The Future of America and the American World Order
This article begins by criticizing the institution of American journalism as ill-serving the public by more or less perpetuating the follies and fallacies of American journalism ante quo Trump.In the author's words, the media's emphasis remains on
Quote:
highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they currently receive.
The author believes the media should instead be concerning itself with fundamental questions of America's contemporary engagement in the world, which allegedly remain unexamined.
Pace the author of the prompting article, these questions are not exactly something that "news media" can address - they are after all not really "news" - though they do frame or contextualize that which can be covered as news in American society. But these questions and underlying conundrums that the author enumerates, rather than the media that does not do them justice, will be the focus of this thread.
Keep in mind that these questions do not exhaust the potential scope of the thread, but serve to affix us within it. Over every question you see here hangs the thread title; we should be prepared to contribute our own questions along the way.
Here are the first 24 questions for us:
1. Accomplishing the “mission”:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, US security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it another way, when (if ever) might US forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international order—the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change—affect the US approach to doing so?
2. American military supremacy:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The United States military is undoubtedly the world’s finest. It’s also far and away the most generously funded, with policymakers offering US troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn’t this great military ever win anything? Or put another way, why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington’s stated wartime objectives? Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we’ve taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing differently?
3. America’s empire of bases:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The US military today garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning US forces in distant lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to “host” American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should US policymakers expect otherwise?
4. Supporting the troops:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to cherish America’s “warriors.” Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system, based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation’s political priorities?
5. Prerogatives of the commander in chief:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Are there any military actions that the president of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade by decade, Congress has abdicated its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to do (or simply stays mum). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have US policies thereby become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?
6. Assassin-in-chief:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed, however, the US government suffered considerable embarrassment, so much so that presidents forswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence of names on the current presidential hit list, euphemistically known as the White House “disposition matrix.” But does assassination actually advance US interests (or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?
7. The war formerly known as the “Global War on Terrorism”:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
What precisely is Washington’s present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of strategy—not to mention an agreed upon definition of “success”—doesn’t even qualify for discussion here?
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in US history—having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon’s plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?
9. The Gulf:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?
10. Hyping terrorism:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents, drug overdoses, or even lightning strikes. Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don’t:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that question?
12. Israeli nukes:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?
13. Peace in the Holy Land:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
What purpose is served by indulging illusions that a “two-state solution” offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American tribes, Israeli settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of Mar-a-Lago.
14. Merchandizing death:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America Great Again. The United States ranks number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of US weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for US arms, why shouldn’t the Israelis? They can certainly afford to do so.
15. Our friends the Saudis (I):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?
16. Our friends the Saudis (II):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?
17. Our friends the Pakistanis:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear-weapons proliferator. It supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet US policymakers treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do US and Pakistani interests or values coincide? If there are none, why not say so?
18. Free-loading Europeans:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Why can’t Europe, “whole and free,” its population and economy considerably larger than Russia’s, defend itself? It’s altogether commendable that US policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the well-being of people living in Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?
19. The mother of all “special relationships”:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The United States and the United Kingdom have a “special relationship” dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should US relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more “special” than its relations with a rising power like India? Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a “mother country”?
20. The old nuclear-disarmament razzmatazz:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
American presidents routinely cite their hope for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the United States maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?
21. Double standards (I):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
American policymakers take it for granted that their country’s sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of US military forces to scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong—in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn’t similar rules apply to the United States?
22. Double standards (II):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Washington claims that it supports and upholds international law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when US courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since the United States does so only when convenient?
23. Double standards (III):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by US air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian government’s use of “barrel bombs” to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans accept Pentagon claims that, when civilians are killed these days by US forces, the acts are invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces (with US assistance) are routinely killing in Yemen?
24. Moral obligations:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to “do something.” Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of action—typically advocating military intervention—argue that the United States has a moral obligation to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to US assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the US invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the 19th century ended? Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations? And if not, shouldn’t those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?
08-10-2017, 03:38
Montmorency
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
About #19 (The mother of all “special relationships”):
Quote:
The United States and the United Kingdom have a “special relationship” dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should US relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more “special” than its relations with a rising power like India? Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a “mother country”?
We should be integrating more with Mexico and Canada. But so long as we have one standing special relationship, I don't see that we should terminate it.
And let me take a crack at #21-2 (Double Standards I, II) while I have nothing much to say:
Quote:
American policymakers take it for granted that their country’s sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of US military forces to scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong—in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn’t similar rules apply to the United States?
Part of my belief in American GreatnessTM rests on the understanding that where other countries may have regional spheres of influence, the United States has a global sphere of influence predicated specifically on the constraint of the other spheres. It may be a desirable thing to constrain the traditional spheres of influence and hegemony. Even China, where its interests do not outright coincide with American interests (open and secure seas), does not have an ambition to curate or "manage" the world; at most, it seeks enclaves of influence abroad scattered throughout the network of supply chains. There's something wonderful in the idealized expectation that national privacy will be violated and anyone's business is everyone's business. Even if we dislike many realities of American hegemony, I think its existence has tended to invigorate and inspire the internationally-minded.
Quote:
Washington claims that it supports and upholds international law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when US courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since the United States does so only when convenient?
I only have an idea here of why other countries may find American-sponsored international laws useful, even in the face of occasional American recalcitrance: it protects them in dealings with other non-American countries. Part of my feeling comes from the early-term example of Trump vs. China vs. WTO (which so far has only proved to be hot air); a Trump decision to violate or bypass World Trade Organization rules in order to temporarily harm China would only weaken the United States' position as other trading countries seek mutual refuge in the comfortable and convenient WTO structure while perhaps reserving the right to consider the US less trustworthy or reputable. In other words, international laws, norms, and institutions can become bigger and better than the American state on its own. Certainly going from our discussions on this board a post-Brexit UK would like to keep WTO standards around as a baseline; Germany and other export economies also rely heavily on it.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
But I haven't told you anything new. :hide:
08-10-2017, 08:27
Greyblades
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Bad ideas refuse to fade and the people forget why good ideas are good.
08-10-2017, 09:19
HopAlongBunny
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
I really think that "terrorism" is simply defined by the U.S.A. as any nation or organization which seeks to prevent the U.S.A. from doing as it pleases, anywhere in the world.
If you are "in group" (ally or friend) no action is to be interpreted as a terrorist act; this of course includes the U.S. itself.
If you are "out group" (state or organization that does not acquiesce to U.S. desires) any act is open to be defined as a terrorist act.
Is this a necessary consequence of a uni-polar world?
08-10-2017, 10:51
spmetla
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
I really think that "terrorism" is simply defined by the U.S.A. as any nation or organization which seeks to prevent the U.S.A. from doing as it pleases, anywhere in the world.
If you are "in group" (ally or friend) no action is to be interpreted as a terrorist act; this of course includes the U.S. itself.
If you are "out group" (state or organization that does not acquiesce to U.S. desires) any act is open to be defined as a terrorist act.
Is this a necessary consequence of a uni-polar world?
Some examples to the contrary:
Russia and the PRC deliberately seek to prevent the US from doing as it pleases and aren't declared terrorist states. Russia's actions in the Crimea and Donbas were also not called terrorism nor is China's funding of Maoist rebels through South/Southeast Asia. We don't call the Cuban or Venezuelan govts terrorists nor their actions either. The list can go on and on.
The US generally calls people terrorists when they specifically target civilians through shooting, bombing, kidnap, etc.. for no tangible short term goals (more a sign of a criminal org) but instead for vague political goals. The FARC in Columbia was classified as terrorists by most of the world, others saw them as Socialsts fighting a US-puppet while others saw them as drug lords using the facade of a 'noble' cause to cover up their gambit for wealth and power.
If you wanted to more point out that the use of force by the US and NATO militaries is not classified as terrorism even when civilians are killed then you are battle more of what you define terrorism than what most of the world does. Remember that one man's freedom fighter, is another's traitorous rebel or terrorist.
As for the OP, I haven't read the whole thing yet but as for the US and its role in the world, it will cease to be the superpower/hegemon when it's population looses the desire be that, it can't afford to, or is decisively defeated militarily/politically and forced to cede it's role to various regional hegemons (Russia/China).
08-10-2017, 12:48
Sigurd
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
9. The Gulf: Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?
Being an oil exporter doesn't mean you don't import at all. That somehow only if there are surplus of oil, you will export. The fact that USA is still ranked as the top importer after China, importing oil worth around $110 billion in 2016 while exporting oil worth $8 billion tells us that USA still needs to "befriend" oil exporters. Since the Persian gulf accounts for 41% of the world production in more or less one place and you don't really want to spend all your dollars in one shop added to the fact that there are strained relationships between USA and other top exporters (Russia, Venezuela and Mexico to mention a few), It seems strategical to want to keep the taps running in the Persian gulf.
Add the complexity of oil prices into it, and you would want all exporters operating to keep prices low and stable. Some of the exporters are notorious for creating crises and is difficult to handle (African, South american and middle eastern oil exporters). If there are crises - you would want to be right there on top of it to ensure you get your needs secured. IMO that's why the Persian gulf and its major contributors to oil exports is a question of security interests. You don't want to go bankrupt over prices and the possible loss of internal consumption (whatever you use all the oil for).
However, a patron of this site, I think his name was jayrock, a colleague in the oil business and from Alaska, said that USA could be self reliant on oil IF they started extracting more of the larger oil-reservoirs buried under the Alaskan soil. But as he suspected, it was kept there for a rainy day, and it would spell catastrophic for the environment (then.. about 2003. Maybe you wait for the new technology to minimize the environmental impact). And it would take years maybe decades from the get-go before your yearly $110 billion consumption is filled with internal oil. In the mean time - there would be oil crises.
08-10-2017, 20:20
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Some examples to the contrary:
Russia and the PRC deliberately seek to prevent the US from doing as it pleases and aren't declared terrorist states. Russia's actions in the Crimea and Donbas were also not called terrorism nor is China's funding of Maoist rebels through South/Southeast Asia. We don't call the Cuban or Venezuelan govts terrorists nor their actions either. The list can go on and on.
The US generally calls people terrorists when they specifically target civilians through shooting, bombing, kidnap, etc.. for no tangible short term goals (more a sign of a criminal org) but instead for vague political goals. ....
Spot on. Nor do we label Iran as terrorists -- though we have noted their support for terrorists.
08-10-2017, 20:31
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monmorency in OP
Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter. Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed. Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?
It is a consequence of our alliances. While we import mostly for geographic convenience and/or to supplement our self-chosen limited refining capacity -- and no longer need rely on the Middle East for oil, our alliances mandate our continued interest.
Japan, Australian and South Korea get 3/4's of their petroleum from the Middle East. Europe also imports from the ME, though this is a much lower percentage for Europe. So we aren't even fighting for our own direct strategic interest anymore, but that of our pals.
Plus the ego-motivation.
08-10-2017, 21:29
Montmorency
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Being an oil exporter doesn't mean you don't import at all. That somehow only if there are surplus of oil, you will export. The fact that USA is still ranked as the top importer after China, importing oil worth around $110 billion in 2016 while exporting oil worth $8 billion tells us that USA still needs to "befriend" oil exporters. Since the Persian gulf accounts for 41% of the world production in more or less one place and you don't really want to spend all your dollars in one shop added to the fact that there are strained relationships between USA and other top exporters (Russia, Venezuela and Mexico to mention a few), It seems strategical to want to keep the taps running in the Persian gulf.
Add the complexity of oil prices into it, and you would want all exporters operating to keep prices low and stable. Some of the exporters are notorious for creating crises and is difficult to handle (African, South american and middle eastern oil exporters). If there are crises - you would want to be right there on top of it to ensure you get your needs secured. IMO that's why the Persian gulf and its major contributors to oil exports is a question of security interests. You don't want to go bankrupt over prices and the possible loss of internal consumption (whatever you use all the oil for).
However, a patron of this site, I think his name was jayrock, a colleague in the oil business and from Alaska, said that USA could be self reliant on oil IF they started extracting more of the larger oil-reservoirs buried under the Alaskan soil. But as he suspected, it was kept there for a rainy day, and it would spell catastrophic for the environment (then.. about 2003. Maybe you wait for the new technology to minimize the environmental impact). And it would take years maybe decades from the get-go before your yearly $110 billion consumption is filled with internal oil. In the mean time - there would be oil crises.
To add a few considerations, domestic energy sources like natural gas have served to depress the cost of energy for America in general, including petroleum. But even if the US at the moment is less reliant on the Persian Gulf, it is still a significant military/economic scene vis-a-vis the rest of the world, and other peoples' economies are of vital interest to American foreign policy. Finally, the sunk-cost bias encourages continued engagement in countries where we have invested hundreds of billions USD over generations; if we bought them, we can't go around letting them break things as they please. This calculation applies to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and in a similar way Israel, and the fear of what actions they might take when released from the bounds of US preferences. Afghanistan is a similar dilemma in that leaving it at this stage means abandoning it, a permanent disconnection, yet the situation never seems to improve in a validating way. Yet another comparison is to the way that the US government frequently fails to divest of condemned or empty infrastructure over years and decades because of the potential for future use and because the up-front costs of doing so seem more forbidding than years of neglect.
Also see Seamus' post.
10-25-2017, 21:09
Montmorency
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
More to do with "news" than with American World Order itself, but it fits in the framing of the OP article:
Quote:
There’s certainly good reason to be skeptical that journalism does very much. The idea that we should read the news to “be informed” has always seemed strange to me, since the process of becoming informed is treated more as a ritual than as an act with any obvious utility. That’s especially true because the entire concept of “news” is somewhat irrational. It’s not just biased toward the sensational and toward treating some people’s lives as more important than others, but it leads us to have a fundamentally warped view of the world, because it prioritizes sudden events over continuous facts.
Quote:
I am far more inclined toward the “manufacturing consent” view of media, which says that mass media functions to spread an ideology favorable to the economic interests of those who own it, rather than the “echo chamber” view, which seems to suggest that media entities simply reflect and reinforce people’s existing inclinations.
Quote:
It’s important to adopt the view that media creates people’s biases rather than reflecting them, because this has been precisely the philosophy guiding the creation of right-wing media, which has been incredibly successful in actually affecting its audience’s worldviews.
Quote:
...even when you’re just preaching to the choir, what you say to the choir will affect what the choir says to their friends, and political rhetoric can spread like a disease. Conservatives have realized that media is incredibly powerful: the Tea Party was born from the media, Trump was born from the media. Neither had true grassroots backing, they just had the power of television. But if you say a thing enough times it becomes true: Trump became viable because he said he was, Bernie Bros became a campaign issue because people said they were. The reason I’m in media is that I think its powers are actually underappreciated. The National Review helped revive the fortunes of conservative ideology by feeding ideas to a movement. FOX News turned many perfectly nice relatives intolerable. If the left is to reverse the effect, we need to think about how media works and how to use it for good.
It's even happening right here, before your very eyes!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Some resemblance to a musing of mine on Democratic messaging:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
When I make my comment, I don't mean adjusting Democratic policies along the lines of "The Politics of Evasion" - that has arguably been devastating to the long-term health of the party. I'm pointing out that these people are generally isolated from the media and interpersonal channels the Democrats use to spread their message, and so become a kind of second-hand legend rather than something to be perceived and judged. My suggestion entails what you might call 'counter-propaganda', to saturate the channels of knowing and learning common to the localities and their people, not just as campaigning messages, but at all times over the long-term in the living environment. The effect should be for Democratic ideas and thinking to take root into their consciousness and affect their belief systems, in a way that can't be accomplished by a direct or discrete "message".
It's satisfying to think of these people as apathetic simpletons who can't change and can't be persuaded to think critically, but to the extent that democratic principles are favored they can't just be shed or repressed. To some extent their engagement and incorporation is what guarantees the viability of left-wing policy or ideals.
10-26-2017, 03:51
spmetla
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
I'll try and take a stab at all of these this time:
Quote:
1. Accomplishing the “mission”:
The American 'mission' probably won't change, it isn't just about Europe and middle east but has essentially been about keeping the world "open for business" so freedom of navigation etc.. are important. Allowing the return of regional hegemons in a sense that hasn't been seen since the 19th Century is counter to our ability to do business, conduct diplomacy or sail the seas.
Though we've always said we welcome a peaceful rise of China I think it will come to a fight. Eventually the PRC leadership will see us as weak and push and most likely we'll push back and voila war.
Quote:
2. American military supremacy:
The US military is in many ways over funded, the size of our force relative to the next competitors is not enough to do the job. The biggest thing that the high price does is provide the infrastructure and capacity for a truly global projection of power.
Why it can't fight wars? Well since the Gulf War the US military has not really pushed strategic planning, while we do plan against Russia and China we're too busy fighting hypothetical enemies in Atropia.
Additionally, war is a means to accomplish something political but in recent years it has just been used without a clear goal in sight. War in Afghanistan to kick out Al Queda? War against Iraqi because of WMDs? Neither of these had really a clear strategic goal or plan beyond kill the bad guys and democracy will flourish.
Quote:
3. America’s empire of bases:
This is a point that's often way overstated. How large are these bases, how many people? People like to imagine that each base is housing thousands of Soldiers ready to attack. It's certainly not an occupation. The bases in Japan, Germany, and Italy are because they lost WWII. The bases in our Allies territories are obviously to help us help them. When they ask us to leave we do as we did in New Zealand, Kyrgistan, and France. http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...e-world-119321
Look at the above link and think for yourself whether these 'lillypads' are really bases and an occupation.
Quote:
4. Supporting the troops:
The cult of the Troops and Veterans is certainly out of control. It's one of these reasons I'm personally behind a limited draft again. Military service should not be carried out by so small a percentage of the population. Rich and poor and all ethnicities should be compelled to share the risks which also force our politicians to consider the risks before sending Troops into harms way.
Quote:
5. Prerogatives of the commander in chief:
This unfortunately is a result of the polarization of politics. Working together is seen as giving in which has made Congress so much more inept and required administration after administration to rule by Executive Order than through legislation. The goals seems to be to maintain as many seats as possible so one's policies can be imposed not represented.
Quote:
6. Assassin-in-chief:
A complicated question. It's certainly easier than invading everyone with a terrorist element threatening to do us harm.
Quote:
7. The war formerly known as the “Global War on Terrorism”:
It's really just a war of supporting the established governments now. It's endless scope is frightening though and has allowed every administration since George W. Bush to go into more countries to fight more of the same Islamic terrorists. How to defeat violent Jihadism is probably closer linked to somehow stopping Wahabi funding by the Saudis and the same by the Iranians.
Quote:
8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom:
Answer is same as above and it's now known as Operation Resolute Freedom with the goal of helping the Afghan Govt's fight.
Quote:
9. The Gulf:
It's a global marketplace and these are globally traded goods. Even if we don't buy from the Saudis or Iranians a war in the gulf affects the global demand and it's corresponding price. The 1973 crisis demonstrated that the US is vulnerable, even more so now that China is thirsty for the same good from the same place.
Quote:
10. Hyping terrorism:
Because it's an imposed danger from an outsider. Life is dangerous and accidents happen, people can accept that but to be killed by a random event because of 'bad' people is unacceptable. A government that can't protect it's people(from outsiders not themselves) soon loses is license to govern.
Quote:
11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don’t:
Because it's largely seen as the getting their own medicine. How many Europeans looked at the Las Vegas shooting and though to themselves something along the line of "that's what such liberal and irresponsible gun policies leads to."
Quote:
12. Israeli nukes:
It's ensured that the MAD philosophy can apply to Isreael should the US waver in its support of them. Israel doesn't regularly threaten it's enemies in Iran with Fire and Fury or turning Tehran into a lake of fire so they are seen as relatively responsible.
Quote:
13. Peace in the Holy Land:
Relative peace is the only real goal. The settlers slowly displacing the native into obscurity is a known method of making an area safe and unlikely to secede. China does the same think to the Uighurs and Tibetans. The Russians paid the price for not Russifing their subject nations enough and now they've all left them.
Quote:
14. Merchandizing death:
The Israel 'gift' is part of what keeps the peace. We give them and Egypt weapons constantly so that there is relative military parity which as maintained peace between the two since 1979. As for the Saudis, well if we don't sell them someone else will, be it French, German, British, Russian, or Chinese. Also weapons sales are bargaining chips in achieving foreign policy. When we want to re assert ourselves against the PRC we sell Taiwan weapons and they do the same to us.
Quote:
15&16. Our friends the Saudis (I and II):
The US had always preferred the Iranians over the Saudis until the overthrow of the Shah. It was part of our Twin Pillars approach to the middle east. The Iranians have been overtly anti-American since then and it's hard to make peace with someone that has "Death to America" prayers as public policy. The Saudis are tolerated because we need them.
As for the hijackers nationality, that's more a problem with the aforementioned Wahabi teachings. The Saudi government didn't train or provide safe haven to the Al Queda network to which the attackers belonged.
Quote:
17. Our friends the Pakistanis:
Only a friend out of necessity and they know it too. They are a Chinese ally, they are an enemy of India to which we are increasing ties. Without Pakistan though there'd be no way to do anything in Afghanistan. The supply lines don't run cheaply or safely through the other options in China, Russia/CIS, or Iran.
Quote:
18. Free-loading Europeans:
How does the US care more for the Eastern than the Western Europeans? The US bases haven't gone farther East than Germany because of our treaty obligations that ended the cold war and de-occupied Germany. If Morrocco starts threatening to invade Spain as Russian threats to the Baltic and Balkans and Ukraine do then I'm sure we'd see more US presence there too.
Quote:
19. The mother of all “special relationships”:
Because our goals are more similar. A Europe that's not our enemy, free and safe navigation of the seas around the world. The UK may not be the empire it was but it still has political power. Not to mention it's easier to have close friends that speak the same language. That's why the Five Eyes nations are all anglo-phones.
Quote:
20. The old nuclear-disarmament razzmatazz:
It's a nice pipe dream but it's not gonna happen. Politicians like to pay lip service to the idea but only the threat of MAD prevented WWIII from breaking out during the Berlin Crisis, the Hungarian Crisis, the Cuban Crisis, and so on. The world is safer though with only a few nuclear hegemons than it being a universally held weapon.
Quote:
21. Double standards (I):
Of course it's a double standard. Everyone has always imposed there system as far as their military can guarantee. Allowing the Russians to dictate policy to the Ukraine is to eventually surrender it to Russia, same goes for Taiwan to the PRC. The US is a global policeman and bully but the world is on the whole safer for it. What countries that border China or Russia can stand up to it? None really but the US provides a guarantee of their independence (depending on the administration) which for the most part makes wars far less common.
Just remember though these other countries break and bend the rules just as often as they are able too as well, global politics has always been dirty and always will be but is the Pax Americana that much worse than a return to the Warsaw Pact and Chinese Empires? While the Iraq debacle is certainly a monument to the global hazards of our mistakes I'm sure the people of South Korea are glad for our guarantee as are the people of Latvia.
Quote:
22. Double standards (II):
It is one of the dark blots on us that we still engage in these practices. I have no defense for it and don't want one. I'll only point out that other countries generally don't hold them as sacrosanct and violent them quite often though their reach is not as great as ours.
Quote:
23. Double standards (III):
WWII was a "Total War" there really were no innocents on any side that engaged in that war. No nation didn't do what the US did then minus the A-bombs.
As for post war and the glossing over of death? It's part of the population boom really, cities have become sprawling metropolises, if there is a war there is no way to truly avoid all civilian deaths. The US does try to minimize these but when wars are fought in cities they cannot be avoided completely. It's part of the horror of war, especially modern war. Armies don't march out onto a chosen field and then fight each other anymore.
The US can however condemn the intentional killing of civilians however. As a whole the US military does not wipe out villages or punish the general population directly. There are instances were individuals did just that and eventually held to account, though not summarily executed as I think they should be and too many Officers escape punishment.
Quote:
24. Moral obligations:
As the global policemen it's only natural that our actions are looked for in times of crisis. Yes, the US has a troubled past and yes, I'd say there is a statute of limitations on the wrongs of our ancestors. We can't give all the descendants of slaves a check and send them 'home' to africa. The US or any modern American country isn't going to hand over it's entire territory to the few descendants of the former inhabitants.
Should the Tunisians demand reparations from the mayor of Rome for what happened in the Punic Wars? Go far enough back and everyone is guilty if we put their fathers crimes on their heads. It's important to acknowledge and learn from the past, right wrongs when able and reasonable.
10-26-2017, 04:58
Montmorency
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
So long as America is the world's "policeman and bully", can it do better than just "keeping it open for business"? No military in the world will save us from a plutocratic insurgency, which is an economic field-of-play that suits Russia and China much better than it suits democracies.
And whether or not we send soldiers to kill or be killed abroad, we will still be vulnerable to "bad people" (i.e. individuals and small cells). Don't accept the policy trap of "Something must be done, this is something, so let's do it". There are a number of strands toward strategy optimization, but basically we ought want to limit human losses, foreign and domestic, and material losses, foreign and domestic. Strategy may be especially necessary when in its absence we lurch from one non-linear operation to the next, accomplishing enough to be narrowly satisfied but actively making the world a worse and more dangerous place. As the Iraqi-Kurdish clash illustrates (although the complaints have been around the whole time), the US even now remains without any clear plan for the region beyond 'plz don't fight, but call us in for the next big fight.' This oafish inertia is closer to the truth of our logic than an overriding desire to maintain weapons sales.
The sad thing is, without we'll probably reach our final exhaustion just when we're really needed.
Quote:
The cult of the Troops and Veterans is certainly out of control. It's one of these reasons I'm personally behind a limited draft again. Military service should not be carried out by so small a percentage of the population. Rich and poor and all ethnicities should be compelled to share the risks which also force our politicians to consider the risks before sending Troops into harms way.
What do you make of John Kelly's, um, pompous philippic a few days back?
10-26-2017, 07:29
spmetla
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
So long as America is the world's "policeman and bully", can it do better than just "keeping it open for business"? No military in the world will save us from a plutocratic insurgency, which is an economic field-of-play that suits Russia and China much better than it suits democracies.
It can do better than keeping it open for business but that takes time, the US unfortunately doesn't really know what to do without a bad guy. Before our rise to primacy it was to be the City on the Hill, then it was to be the Arsenal of Democracy against the Nazis then Communists. A policy centered around countering reactionary violent Islamic extremists does nothing to push us to be better and instead has made our national discourse more petty and vile.
As for the economic field of play the US has a lot of cards in it's decks. China has a lot of resources but is missing a lot too and doesn't span to have coasts on two major oceans. It's got a growing middle class that won't be content merely manufacturing the goods for others and eventually will want political power to match their new economic stability. Any sort of limited war with the US would put its ship based imports and exports to a complete halt that even it's Silk Road project won't be able to off set.
Russia on the other hand is really just a resource exporter, it's manufacturing skill is diverted purely to the military realm. There's no reason they can't make great cars, great commercial aircraft or anything for that matter but culturally they are still in opposition to the West and the US and trying to arm to contend with us. Their greatest ability is to shut the tap on fuel to a Europe that's stupidly shutting down nuclear power plants. The post Ukraine sanctions have definitely put a hamper on their growth and unsettled their elites with holdings abroad. Their strength is primarily in their willingness to push us to the brink to see if we'll flinch.
Quote:
Strategy may be especially necessary when in its absence we lurch from one non-linear operation to the next, accomplishing enough to be narrowly satisfied but actively making the world a worse and more dangerous place.
I agree, playing whack a mole is not a good policy and certainly doesn't win wars. I disagree however on the idea that nothing must be done to help, the change however that we need to make is that the something we do cannot always be the military. The subtle economic and diplomatic methods that Trump hates are very effective without the backlash when we do something.
Overturning cruel dictators in favor of democracy is always good domestic policy but it does hurt our own interests as well. Though it's counter to our principles I feel it's better to tolerate the occasional Qaddafi, Saddam, or Assad as we have in the past. When they cross over into the vein of Pol Pot or start crossing our interests like Nasser then it is good we do something.
The weapons sales are not the goal of the policy but a result. Even then our domestic policies hurt us. We were getting the Afghan Air Force outfitted with Russian Mi-17 helicopters until our politicians noticed and put a stop to it even though it's the right aircraft for them as opposed to our UH-60s.
Quote:
The sad thing is, without we'll probably reach our final exhaustion just when we're really needed.
I wholeheartedly agree. I fear a future when South Korea or Japan ask for our help against an overt threat and we instead abandon them to their fate and retreat to our 'island'.
Quote:
What do you make of John Kelly's, um, pompous philippic a few days back?
Mixed feelings. I find it tragic that the man's death was so politicized by both sides. I don't think it really surprises anyone that a man with no compassion was bad at conveying sympathy to a be-grieved widow. That she had a congresswomen nearby when he called is just bad timing but that congresswomen has a right to speak as well.
The US Army itself covered up the friendly fire death of Ranger Pat Tillman for propaganda purposes and kept the family in the dark for years so it'd be nice for people like Kelly to not pretend that only the other do that.
As with everyone associated with Trump, Kelly came out as a smaller and lesser man by having to come and clean up Trump's mess.
10-26-2017, 19:42
Montmorency
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
It can do better than keeping it open for business but that takes time, the US unfortunately doesn't really know what to do without a bad guy. Before our rise to primacy it was to be the City on the Hill, then it was to be the Arsenal of Democracy against the Nazis then Communists. A policy centered around countering reactionary violent Islamic extremists does nothing to push us to be better and instead has made our national discourse more petty and vile.
As for the economic field of play the US has a lot of cards in it's decks. China has a lot of resources but is missing a lot too and doesn't span to have coasts on two major oceans. It's got a growing middle class that won't be content merely manufacturing the goods for others and eventually will want political power to match their new economic stability. Any sort of limited war with the US would put its ship based imports and exports to a complete halt that even it's Silk Road project won't be able to off set.
Russia on the other hand is really just a resource exporter, it's manufacturing skill is diverted purely to the military realm. There's no reason they can't make great cars, great commercial aircraft or anything for that matter but culturally they are still in opposition to the West and the US and trying to arm to contend with us. Their greatest ability is to shut the tap on fuel to a Europe that's stupidly shutting down nuclear power plants. The post Ukraine sanctions have definitely put a hamper on their growth and unsettled their elites with holdings abroad. Their strength is primarily in their willingness to push us to the brink to see if we'll flinch.
I mean that in a world dominated by corrupt and voracious multinationals, Russia and China have a better time of it than liberal democracies, because of their pre-existing political structures and economic needs. Over decades too, Russia and China are erecting multilateral financial, diplomatic, and other institutions; these won't go so far as to advance a replacement to elements of the US-led world order, but form a cushion for whenever Russia and China choose to defy it.
The point is that construing US economic national interest as strictly neo-mercantile maintenance of profits toward Gross National Product will undermine governance both at home and abroad. Except in cases of authoritarian central governments that rely on exploitation of citizens, state control of key industries, economies bifurcated by commodities and high-tech pursuits, and have an interest in degrading democracy in neighboring countries in order to reap security and investment advantages...
Quote:
I agree, playing whack a mole is not a good policy and certainly doesn't win wars. I disagree however on the idea that nothing must be done to help, the change however that we need to make is that the something we do cannot always be the military. The subtle economic and diplomatic methods that Trump hates are very effective without the backlash when we do something.
Overturning cruel dictators in favor of democracy is always good domestic policy but it does hurt our own interests as well. Though it's counter to our principles I feel it's better to tolerate the occasional Qaddafi, Saddam, or Assad as we have in the past. When they cross over into the vein of Pol Pot or start crossing our interests like Nasser then it is good we do something.
The weapons sales are not the goal of the policy but a result. Even then our domestic policies hurt us. We were getting the Afghan Air Force outfitted with Russian Mi-17 helicopters until our politicians noticed and put a stop to it even though it's the right aircraft for them as opposed to our UH-60s.
I agree. Skimming on the Afghan Air Force issue, what were the logistics and procurement considerations in the military's preference? Why were the Soviet helicopters easier to train for than American ones, given most new pilots would have to be trained from scratch either way?
And over the Obama administration, from what I gather the military was generally firm on its procurement of Mi-17 or other Soviet platforms, but this changed suddenly in 2016. If that's a correct account, then if the Mi-17 was doing well over most of the decade why did the administration change its position toward the end? This article makes it sound like procurement from Russia was the biggest challenge.
Quote:
The Mi-17 helicopters are a great airframe that the Afghans use and they’re comfortable with. The issue is going to be the ability to maintain them,” said Nicholson, commander of U.S.-Forces Afghanistan and NATO’s Resolute Support mission.
Quote:
Mixed feelings.
Besides the mendacity or hypocrisy raised in defense of his boss, there were concerns over Kelly's emphasis on military moral and intellectual elitism, including the implication that dead soldiers are literally the best Americans.
10-26-2017, 21:20
spmetla
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
The reason for use of Russian equipment is quite simply that the original nucleus of the Afghan Army and Air Force were not the Mujahadeen but the Soviet collaborators and as such there were old pilots that had been trained on older versions of these. Not to mention that outside all the major bases in Afghanistan are yards of rusting Soviet tanks, personnel carriers, artillery, rocket launchers, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. These yards are regularly used as a source for cannibalizing parts.
Additionally, Russian aircraft are cheaper which is good for the Afghan budget, are cheaper to repair and maintain, and simpler to repair as well. The Afghans need quantity more than quality for their air force which is one of the reasons I'm still mad that the US Air Force delayed and hampered the light CAS aircraft that was supposed to be procured for the Afghans on the fear that this would undermine their own politics that high end aircraft are the solution for everything (F-35 debacle). After over a decade of war their air force should be a bit more capable than it is. https://thediplomat.com/2017/03/afgh...tack-aircraft/
The administration used the Russian export thing as an excuse together with the problems from congress over our money buying Russian equipment. Many of our former eastern bloc NATO allies still operate the Mi-17 an Mi-35 and manufacture their own spare parts (they also provide the trainers for the Air Force, especially the Czechs) and as such could have provide spares from their own inventories if really necessary.
12-04-2017, 01:42
Montmorency
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Blast from the past: In 2001, the CBO estimated that the national debt would be retired by 2006 (2008?). 10 years later, Pew did a retrospective on the debt.
The direct culprits for our now-$20 trillion, then-$11 trillion (2011) debt would be the Middle East wars, Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D, the recession stimulus, and lower-than-projected revenue leaving aside the tax cuts due to "technical and economic" changes. I can't find a detailed definition of how the CBO assesses this latter.
After 2011, I would assume the drivers of the debt continue to include wars and health-care policy, but more notably interest payments and the ongoing costs of the economic crisis.
In more recent news, the DOD/Pentagon released an estimate that the Mid-East wars have cost us $1.5 trillion: more than a little conservative.
12-04-2017, 04:02
a completely inoffensive name
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Blast from the past: In 2001, the CBO estimated that the national debt would be retired by 2006 (2008?). 10 years later, Pew did a retrospective on the debt.
The direct culprits for our now-$20 trillion, then-$11 trillion (2011) debt would be the Middle East wars, Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D, the recession stimulus, and lower-than-projected revenue leaving aside the tax cuts due to "technical and economic" changes. I can't find a detailed definition of how the CBO assesses this latter.
After 2011, I would assume the drivers of the debt continue to include wars and health-care policy, but more notably interest payments and the ongoing costs of the economic crisis.
In more recent news, the DOD/Pentagon released an estimate that the Mid-East wars have cost us $1.5 trillion: more than a little conservative.
You can't starve the beast without a justification.
12-07-2017, 00:17
Montmorency
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
I can't access the content, but apparently the Marine Corps Gazette has published a proposal to organize a "Marine Legion", analogous to the French Foreign Legion and responsive to the unique needs of deployments to local and regional conflicts.
:confused:
But we already have a Foreign Legion - it's the US Armed Forces. That's who we are.
The original French Foreign Legion was an imperial project. A modern "Marine Legion" would seem to amount to late-stage Foederati.
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
It is a better system than using "private contractors" to fight wars off the books and in breach of most of the rules. Not great - but better.
Same things could apply - criminal records wiped along with new identity and after 15 years of service then a US passport. And to get that they have to do all the dirty jobs that even the Marines can't or won't do.
~:smoking:
12-07-2017, 18:36
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It is a better system than using "private contractors" to fight wars off the books and in breach of most of the rules. Not great - but better.
Same things could apply - criminal records wiped along with new identity and after 15 years of service then a US passport. And to get that they have to do all the dirty jobs that even the Marines can't or won't do.
~:smoking:
I'd say "aren't allowed" rather than can't or won't. The marines I've spoken with, left to their own devices, would take a fairly direct approach to problem solving in getting the job done. The ones I've spoken with are capable and willing....but acknowledge that the DOD takes a dim view of those solution options.
12-08-2017, 11:08
rory_20_uk
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'd say "aren't allowed" rather than can't or won't. The marines I've spoken with, left to their own devices, would take a fairly direct approach to problem solving in getting the job done. The ones I've spoken with are capable and willing....but acknowledge that the DOD takes a dim view of those solution options.
I only added in those caveats since I have no idea about their capabilities. The few British ones I've met would probably attack the gates of Hell with a spoon if ordered. I doubt the Americans are much different -but I don't know.
Still, a more independent lot might be able to do some more... edgy missions where more direct force than a few advisors is required.
~:smoking:
12-08-2017, 15:15
Pannonian
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'd say "aren't allowed" rather than can't or won't. The marines I've spoken with, left to their own devices, would take a fairly direct approach to problem solving in getting the job done. The ones I've spoken with are capable and willing....but acknowledge that the DOD takes a dim view of those solution options.
Hey diddle diddle
Straight up the middle
12-08-2017, 16:22
Seamus Fermanagh
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I only added in those caveats since I have no idea about their capabilities. The few British ones I've met would probably attack the gates of Hell with a spoon if ordered. I doubt the Americans are much different -but I don't know.
Still, a more independent lot might be able to do some more... edgy missions where more direct force than a few advisors is required.
~:smoking:
I've spoken with marines who were at Falluja when it was invested by Islamists hidden among the population there. They stated flat out that it should have been a "you have 90 minutes to evacuate" followed by the forcible removal of the Islamists. And the one War Two marine I spoke with noted that it would have been an offer to evacuate or surrender followed by lots and lots of artillery if the offer was ignored.
On the whole, are modern marines are a dash less callous about collateral damage than the older crop -- but they really take the stance that getting the job done is the key element.
I don't know that an American Foreign Legion would be held to much less scrutiny in our society than would regular forces. It worked for the French because nobody back in France cared all that much what the FFL did to maintain order in Africa.
12-08-2017, 22:38
rory_20_uk
Re: The Future of America and the American World Order
The only problem is all the insurgents then leave with the populace - since they can't tell the difference and don't speak the language.
