Gulf War, it is the leadership of the United States--indeed, its willingness to act unilaterally if necessary--that galvanized the Gulf War coalition into existence.
He forgot to mention bribes - your tax dollars that is.
>For most Americans, will to power might be a correct description of the world--of what motivates other countries--but it cannot be a prescription for America.
That's why we have all the subterfuge and blather on about "making the world safe for democracy," "self defense," "vital national interests" and "they hate us for our freedom."
>there’s nothing con about Blair
I'm out of context here but that guy has used car salesman written all over him.
>Democratic globalism
He describes making the world democratic then denies any Wilsonian utopianism to it but get this - only because 80 years have lapsed and we know so much more now.
>Democracies are inherently more friendly.. less belligerent to their neighbors, and generally more inclined to peace.
The Democratic Athenians built quite an empire. The Roman Republic built an empire but more recently so did Britain and they got pretty ruthless about it too.
>We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity
Read: We will intervene only where there is oil or other valuable natural resources.
Overthrowing radicalism, planting democracy, universal freedom, peace through war, etc. What Krauhammer is describing is descendent from the French and Russian revolutions. The grandfathers of the neoconservative movement were Trotskyites by their own admission. That is they were socialists/communists and they wanted a world wide revolution sponsored by the Soviet Union. Stalin was a traitor to the cause because he instead focused on solidifying his power in Russia. The neocons and their descendants still have a zeal for world revolution. And don't forget that revolution is war. This is a prescription of war and nation building. It is socialist and grandiose. Conservatives long fought the UN and global government. The neocons are selling global government under the auspices of US domination. This is simply global government repackaged. "New Conservatism" indeed.
L
Thanks for the post!