Posted on 12/31/2002 8:24:17 AM PST by Bluegrass Federalist
Your association with Hitler is similar to mine with the slaveowners of the southern United States in the early 1800's. I did not own slaves, yet there are those in the United States that say that I should pay reparations.
Germany is on a very dangerous path today. The rhetoric that spewed forth from the candidates in your last election cycle was astounding. Germans might consider a little humility, and our cautious approach may become a little friendlier.
It's not really about defending others from their own folly, or against dark forces from whom they can't defend themselves. American armed power exists to defend American interests. In the main, America is best off when tyrants and aggressors are put down sternly and swiftly, because to have these on the loose threatens the increasingly far-flung reach of our trade, our travel, and our extended families.
I tend to favor non-intervention in quarrels less threatening than, say, the discovery of nuclear capabilities in North Korea, unearthing a funding trail that connects Palestinian and al-Qaeda terrorism to Iraq, or learning that Celine Dion's touring south of the border again. But one's judgment on these things is more trustworthy if one has lots of high-quality information than if one is a regular schlump-on-the-sidelines like myself. So we have a national security apparatus with lots of intelligence resources, and which is watched, hopefully closely and continuously, by elected officials for signs of mission overreach.
The painful things about American extra-national military interventions are twofold:
It's simply very hard to know when it's a good idea to entangle ourselves in the conflicts of others. We private citizens are unlikely ever to be able to cross-verify enough of the arguments for an intervention to be confident that we're hearing the truth and nothing but. Governments are uniformly run by people who like having power and love to wield it, so their institutional tendency is to favor such things. We have few checks on overreach other than the desire of officials to be liked by the citizenry, which, come to think of it, has worked surprisingly well even on appointees. Basically, once we put the reins in their hands, we have to trust them to know where they're riding off to, and why.
The dangers are considerable. But the options are few, perhaps none, especially given the perilous state of the world and the amount of envy we engender with our success.
A country needs a military in proportion to how much she has to defend. We need a large one, as possessors of a quarter of the world's wealth. But size alone isn't sufficient. We also have to have our fingers on the pulse of the world, be intimately acquainted with its troubled places and the roots of their miseries -- and sometimes that draws us into others' quarrels all by itself.
Robert A. Heinlein once called America a "blind giant" for her habit of stumbling into wars unknowingly and under-preparedly. Well, we have a better intelligence network now than any previous generation of Americans -- but much of it depends on alliances and involvements that George Washington would have thought unwise, even treasonous. Thus the times have changed.
Worst of all the agonies of this subject is this one: That intelligence network does frequently learn things that private persons ought not to learn, for their own good and the good of the country. Sometimes, its agents must do things in the interests of the nation that would be considered crimes if done by ordinary citizens. It all grows out of the nature of the Game of States, in which "there are no morals, only expedience." (V. I. Lenin)
I'll return to this anon.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://www.palaceofreason.com
That's not the impression I get when talking to people from other countries. While these people--I'm primarily talking about online friends who still live in other countries--seem to like the U.S., they've also told me repeatedly in conversation that we have no clue just how badly most of the rest of the world hates us. I tend to agree with the original poster in this thread. Let them take care of themselves for a bit and see if their attitudes change.
MM
In reality the Europeans are the ones really to blame for the leftist anti Americanism trash floating around. Their ideals are the ones we are competing with, not really anyone else's. The Koreans view themselves as being small fish in a really BIG pond, but when the socialists and leftist Nobel Prize people award prizes to their previous leader it makes the Koreans think that "they finally got someone to recognize them". The same people awarded Jimmy Carter the award merely to advance their own political agenda.
In regards to Korea, or anywhere strategically, we cannot be of the thinking that our troops will be there forever. The same with Japan. The only reason the troops were there in Korea in the first place is because of Communists and the old framework of how things work.
With the collapse of Communism though, and the eventual collapse of North Korea's regime, then what? What will be the rationale behind stationing troops there? Believe it or not, North Korea is a short term problem.
We have to start rethinking our reasons for being around the world. Right now though we are working within the old framework, when in reality we should be working out a new one, based around the new threats. Until recently there has been little new or prevelant threats. Then there was Sept 11.
To think in the right now terms is short sighted. In the long term, we have to come up with more, or better yet, different reasons. In my estimation I will expect a smaller signature of open big huge military bases, but a massive increase in our plain clothed intel presence around the world. We still have a bad ass military, but what we, and Asia are starting to need is bad ass intel and lightning strikes. We will probably expand our presence around the globe, but the difference will be that our guys will be in suits and ties instead of military uniforms, and most Koreans or Japanese will walk past them on the street not knowing who they are. Asia is also in need of a balance against China so in Asia we will still have the hardware, just a smaller openly military signature there to disrupt the average Joe Kawasaki's life.
Things are going to change, and that is not really a bad thing at all.
In other words, big old huge bases with 100,000 Marines might not really meet our strategic needs anymore.
We will still have the Marines, but they will be stationed in Florida or Hawaii, but able to get to their location with guns blazing in 10-12 hours from the call.
Simply put, that would be running away from the fight, ideological even.
Those people who say "America is a hegemon...those pigs...etc" what do we do? Let them continue on in ignorance about us? Should we let them have an uncontested slam dunk against us? Even when its not true? Like I said, Europeans want to be on top of things. They are the real root of the problem.
For me, we have to be who we are and discredit those types of people, and expose them for the ignoramuses they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.