Posted on 06/02/2003 12:09:55 PM PDT by Oldie
During the 1990's, America became exponentially more powerful economically, militarily and technologically than any other country in the world, if not in history. Broadly speaking, this was because the collapse of the Soviet empire, and the alternative to free-market capitalism, coincided with the Internet-technology revolution in America. The net effect was that U.S. power, culture and economic ideas about how society should be organized became so dominant (a dominance magnified through globalization) that America began to touch people's lives around the planet "more than their own governments," as a Pakistani diplomat once said to me. Yes, we began to touch people's lives directly or indirectly more than their own governments.
As people realized this, they began to organize against it in a very inchoate manner. The first manifestation of that was the 1999 Seattle protest, which triggered a global movement. Seattle had its idiot side, but what the serious protesters there were saying was: "You, America, are now touching my life more than my own government. You are touching it by how your culture seeps into mine, by how your technologies are speeding up change in all aspects of my life, and by how your economic rules have been `imposed' on me. I want to have a vote on how your power is exercised, because it's a force now shaping my life."
Why didn't nations organize militarily against the U.S.? Michael Mandelbaum, author of "The Ideas That Conquered the World," answers: "One prominent international relations school the realists argues that when a hegemonic power, such as America, emerges in the global system other countries will naturally gang up against it. But because the world basically understands that America is a benign hegemon, the ganging up does not take the shape of warfare. Instead, it is an effort to Gulliverize America, an attempt to tie it down, using the rules of the World Trade Organization or U.N. and in so doing demanding a vote on how American power is used."
There is another reason for this nonmilitary response. America's emergence as the hyperpower is happening in the age of globalization, when economies have become so intertwined that China, Russia, France or any other rivals cannot hit the U.S. without wrecking their own economies.
The only people who use violence are rogues or nonstate actors with no stakes in the system, such as Osama bin Laden. Basically, he is in a civil war with the Saudi ruling family. But, he says to himself, "The Saudi rulers are insignificant. To destroy them you have to hit the hegemonic power that props them up America."
Hence, 9/11.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
nope. You're dead wrong.
The US military growth was spurred on by the Cold War. Particualrly during the 1980's with Ronald Reagan we built up an incredibly massive military force the likes never seen in human history.
After the USSR collapsed we began downsizing but we stayed bulk-up and during the 1990's focused on improving the quality of our equipment and troops versus the quantity.
Without the USSR we would have grown only very little from our post WWII military.
In fact, we likely would not have fought in Vietnam or S. Korea.
Much of our technological progress can be directly attributable to our competition with the Soviet Union. We may not have gone to the moon even.
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.