| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; [[(oops).accidentally cut the part about promoting econonic and politcal freedom in other countries]] • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz ************************************************ OK, John. Here we go. "We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership." As you would discover elsewhere on the site, "American Global Leadership" even includes extending American religious and moral values to other countries. It is a process of economic and moral colonization. How do I disagree? I believe that until we solve our own problems we have no business assuming the role of the world's military or moral police power. I believe that an Asian, European, African, or South American individual is as entitled to self determination as any US citizen of North America. Aussies too. Who the hell are we to presume that the rest of the world is even interested in having us "lead" them anywhere? Has to be one of the most arrogant public positions ever taken. Who are these couple of dozen people to presume to speak for the entire country? "Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" IOW, "having eliminated a rival philosophy that sought to shape the world in its shadow, does the US have the resolve to do shape the world in its own."? "And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead." I actually agree with that statement. "Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. "Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;" We're already the sole, remaining, superpower.......but we're going to need a much larger and better equipped military to carry out what the PNAC sees as our "responsibilities." "• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;" As this is the second of four items listed, it's safe to assume that we will use our expanded military to "challenge regimes that are hostile to our interests and values." NOTE: The site does not say that these regimes have to be a military threat to the United States, merely nonaligned with our (commercial?) interests and (moral?) values. The accidentally cut statement about promoting political and economic freedom in foreign countries is hypocritical in this context. The NAC crowd are only interested in promoting the freedom of other countries to agree with and support American "interests and values" "• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. " We need to structure the rest of the world to create an international order friendly to US security, US prosperity, and US principles. Colonialism. So there you go John. I don't expect you to agree with my perspective. But stow the crap that I haven't ever specified the nature of my concerns. This is probably the third or fourth time I have repeated this in this NG, and only did so because you asked in a reasonably civil manner. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East." And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental interest". |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"NOYB" wrote in message
. com... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East." And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental interest". Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking, you can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:33:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .com... Snipped And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental interest". Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking, you can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons. Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? John H You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally that has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages "preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to us, (solely determined by the Executive Branch). |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:44:07 -0500, John H wrote:
Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? If democracy results, *this* war could make a difference, but the Gulf War is a big question. Kuwait is no closer to democracy now, than it was. Both Iraq and Kuwait are OPEC countries, so oil production may not have changed. Instead of controlling 113 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Saddam would control 210 billion barrels. Remember that until Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had our tacit support. Also remembering that infidel soldiers in the land of Mecca is what set bin Laden off, 9/11 may not have happened. At the time, I supported the Gulf War, but perhaps, in hindsight, it wasn't our best course of action. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
thunder wrote in message ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:44:07 -0500, John H wrote: Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom? If democracy results, *this* war could make a difference, but the Gulf War is a big question. Kuwait is no closer to democracy now, than it was. Both Iraq and Kuwait are OPEC countries, so oil production may not have changed. Instead of controlling 113 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, Saddam would control 210 billion barrels. Remember that until Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had our tacit support. Also remembering that infidel soldiers in the land of Mecca is what set bin Laden off, 9/11 may not have happened. At the time, I supported the Gulf War, but perhaps, in hindsight, it wasn't our best course of action. I agree with most of your observations, except the one that if democracy results from this war, that there will be a difference. We must remember, the Iraqis are not white, baptist, god-fearing republicans. They have their own set of beliefs, and what they think makes a successful society. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
OT for Conservatives who think war is grand
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message . com... "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership." We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are most favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our right, or mandate, to do so. How arrogant. We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East." And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental interest". Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking, you can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons. Now that depends upon the threat you're dealing with. You own guns. I assume that you'd use them in self-defense if a person broke into your house. You might even be tempted to hunt someone down if they murdered your wife and were continuing to threaten your kids. Of course, you could offer them a ransom to stay away from your family. Unfortunately, if that gamble failed, you'd be kicking yourself for not following a more violent path to deal with the threat. |
Hybrid Mode
