There is strong evidence to suggest that without the hegemony of the United States, there will be more war in the world.
There will certainly be more war in the Middle East (Iran vs Saudi Arabia, Israel vs Arab World), more war in Eastern Europe (Putin expanding into Crimea), more war in the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan is unstable), and so on. Is that the sort of world you want?
Strong evidence where written by whom? Do I want more war, no I don't. But I also don't support hegemony. Most of Islamic fundamentalism would not be possible with the Saudis and the Saudis would not be possible without the US. Israel would have to make better peace with its neighbors without the backing of the superpower. Pakistan would probably be less fundamentalist had it not been for the 70s CIA plots to fund Jihadism in Afgahnistan. America is the only big player on the board, it can make all sorts of justifications for its political moves. And there is no way of knowing what the world would look like without them. Only rhetoric and theory.
What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet and quit being America's puppet. The same goes for pretty much everyone in the world. It is not good to rely on anyone else to represent your people and your economic interests in the world. Trusting other people's leadership is not a smart move, it keeps you incompetent.
edit: replying to the comment below.
So your point is that there is only enough room in the world for one ultra-national anti-internationalist country and the US is it. The end state of the game is when there is no such country in the world. That includes the US.
The United States, obviously. The US is still occupying Europe with hundreds of military bases, it supports and funds terrorist groups and drug cartels, it undermines democratic governments and threatens the security of Europe's people through NSA and CIA sabotage.
There's no reason for the US to maintain the overwhelming global military presence that it does, particularly in Europe. World War 2 is over, and the US will never actually go to war with an enemy like Iran, Russia or China, or any country that might actually pose a legitimate threat to global security, so why keep up the pretense of being the "world's policeman?"
So you're saying Europe should self-identify as an organization of humans capable of their own autocracy and then use that self-determination to establish their own military assets, which would destabilize global security as yet another non-hegemonic nuclear player enters the space?
I never did advocate that. I don't think the US should be isolationist. I think the US should take a leadership role, but it should be multilateral and it should respect the rights of other country's citizens, rather than focusing on its business interests only. Also enough with the human rights shenanigans. If you actually believe than do as you say.
Read The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski. He makes a very strong case for US hegemony.
Btw, I do respect your points. I'm rather conflicted about this topic myself. We don't really know what the world would be like if the US were to practice isolationism - and we don't get do-overs for history if we mess it up. The powers that be seem to have decided that a forced stability is better than the risk of global instability.
And then we have the example worse than even Russia -- China taking over the natural resources close to them. (Well, hopefully just in countries close to them.)
If Yellowstone had a giant outbreak tomorrow and made USA busy with internal affairs for a few generations, this would almost certainly be much more common, quickly.
Chomsky might argue that there is not a big difference between democracies and dictatorships (at least -- he seems to criticize democracies a few orders of magnitude more than the dictators?) -- but the democratic peace theory don't agree.
From the number of comments commited so far, I realise that Americans don't want to touch the subject because it hurts. Noam's book should be read along with all the articles written by Paul Graig Roberts. In the end, the average American will realize that she/he complicit to the warmongering attitude of the United States and how it treats the entire world with 1000+ military bases around the world "spreading freedom". If you ask where the word complicit fits in, then look no further to the average American not voting or voting for politicians who have committed crimes against humanity (Clintons, Bush, Kerry etc) or the ones who will eventually commit (Trump)
Good night America.
I'm an American and I agree with this. We have consistently either not voted or voted in people that push the same foreign policy decisions that have gone wrong over and over again.
Sadly, a lot of us thought our current POTUS would change that. Yes, we projected. That's why Sanders is getting so much support, IMO, because he has an actual track record to hang our hopes on.
The real problem is not America itself, the forces of Geo-Politics are just too damn BIG and beyond the control of the actors i.e. the Nations and the diplomatic core.
Its absolutely Naive thinking that a President is going to wipe out and start new, Obama was right, no body starts with a Clean Slate. You are dealt a hand, you deal with it.
Now, you can define and refine the approach, but the events themselves hardly controllable.
Syria and Ukraine was Obama's choice while Libya was Hilary's war. They left failed states everywhere and for what?!
I understand that politicians are under huge pressure to do this or that, but the LEAST we can do is hold them accountable. Saying that hey they don't control this, sure and who does? Who takes the decision to invade a country ultimately if not the President of the US?
Libya was a NATO mission with UN approval. The decision to leave a failed state was also a UN decision, although no country (including the US) voted for prolonged presence there, despite requests from the Libya interim government: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-un-idUSTRE79P6EC2011...
Ukraine was a mess even before Russia moved in. Even so, I think the situation in Ukraine is more Europe's problem than the US's, and as a European I do not blame Obama for ignoring it.
Saying that hey they don't control this, sure and who does?
Eventually, the UN carries that responsibility. The US lost a lot of goodwill in Europe over its "unilateral" decision to enter Iraq the second time around. Obama insisted on going through the UN, and I think that was a good decision.
I get the impression that the US' prevailing opinion is that Obama made the US look weak. In Europe, the opinion is more that Obama exposed the UN for the toothless organization it is, and the US only looks stronger for it.
It's easy to forget sometimes that our leaders are still humans. Bill Clinton was as human as Saddam Hussein - the only difference is that the US has strong institutions to check the powers of its human leaders, so Bill never became a Saddam. People like Donald Trump rise when when those institutions are rattled either internally (the GOP sold itself to hurt Obama) or externally (9/11 rattled the national apparatus and consciousness so much that the Iraq war was greenlighted, despite the tenuous link there).
The key is to focus on the institutions. As long as the institutions remain strong, we may be able to weather the occasional rogue leader.
I'm often struck how long the roman empire was able to continue operating even with terrible emperors at the helm for years or even decades. You almost get the sense that a Augustus or Trajan or Justinian was able to refill some deep well of energy / tradition / momentum in the bureaucracy that was then able to sustain itself through long decades of indifference or mismanagement. The time scales are mind-boggling compared to our typical 4/8 year perspective.
Don't forget "Sword in Hand" Aurelian. Roman History can be seen as a period of rise, then prolonged decline/decay, punctuated by resurgences helmed by great leaders.
The Roman Empire worked because it was able to harness the self-interest of many parties and the population in general. It is a model of oppression through the exploitation of self interest and class distinction. (A system fluid enough for slaves to work their way up to becoming wealthy citizens.) Amazing how many parallels there are between the US and the Roman Empire.
So, what institutions are those that enable extrajudicial killings of your own citizens by drone? Or is Obama too, a rogue leader?
Guantanamo? Is there an institution that allows that, or was it a "rogue leader" that enabled that?
Iraq? Afghanistan? Bosnia? I don't even remember what war Regan was involved in and the guy before him and the guy before that guy. It seems like every US president in living memory, has made it a point to either start or continue an invasion of a sovereign nation against international law, reason and morality alike.
(apologies for the harsh tone; please feel free to reciprocate)
OK. What about a Swedish dictatorship? With Sweden as the only world superpower and the US, like everyone else, its vassal? Would you accept that?
If you're not American, substitute your country for "US". My point is that it's easy for you to say you'd take the US over Russia, China etc any day because it's already your country. To everyone else though it's just a foreign power threatening them with military might.
No, a Swedish dictatorship doesn't sound good. No dictatorships do.
Let's look at it another way. If the US were a small country and Canada was a superpower (democratic), would I be annoyed when Canada throws its weight around? Probably, in the grand scheme of things it could be much worse.
The point is that where you see "the world's superpower" everyone else (who is not American) sees "a brutal dictatorship".
There's no other way to describe a political entity that will bomb your village to kill one man it suspects may be somehow involved in an insurgency against its military. Not to mention all the other brutal stuff the US does.
I'm saying: you don't like dictatorships. Great, but your country is the world's own brutal dictator. It could be much worse, OK, but it could also be a lot better, if your country didn't "throw its weight around". Or its bombs. Or its army etc.
(Again, that is _if_ you're American, which I don't know).
The problem is that US is no longer a democracy and Europe is bunch of vassal states doing what US tells them with no regard to freedom. You have missed the point! This not about China vs Russia vs US. It's about US being superpower and being oppressive on its citizens and on the world. Period
US was never a democracy it is a republic as written into the constitution. When US was founded most of the people writing the constitution spoke strongly against democracy.
There is a vast difference in the 2 forms of government.
What GP means is that US is no longer a republic. Unifying aspect of the Obama, Sanders, and Trump campaigns is tapping the desire of the American public to make it one again.
> What GP means is that US is no longer a republic.
No, what GP means is that the US is no longer a democratic republic (which is, as the term "democracy" is generally used today, a form of "democracy", rather than an alternative to it.) The complaint GP makes does not contrast with a republic in any way, as all a Republic means is that it is a system of government where government isn't by (or exercising powers derived, at least in principle, from) a monarch.
A republic is a government of laws, and not of men. The US, most decidedly, isn't. John Adams argues the semantics much better than I ever could:
They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government’s being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. -- Novanglus, February 6, 1775
The opposite of republic is not monarchy, it is tyranny. The only way out of tyranny for the U.S. is, by definition, to restore the rule of law, which the GP seems to clamour for.
republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
democracy: A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives
Without advocating for either side, it seems to me that those countries that formed the Iron Curtain came out of the Cold War in better shape than those that orbited the USA (Central America, especifically).
Maybe they were in better shape to begin with. Still, I find it quite amazing that nearly every country in the Eastern Bloc built cars and all but Albania made microcomputers.
On the other hand, Guatemala came out of the Cold War in worse shape than Cuba.
You seem to be measuring "did better" by a yardstick of "was not integrated into an international trade regime where it specialized on comparative advantage, but instead tried to do everything itself."
While there may be some merit to that as a positive indicator, all other things being equal, I think that you have to look more broadly.
(Which is not to say that US-allied countries universally did better than Communist Block countries that were comparable prior to the Cold War; neoliberal trade certainly has a strong core/periphery effect; I think US-aligned countries in the core -- e.g., Europe particularly -- did better than comparable Communist Bloc countries, and the results are considerably more mixed otherwise.)
Latin America was not actually aligned with the US and the First World during the Cold War era. They're only orbiting the US in the sense of being within the US sphere of influence and geography.
> Latin America was not actually aligned with the US and the First World during the Cold War era.
Much of Latin America was, as demonstrated by the 1962 OAS resolution prohibiting participation by the Government of Cuba (without actually expelling Cuba), explicitly on the basis that "adherence by any member of the Organization of American States to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system and the alignment of such a government with the communist bloc breaks the unity and solidarity of the continents".
I still don't see how this makes Bill Clinton a war criminal. For that to be true, he would have had to have attacked the pharmaceutical factory as a means of retaliation against Sudan's civilian population (i.e. not as a result of misunderstanding the factory's purpose). Can you prove that Clinton was indirectly targeting civilians?
We don't live in a perfect world. Human collateral alone is not enough to justify the label of war criminal.
I think it is important to be introspective as a nation and overall I agree, but I also agree with others that the US has been far less empire-y than other empires have been, even if we've been equally stupid. I think it is time to work really hard to improve standards of living and education all over the world so that power can be distributed more evenly, but so much of the world is in the hands of even worse people that it will be hard to do that. Perhaps if there is not a true climate disaster things can move that way, otherwise I'm afraid it will go much worse and will become truly an every-country-for-itself model.
The US has behaved very differently than past empires, but still has been imperialistic.
Ostensibly, we aren't an "empire" because we don't do things like establish governors over different places we conquer (and we, again ostensibly, don't conquer anyone).
Instead we accomplish the same through the shadows. Encouraging certain dictatorships and coups, discouraging others. Wrecking nations through economic means when they step out of line (or attempt to). This is, in my opinion, much worse than the empires of old. We never control these things we create, which inevitably creates even greater hardship for the people dominated by the dictatorships and economic woes we inspired. And we publicly proclaim a desire for peace and democracy!
If we were a proper empire, expanding our domain, we would have ended up bringing new states into our union. The people that we subjugated gaining the right to vote at some point in the future via statehood (initially coming in as territories or protectorates). But we don't want that. We won't the control and influence without the accountability of their votes. This forces people to vote against us via other means. Often violent. We then condemn their actions, which we inspired, and put down these actors, or attempt to, and claim a victory for peace and democracy.
Right, and Puerto Rico (which became a territory rather than a protectorate). Most people forget about those. We also established some governance over regions captured during WWII and other conflicts, however temporary they may have been. But most of the "capturing territory" phase ended for the US prior to WWI, after that point control was established via less overt mechanisms (that is, no direct governorship, but we still had the military and economic means to direct them).
Well, but let's talk about the collapse of Yugoslavia for a while and the subsequent genocide in Bosnia. Here was something in Western Europe's back yard, and they were totally impotent, letting genocide happen right before their eyes. If US citizens are "complicit" in "crimes against humanity", are not European citizens complicit in the genocide that they let happen? Standing by and wringing your hands until the skin rubs off does not stop genocide. It took the US to get involved with a military deployment for any effective action to be taken.
I'm sick to death of being lectured by Europeans who can't be bothered to do anything beyond writing scolding editorials in newspapers.
"Americans have been trained by the media to go into Pavlovian giggles at the mention of the word "conspiracy," because for an American to believe in a conspiracy, he must also believe in flying saucers or, craziest of all, that more than one person was involved in the JFK murder" (Gore Vidal)
If you are arguing that Western Europeans were powerless to do anything about it, yes, that is an argument in favor of having a sizable military -- but not necessarily an argument in favor of taking action with it.
If you are arguing that they just chose not to do anything, and the US intervention was virtuous -- that does not necessarily show that other US military actions in the past 30 years are similarly valuable.
> but not necessarily an argument in favor of taking action with it.
Stopping genocide is the clearest justification for "taking action" with a large military.
IMO, the issue is not that the US has a large military. Scale is hard to judge, but the US has a ridiculously huge military. The US military is designed to fight 3 wars at the same time which seems to be vast overkill. The #1 Air Force in the world in term of military strength is US Air Force, #2 Air Force in the world is the US Navy. That's vastly beyond what it takes to deal with local genocide.
PS: Consider the F-15 Eagle introduced in 1976 currently has a world wide 100:0 kill loss ratio in Aerial Combat, that took an insane amount of R&D and training. In fact the production is scheduled to in in 2019. While impressive it's hard to call that anything but overkill.
The "word" genocide is a word so much manipulated by you "humane" Americans "saving the world". You missed a number of genocides commited by the Bosnian Muslims and the UCK rebels financed by the CIA.
We have all been fed the one sided story of Srebenitsa about the Serbs commiting "genocide" while it was pure execution of the soldiers who had massacred Serbs in the nearby villages in the first place. Then you send your phony Agelina Jolie to shed tears about the Muslims but no one tear for the Serbs. You hypocrites.
Or how Germany, the main US lapdog of Europe, instigated the break up of Yugoslavia.
As people, we revolted, but as always the European governments are bought up by the warmongering elite living in your country. I personally have felt what toxic fume tastes like thrown to me by police by protesting in the streets. A fried of mine lost his hearing while protesting.
Please don't lecture us. Investigage your wars crimes and stop playing "the saviour". This is not Hollywood. It real life. And you are complicit in every way. But I accept that Europeans are complicing by laying down and letting the steam roller called "US foreing politics" roll over us.
Well, at least we didn't start the war, not even under false pretenses, we welcomed a lot of refugees, held real trials, didn't torture or assassinate anyone and sent countless of soldiers on peacekeeping missions. And it wasn't like the US one day got involved and saved the day. NATO and the UN (Yes, the air strikes were UN sanctioned) was involved from the beginning of the war.
Its shocking that the "eurofag" crowd don't seem to get this aspect of the Bosnian conflict: Europe was definitely involved. European troops got there first.
Mostly "I don't know too much about the world, but the white house said they did great". If Europe had any larger responsibility for the conflict, it was probably that it couldn't stop the war from happening (even though this is a complex topic as well). Of course this is also one of the motivations behind the EU.
It is rather shocking that the propaganda defeats peoples willingness to investigate the truth for themselves - especially with regards to a topic that is, quite literally, extraordinarily inflammatory. Europe, having suffered two major world wars as a result of countries thinking they should just intervene whenever/wherever/for whatever reason, has reason to be cautious whenever someone starts a fire in the Balkans. American nationalists attempting to defend their country's honor don't seem to factor in this key value in their analysis: European leaders have learned to be cautious when it comes to making a case for multi-national warfare. America, having gone into the great dark void it current inhabits, for the most part alone (albeit with a collection of puppet states for the sake of keeping up appearances), seems all too boisterous when it comes to just sending military resources and assets across multiple borders.
This was all factored into place when Europe responded - before the US - to the Bosnian crisis. Very definitely, mistakes were made - but the conflagration was defused and there is now - relatively speaking - a peace in the area. Bosnia could've been Europes' Syria/(Israel,Palestine). However, it isn't today - and the reason for this is the cool headedness of European leadership. Not the arrogant bragadocio of American militarism.
>Well, but let's talk about the collapse of Yugoslavia for a while and the subsequent genocide in Bosnia. Here was something in Western Europe's back yard, and they were totally impotent, letting genocide happen right before their eyes.
There were totally competent to do whatever they wanted. They just didn't care AND didn't want to step on each others toes, whereas the US didn't mind stepping on their collective toes.
As for the intervention, the US decision makers and military could not care less about stopping the genocide (in the same way they didn't care about "crimes against humanity" elsewhere, or actively helped some in other places when it was convenient, e.g. assisting Suharto, Pinochet, Nicaragua, etc., not to mention their own shit).
It was just a convenient excuse to establish Kosovo as another protectorate in Eastern Europe and give a general signal about their reach in the area.
> There were totally competent to do whatever they wanted.
Since WWII, IIRC, most NATO militaries have been structured (in part originally with US support and in some cases insistence, though the US preference has changed on this, especially since the end of the Cold War) to be dependent on the US as the core of any major operations (this was, IIRC, a substantial issue for the UK, particularly as to the structure of its naval forces, in the Falklands.)
> As for the intervention, the US decision makers and military could not care less about stopping the genocide. It was about establishing Kosovo as another protectorate in Eastern Europe.
Kosovo was the tail end of the breakup of Yugoslavia; it certainly wasn't the motivation for the US intervention in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which substantially predate the crisis in Kosovo, unless you are suggesting some kind of long conspiracy that even the harshest critics of US policy in the region have never suggested before.
>Since WWII, IIRC, most NATO militaries have been structured (in part originally with US support and in some cases insistence, though the US preference has changed on this, especially since the end of the Cold War) to be dependent on the US as the core of any major operations (this was, IIRC, a substantial issue for the UK, particularly as to the structure of its naval forces, in the Falklands.)
UK, France, Italy, Germany, et al. were more than perfectly capable of winning a war with the tired army of the 1/3 of an ex-socialist Yugoslavia.
>Kosovo was the tail end of the breakup of Yugoslavia; it certainly wasn't the motivation for the US intervention in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which substantially predate the crisis in Kosovo, unless you are suggesting some kind of long conspiracy that even the harshest critics of US policy in the region have never suggested before.
The Kosovo has been a point of interest in the area (and a conflict zone) way before the US intervention in Bosnia-Hercegovina -- even in mid-eighties. Everybody, including "tied" Germany, made its moves, to be a player in the future of Yugoslavia, even before the county dissolved.
And, by the way, 5-10 years ahead are not "long", they're literally nothing much in diplomatic and foreign affairs planning.
The US have a plan for Cuba after Castro dies for decades now (revised to new situations of course), and similar, players in international politics play the long game, including centuries of interventions and moves, all the time.
Some of us were protesting the war in Yugoslavia in the streets of our cities.
You seem to imply that the terror in the Balkans was an internal issue, not caused or fuelled by external intervention, or in part armed by western powers. I think the reality is closer to this paragraph from wikipedia[1]:
"The Bosnian government lobbied to have the arms embargo lifted, but that was opposed by the United Kingdom, France and Russia. US proposals to pursue this policy were known as lift and strike. The US congress passed two resolutions calling for the embargo to be lifted but both were vetoed by President Bill Clinton for fear of creating a rift between the US and the aforementioned countries. Nonetheless, the United States used both "black" C-130 transports and back channels, including Islamist groups, to smuggle weapons to Bosnian-Muslim forces, as well as allowed Iranian-supplied arms to transit through Croatia to Bosnia. However, in light of widespread NATO opposition to American (and possibly Turkish) endeavors in coordinating the "black flights of Tuzla", the United Kingdom and Norway expressed disapproval of these measures and their counterproductive effects on NATO enforcement of the arms embargo. Inter Services Intelligence also played an active role during 1992–1995 and secretly supplied the Muslim fighters with arms, ammunition and guided anti tank missiles to give them a fighting chance against the aggression."
A simplistic view that there were evil Serbians and good Bosnians seems a bit naive. I think there are some strong parallels with how the Mujahideen were "good" when fighting Soviet, and are now "evil" when fighting NATO. It's a compelling fiction, but it's not how the real world works. The real world is more like:
Just moving in with military force and expecting a Hollywood ending is completely unrealistic. How do you stop a genocide in a civil war? By committing genocide against the "offending" party?
And while I opposed the UN/NATO intervention (a landmark bending of the UN charter in favour aggression) your comment also seem to belittle the role of European troops in the peacekeeping effort. I have nothing but respect for those that served, even if I have mostly contempt for the politicians that sent them there.
Lastly, I don't see much point in creating a competition of guilt. As you ask:
> are not European citizens complicit in the genocide that they let happen
Most certainly. We're also complicit in the murder of Iraqi , Syrian, Libyan and Afghan children, as we've been unable to stop the wars our government participates in, for some vague geopolitical agenda. But that doesn't change the fact that the US controls the largest war machine the world has seen, and seem more than willing to wield it with impunity across the globe.
It can be hard to fight off apathy and frustration when you pay taxes to a system that keeps killing (mostly innocent) people for what apparently seems like not very good reason, and perhaps even worse, based on very poor intelligence and complete disregard for history (What, the British were surprised at the situation in Afghanistan, after having been at war there for a hundred years or more? No one reads Kipling any more?).
But just because many things are terrible, doesn't mean one should stop to try to do good. But the opposite, in such times, everyone must do what they can. If everyone does something, then something can be done.
Are the 1000+ bases part of a strategy to avoid nuclear proliferation? America agrees to provide security to its allies and in return its allies agree not to acquire nuclear weapons? How else are Brazil, South Korea, Indonesia etc... able to protect themselves against nuclear states?
>How else are Brazil, South Korea, Indonesia etc... able to protect themselves against nuclear states?
The US is a nuclear state, and the only state to have ever used nuclear weapons in warfare. Who's going to defend the world against the threat of American nuclear aggression? Will the world really be safer when only the US has nuclear weapons?
Reducing nuclear proliferation is a noble endeavor, but the United States should not be the one leading the effort towards it as long as it has no intentions of dismantling its own arsenal.
The world would be safer without nuclear weapons, but as long as the US remains an aggressive, nuclear military power that kidnaps, tortures and murders civilians in other countries with impunity, undermines their governments at will, supports terrorist groups and wages war on fabricated evidence, a nuclear-free world will remain impossible.
Those conflicts would be limited in their scope and their destructive potential, so arguably the world as a whole would be safer. How many cities can one nuclear-armed submarine destroy and how many such submarines do the nuclear powers of the world have? A thousand conventional wars are preferable to one full-scale nuclear war.
A thousand conventional wars? Maybe on the scale of WW1 where an entire generation of men were wiped out in Europe? Or the Franco Prussian wars which convulsed Europe before that? Or maybe something simple like the ethnic cleansing in Uganda that only resulted in a hair under 1 million casualties?
How about the Indian sub-continent? Nuclear weapons have largely been responsible for keeping Pakistan and India from going at each other. Both know that their enemy has the ability to wipe each other out with nukes.
Nuclear weapons should also be credited with keeping Sino-Soviet tempers from flaring too hot before the end of the Cold War. Some of the border incidents would have easily escalated to full war if Beijing hadn't been intimidated by Soviet nukes.
The fundamental problem with Chomsky's approach is he's one-sidedly applying criminal justice concepts and 'moral compass' of the western society to international affairs.
The side these are applied to is of course 'the evil West'.
Then he turns around and acts as all apologetic when it comes to anti-Western regimes no matter how bloody or atrocious they get - going back to whitewashing of Viet Kong atrocities and Cambodian genocide back in the 70s.
>> whitewashing of Viet Kong atrocities and Cambodian genocide back in the 70s.
He's done nothing of the sort. He was suspicious of the official account of the Kambodian genocide and he had good reason to be suspicious of that account. It turned out it was true, and he admitted it.
>> The side these are applied to is of course 'the evil West'.
Duh. The West is evil. You don't realise it because you're in the West and you don't live in fear of hellfire missiles from a clear blue sky or a mechanised army rolling over your village. But the rest of the world knows it very well.
Our electoral system makes it exceptionally difficult to break out of the two main parties. And, if you're paying attention to the details of the primaries: at a national level, it is very tough to get a true outsider into a campaign. Sanders got shoved out by the Democrat machine. Trump got in because, whether you like it or not, the Republican primaries are MORE open and democratic!
I also think Trump is talking out of his butt a lot, manipulating the voter bases he needs to succeed. I highly doubt he'll have his supposed way on what you perceive to be war crimes - in fact, many republicans are voting for him on the idea that we shouldn't be in the middle east, and that we should be "making deals".
The American voting public is a lot more complex than armchair foreigners give it credit for, and it's not as easy as saying "well, you can vote, and the elected are crap, therefore every voter has themselves to blame". Perhaps if we were a parliamentary system, or our legislature a proportional representative format, but it's not.
You have to kind of feel bad for Chumsky, he wishes so bad for America's demise that he has to fluff up China and Russia, while completely ignoring the fact that the West is far better off with the US in charge. Utter chaos and death would be the reward for listening to his hate.
It's a combination of flagging and flame war detection. While I'm participating here, politics really aren't a good fit for this forum. The discussions tend to get too heated to be productive and brings out the worst in people.
Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration.
Expanding into the vastness of central Asia is a raw deal, historically. It's much too hard to secure borders, so security becomes a huge drain on resources. China would probably do better to increase trade with its neighbors, and lose some of its identity to a regional economic association. If China's trade routes become the mutual interest of her neighbors, being ringed by powerful neighbors goes from a detriment to an advantage.
The U.S. is suffering under the burden of maintaining overwhelming military superiority. The British Empire mortgaged world domination for help in WWI, then defaulted to the US for WWII and gave up many of her global network of naval bases to the US. The 1st half of the 20th century bankrupted the British Empire. Now the latter half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st will be seen as the same process happening to the U.S.
88 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadThere will certainly be more war in the Middle East (Iran vs Saudi Arabia, Israel vs Arab World), more war in Eastern Europe (Putin expanding into Crimea), more war in the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan is unstable), and so on. Is that the sort of world you want?
What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet and quit being America's puppet. The same goes for pretty much everyone in the world. It is not good to rely on anyone else to represent your people and your economic interests in the world. Trusting other people's leadership is not a smart move, it keeps you incompetent.
edit: replying to the comment below.
So your point is that there is only enough room in the world for one ultra-national anti-internationalist country and the US is it. The end state of the game is when there is no such country in the world. That includes the US.
> "What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet"
Advocating ultra-nationalist, anti-internationalist policies is, precisely, what leads to the mass conflict the grandparent was talking about.
There's no reason for the US to maintain the overwhelming global military presence that it does, particularly in Europe. World War 2 is over, and the US will never actually go to war with an enemy like Iran, Russia or China, or any country that might actually pose a legitimate threat to global security, so why keep up the pretense of being the "world's policeman?"
I stand by my original comment.
Btw, I do respect your points. I'm rather conflicted about this topic myself. We don't really know what the world would be like if the US were to practice isolationism - and we don't get do-overs for history if we mess it up. The powers that be seem to have decided that a forced stability is better than the risk of global instability.
If Yellowstone had a giant outbreak tomorrow and made USA busy with internal affairs for a few generations, this would almost certainly be much more common, quickly.
Chomsky might argue that there is not a big difference between democracies and dictatorships (at least -- he seems to criticize democracies a few orders of magnitude more than the dictators?) -- but the democratic peace theory don't agree.
Sadly, a lot of us thought our current POTUS would change that. Yes, we projected. That's why Sanders is getting so much support, IMO, because he has an actual track record to hang our hopes on.
Its absolutely Naive thinking that a President is going to wipe out and start new, Obama was right, no body starts with a Clean Slate. You are dealt a hand, you deal with it. Now, you can define and refine the approach, but the events themselves hardly controllable.
I understand that politicians are under huge pressure to do this or that, but the LEAST we can do is hold them accountable. Saying that hey they don't control this, sure and who does? Who takes the decision to invade a country ultimately if not the President of the US?
Ukraine was a mess even before Russia moved in. Even so, I think the situation in Ukraine is more Europe's problem than the US's, and as a European I do not blame Obama for ignoring it.
Saying that hey they don't control this, sure and who does?
Eventually, the UN carries that responsibility. The US lost a lot of goodwill in Europe over its "unilateral" decision to enter Iraq the second time around. Obama insisted on going through the UN, and I think that was a good decision.
I get the impression that the US' prevailing opinion is that Obama made the US look weak. In Europe, the opinion is more that Obama exposed the UN for the toothless organization it is, and the US only looks stronger for it.
The key is to focus on the institutions. As long as the institutions remain strong, we may be able to weather the occasional rogue leader.
The Roman Empire worked because it was able to harness the self-interest of many parties and the population in general. It is a model of oppression through the exploitation of self interest and class distinction. (A system fluid enough for slaves to work their way up to becoming wealthy citizens.) Amazing how many parallels there are between the US and the Roman Empire.
Guantanamo? Is there an institution that allows that, or was it a "rogue leader" that enabled that?
Iraq? Afghanistan? Bosnia? I don't even remember what war Regan was involved in and the guy before him and the guy before that guy. It seems like every US president in living memory, has made it a point to either start or continue an invasion of a sovereign nation against international law, reason and morality alike.
(apologies for the harsh tone; please feel free to reciprocate)
Give folks a chance to read through. It's almost 5k words! I for on am going to take my time reading it.
And let me be clear, if any of the Western European countries (or Aus/NZ) were an option, I'd take them over Russia and China too.
If you're not American, substitute your country for "US". My point is that it's easy for you to say you'd take the US over Russia, China etc any day because it's already your country. To everyone else though it's just a foreign power threatening them with military might.
Let's look at it another way. If the US were a small country and Canada was a superpower (democratic), would I be annoyed when Canada throws its weight around? Probably, in the grand scheme of things it could be much worse.
There's no other way to describe a political entity that will bomb your village to kill one man it suspects may be somehow involved in an insurgency against its military. Not to mention all the other brutal stuff the US does.
I'm saying: you don't like dictatorships. Great, but your country is the world's own brutal dictator. It could be much worse, OK, but it could also be a lot better, if your country didn't "throw its weight around". Or its bombs. Or its army etc.
(Again, that is _if_ you're American, which I don't know).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China
There is a vast difference in the 2 forms of government.
No, what GP means is that the US is no longer a democratic republic (which is, as the term "democracy" is generally used today, a form of "democracy", rather than an alternative to it.) The complaint GP makes does not contrast with a republic in any way, as all a Republic means is that it is a system of government where government isn't by (or exercising powers derived, at least in principle, from) a monarch.
They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government’s being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. -- Novanglus, February 6, 1775
The opposite of republic is not monarchy, it is tyranny. The only way out of tyranny for the U.S. is, by definition, to restore the rule of law, which the GP seems to clamour for.
democracy: A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives
_Vastly_ different
Maybe they were in better shape to begin with. Still, I find it quite amazing that nearly every country in the Eastern Bloc built cars and all but Albania made microcomputers.
On the other hand, Guatemala came out of the Cold War in worse shape than Cuba.
While there may be some merit to that as a positive indicator, all other things being equal, I think that you have to look more broadly.
(Which is not to say that US-allied countries universally did better than Communist Block countries that were comparable prior to the Cold War; neoliberal trade certainly has a strong core/periphery effect; I think US-aligned countries in the core -- e.g., Europe particularly -- did better than comparable Communist Bloc countries, and the results are considerably more mixed otherwise.)
Latin America was not actually aligned with the US and the First World during the Cold War era. They're only orbiting the US in the sense of being within the US sphere of influence and geography.
Much of Latin America was, as demonstrated by the 1962 OAS resolution prohibiting participation by the Government of Cuba (without actually expelling Cuba), explicitly on the basis that "adherence by any member of the Organization of American States to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system and the alignment of such a government with the communist bloc breaks the unity and solidarity of the continents".
We don't live in a perfect world. Human collateral alone is not enough to justify the label of war criminal.
Ostensibly, we aren't an "empire" because we don't do things like establish governors over different places we conquer (and we, again ostensibly, don't conquer anyone).
Instead we accomplish the same through the shadows. Encouraging certain dictatorships and coups, discouraging others. Wrecking nations through economic means when they step out of line (or attempt to). This is, in my opinion, much worse than the empires of old. We never control these things we create, which inevitably creates even greater hardship for the people dominated by the dictatorships and economic woes we inspired. And we publicly proclaim a desire for peace and democracy!
If we were a proper empire, expanding our domain, we would have ended up bringing new states into our union. The people that we subjugated gaining the right to vote at some point in the future via statehood (initially coming in as territories or protectorates). But we don't want that. We won't the control and influence without the accountability of their votes. This forces people to vote against us via other means. Often violent. We then condemn their actions, which we inspired, and put down these actors, or attempt to, and claim a victory for peace and democracy.
There's the Philippines.
I'm sick to death of being lectured by Europeans who can't be bothered to do anything beyond writing scolding editorials in newspapers.
If you are arguing that they just chose not to do anything, and the US intervention was virtuous -- that does not necessarily show that other US military actions in the past 30 years are similarly valuable.
Stopping genocide is the clearest justification for "taking action" with a large military.
IMO, the issue is not that the US has a large military. Scale is hard to judge, but the US has a ridiculously huge military. The US military is designed to fight 3 wars at the same time which seems to be vast overkill. The #1 Air Force in the world in term of military strength is US Air Force, #2 Air Force in the world is the US Navy. That's vastly beyond what it takes to deal with local genocide.
PS: Consider the F-15 Eagle introduced in 1976 currently has a world wide 100:0 kill loss ratio in Aerial Combat, that took an insane amount of R&D and training. In fact the production is scheduled to in in 2019. While impressive it's hard to call that anything but overkill.
This was all factored into place when Europe responded - before the US - to the Bosnian crisis. Very definitely, mistakes were made - but the conflagration was defused and there is now - relatively speaking - a peace in the area. Bosnia could've been Europes' Syria/(Israel,Palestine). However, it isn't today - and the reason for this is the cool headedness of European leadership. Not the arrogant bragadocio of American militarism.
There were totally competent to do whatever they wanted. They just didn't care AND didn't want to step on each others toes, whereas the US didn't mind stepping on their collective toes.
As for the intervention, the US decision makers and military could not care less about stopping the genocide (in the same way they didn't care about "crimes against humanity" elsewhere, or actively helped some in other places when it was convenient, e.g. assisting Suharto, Pinochet, Nicaragua, etc., not to mention their own shit).
It was just a convenient excuse to establish Kosovo as another protectorate in Eastern Europe and give a general signal about their reach in the area.
Since WWII, IIRC, most NATO militaries have been structured (in part originally with US support and in some cases insistence, though the US preference has changed on this, especially since the end of the Cold War) to be dependent on the US as the core of any major operations (this was, IIRC, a substantial issue for the UK, particularly as to the structure of its naval forces, in the Falklands.)
> As for the intervention, the US decision makers and military could not care less about stopping the genocide. It was about establishing Kosovo as another protectorate in Eastern Europe.
Kosovo was the tail end of the breakup of Yugoslavia; it certainly wasn't the motivation for the US intervention in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which substantially predate the crisis in Kosovo, unless you are suggesting some kind of long conspiracy that even the harshest critics of US policy in the region have never suggested before.
UK, France, Italy, Germany, et al. were more than perfectly capable of winning a war with the tired army of the 1/3 of an ex-socialist Yugoslavia.
>Kosovo was the tail end of the breakup of Yugoslavia; it certainly wasn't the motivation for the US intervention in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which substantially predate the crisis in Kosovo, unless you are suggesting some kind of long conspiracy that even the harshest critics of US policy in the region have never suggested before.
The Kosovo has been a point of interest in the area (and a conflict zone) way before the US intervention in Bosnia-Hercegovina -- even in mid-eighties. Everybody, including "tied" Germany, made its moves, to be a player in the future of Yugoslavia, even before the county dissolved.
And, by the way, 5-10 years ahead are not "long", they're literally nothing much in diplomatic and foreign affairs planning.
The US have a plan for Cuba after Castro dies for decades now (revised to new situations of course), and similar, players in international politics play the long game, including centuries of interventions and moves, all the time.
You seem to imply that the terror in the Balkans was an internal issue, not caused or fuelled by external intervention, or in part armed by western powers. I think the reality is closer to this paragraph from wikipedia[1]:
"The Bosnian government lobbied to have the arms embargo lifted, but that was opposed by the United Kingdom, France and Russia. US proposals to pursue this policy were known as lift and strike. The US congress passed two resolutions calling for the embargo to be lifted but both were vetoed by President Bill Clinton for fear of creating a rift between the US and the aforementioned countries. Nonetheless, the United States used both "black" C-130 transports and back channels, including Islamist groups, to smuggle weapons to Bosnian-Muslim forces, as well as allowed Iranian-supplied arms to transit through Croatia to Bosnia. However, in light of widespread NATO opposition to American (and possibly Turkish) endeavors in coordinating the "black flights of Tuzla", the United Kingdom and Norway expressed disapproval of these measures and their counterproductive effects on NATO enforcement of the arms embargo. Inter Services Intelligence also played an active role during 1992–1995 and secretly supplied the Muslim fighters with arms, ammunition and guided anti tank missiles to give them a fighting chance against the aggression."
A simplistic view that there were evil Serbians and good Bosnians seems a bit naive. I think there are some strong parallels with how the Mujahideen were "good" when fighting Soviet, and are now "evil" when fighting NATO. It's a compelling fiction, but it's not how the real world works. The real world is more like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp#Bosnia_incidents
Just moving in with military force and expecting a Hollywood ending is completely unrealistic. How do you stop a genocide in a civil war? By committing genocide against the "offending" party?
And while I opposed the UN/NATO intervention (a landmark bending of the UN charter in favour aggression) your comment also seem to belittle the role of European troops in the peacekeeping effort. I have nothing but respect for those that served, even if I have mostly contempt for the politicians that sent them there.
Lastly, I don't see much point in creating a competition of guilt. As you ask:
> are not European citizens complicit in the genocide that they let happen
Most certainly. We're also complicit in the murder of Iraqi , Syrian, Libyan and Afghan children, as we've been unable to stop the wars our government participates in, for some vague geopolitical agenda. But that doesn't change the fact that the US controls the largest war machine the world has seen, and seem more than willing to wield it with impunity across the globe.
It can be hard to fight off apathy and frustration when you pay taxes to a system that keeps killing (mostly innocent) people for what apparently seems like not very good reason, and perhaps even worse, based on very poor intelligence and complete disregard for history (What, the British were surprised at the situation in Afghanistan, after having been at war there for a hundred years or more? No one reads Kipling any more?).
But just because many things are terrible, doesn't mean one should stop to try to do good. But the opposite, in such times, everyone must do what they can. If everyone does something, then something can be done.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War#Warring_factions
The US is a nuclear state, and the only state to have ever used nuclear weapons in warfare. Who's going to defend the world against the threat of American nuclear aggression? Will the world really be safer when only the US has nuclear weapons?
Reducing nuclear proliferation is a noble endeavor, but the United States should not be the one leading the effort towards it as long as it has no intentions of dismantling its own arsenal.
The world would be safer without nuclear weapons, but as long as the US remains an aggressive, nuclear military power that kidnaps, tortures and murders civilians in other countries with impunity, undermines their governments at will, supports terrorist groups and wages war on fabricated evidence, a nuclear-free world will remain impossible.
How about the Indian sub-continent? Nuclear weapons have largely been responsible for keeping Pakistan and India from going at each other. Both know that their enemy has the ability to wipe each other out with nukes.
Nuclear weapons should also be credited with keeping Sino-Soviet tempers from flaring too hot before the end of the Cold War. Some of the border incidents would have easily escalated to full war if Beijing hadn't been intimidated by Soviet nukes.
The side these are applied to is of course 'the evil West'.
Then he turns around and acts as all apologetic when it comes to anti-Western regimes no matter how bloody or atrocious they get - going back to whitewashing of Viet Kong atrocities and Cambodian genocide back in the 70s.
He's done nothing of the sort. He was suspicious of the official account of the Kambodian genocide and he had good reason to be suspicious of that account. It turned out it was true, and he admitted it.
>> The side these are applied to is of course 'the evil West'.
Duh. The West is evil. You don't realise it because you're in the West and you don't live in fear of hellfire missiles from a clear blue sky or a mechanised army rolling over your village. But the rest of the world knows it very well.
I also think Trump is talking out of his butt a lot, manipulating the voter bases he needs to succeed. I highly doubt he'll have his supposed way on what you perceive to be war crimes - in fact, many republicans are voting for him on the idea that we shouldn't be in the middle east, and that we should be "making deals".
The American voting public is a lot more complex than armchair foreigners give it credit for, and it's not as easy as saying "well, you can vote, and the elected are crap, therefore every voter has themselves to blame". Perhaps if we were a parliamentary system, or our legislature a proportional representative format, but it's not.
Expanding into the vastness of central Asia is a raw deal, historically. It's much too hard to secure borders, so security becomes a huge drain on resources. China would probably do better to increase trade with its neighbors, and lose some of its identity to a regional economic association. If China's trade routes become the mutual interest of her neighbors, being ringed by powerful neighbors goes from a detriment to an advantage.
The U.S. is suffering under the burden of maintaining overwhelming military superiority. The British Empire mortgaged world domination for help in WWI, then defaulted to the US for WWII and gave up many of her global network of naval bases to the US. The 1st half of the 20th century bankrupted the British Empire. Now the latter half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st will be seen as the same process happening to the U.S.