I like that, particularly "The World cannot be treated as a huge prison with the US as sole warden." I remember in the previous quagmire the suggestion that the US declare victory and get out, which is sort of what we did, only way too late. It certainly seems that's what they did in the contemporaneous War on Poverty, and I would suggest it for the War on Some Drugs.
I wonder if this is even possible in the forseeable future -- not because of the world, but because of the mentality that seems to have fallen over the US itself. This country, or more precisely the people who have political and economic power in this country (and I suspect much of the general populace as well, though I'm not in a position to know it), has come to regard itself as the moral authority, the yardstick by which all thoughts and cultures are judged. Disagreement with the US isn't allowable anymore, and we've become the sole economic and military powerhouse with the "big stick" to back up a voice that no longer speaks softly.
The question is, would the US be willing to give up this kind of authoritative power? I don't see it; Americans no longer seem willing to simply co-exist with other nations. In order to feel secure, it seems that this country needs to control everything that goes on in the world around it.
I don't see the pendulum swinging back the other way in my lifetime. I think we're stuck in "control freak" mode.
As Jay (Tonto) Silverheels of Brooklyn is reputed to have said to -- who was it played the Long Ranger? Clayton Moore?
Politicians can be trusted to take the easy way out. They will indulge their control freaking at home, where they can get away with it on the cheap. (And I hope not for much longer.)
Yes, I think it was Clayton Moore. It's a little before my time, admittedly. :)
I don't think domestic and foreign policy can be so neatly separated, especially not in the current environment of terrorist alerts and the cooking of the books on the reasons for war. I believe that ShrubCo now realizes the full extent of the power of these things in their quest to shape the domestic agenda, and I also believe that these same tactics will be used again should control seem to be slipping.
They've gotten a taste of blood now. They know that they can get away with anything done in the name of "security," and so I expect that we'll be facing more alleged imminent threats like the one invented in Iraq. In order to exercise these scenarios, it will be necessary for the US government to wield not a big stick, but a bludgeon, in dealing with our justifiably nervous allies, too. In addition to our color-coded terrorist alerts at home and the increasing perceived prevalence of weapons of mass destruction abroad (and hey, everybody knows our friends have far more of these than our enemies ever will!), I expect we'll see a trade war or six before the end of ShrubCo's second term.
I was just discussing this in my journal yesterday.
I also heard yesterday that there are plans to downsize our forces even more by removing one more division. There's also talk of placing Marines on aircraft carriers and keeping them at sea, rather than stationing them in foreign countries. Now, big brother will be watching from the sea where mobility is more possible. Sounds like better strategy and probably less intrusive to other countries.
Marines on shipboard is the classical idea, I guess. I wonder how it would work out, their culture and the Navy's being so different. Would the UN have to put peacekeepers on our carriers?
Dear Frank, Thank you for helping to show that it is possible, maybe, to restore my faith in the "other side" of the political spectrum. Now if only we could find Good Conservatives...
So now that I've finished fawning over you...this line made me laugh:
Obviously it's not so hard to pull out. It's just a matter of deciding to do it, and doing it.
Uhmmm, as a family planning advocate, this line just sort of tickled my funny bone. Because, you know, sometimes when you *ahem* pull out, you leave something behind that you didn't mean to...and it takes on a life of its own. Hardy har har.
But seriously, I'm being funny about something that's not so funny. What if the Islamists/Jihadists/whateveryouwannacall'em are emboldened buy this pulling out business? What if they see it through totally different lenses than we do? What if they *do* perceive this as a sign of weakness? Ok I know I probably sound like Chicken Little, but what do you think? I'm asking the impossible maybe: get inside the mind of an anti-American terrorist and tell me what you think he sees this withdrawal as a sign of.
I don't know. I don't think pulling out of that region is a bad idea, obviously...I just worry about what kind of unintended signal it might be sending to people who have already demonstrated that they see the world in a vastly different light than the U.S./it's leadership does...
I ain't afraid of no terrorists. I'm afraid of da Gummint.
Wasn't no terrorists crashed the World Trade Center. Was Nixon's OSHA. Forbade the use of asbestos even in projects already under construction. If the Towers had been built according to the architect's plans or even the City building code (State properties are exempt) they would be standing today. They way they were constructed, any big fire would have caused a collapse.
As for withdrawal, it would have been disastrous to do it other than from a position of strength.
The big issue between the Arabs and us is Israel. And the Arabs are right. Our blank check support for the most reckless Israeli faction enrages the world -- and may doom Israel. Maybe from a position of strength Mr. Bush can apply effective pressure there. If he does I will vote for him.
Unless the domestic police state is too loathsome. (The terriorist squad terrorized the patrons of an Indian restaurant in midtown last week. What if I had been there with my wife? What if she didn't have her green card with her? What if I were on some database of Vietnam dissenters or fans of Middle Eastern dance or supporters of Father Elias Chacour?)
Perhaps the best we can hope for is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, one with enough votes (or Republican crossovers) to repeal the PATRIOT Law.
It is not so hard to get into the mind of a terrorist. Have you seen Michael Collins? The Battle of Algiers?
History suggests that the mortal enemies of Israel, of whom our present-day Arabs surely fit in, end up on the ash pile of history. And recent history suggests Arab states are like those fluffy dry dandelion seeds ready to be blown away by the lightest breeze. I wouldn't lose any sleep over Israel's fate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Yes
no subject
The question is, would the US be willing to give up this kind of authoritative power? I don't see it; Americans no longer seem willing to simply co-exist with other nations. In order to feel secure, it seems that this country needs to control everything that goes on in the world around it.
I don't see the pendulum swinging back the other way in my lifetime. I think we're stuck in "control freak" mode.
What you mean "we," white man?
Politicians can be trusted to take the easy way out. They will indulge their control freaking at home, where they can get away with it on the cheap. (And I hope not for much longer.)
Maybe.
Re: What you mean "we," white man?
I don't think domestic and foreign policy can be so neatly separated, especially not in the current environment of terrorist alerts and the cooking of the books on the reasons for war. I believe that ShrubCo now realizes the full extent of the power of these things in their quest to shape the domestic agenda, and I also believe that these same tactics will be used again should control seem to be slipping.
They've gotten a taste of blood now. They know that they can get away with anything done in the name of "security," and so I expect that we'll be facing more alleged imminent threats like the one invented in Iraq. In order to exercise these scenarios, it will be necessary for the US government to wield not a big stick, but a bludgeon, in dealing with our justifiably nervous allies, too. In addition to our color-coded terrorist alerts at home and the increasing perceived prevalence of weapons of mass destruction abroad (and hey, everybody knows our friends have far more of these than our enemies ever will!), I expect we'll see a trade war or six before the end of ShrubCo's second term.
no subject
I also heard yesterday that there are plans to downsize our forces even more by removing one more division. There's also talk of placing Marines on aircraft carriers and keeping them at sea, rather than stationing them in foreign countries. Now, big brother will be watching from the sea where mobility is more possible. Sounds like better strategy and probably less intrusive to other countries.
Well...that is until we invade again. Who's next?
How about Israel?
Marines on shipboard is the classical idea, I guess. I wonder how it would work out, their culture and the Navy's being so different. Would the UN have to put peacekeepers on our carriers?
no subject
Thank you for helping to show that it is possible, maybe, to restore my faith in the "other side" of the political spectrum. Now if only we could find Good Conservatives...
So now that I've finished fawning over you...this line made me laugh:
Obviously it's not so hard to pull out. It's just a matter of deciding to do it, and doing it.
Uhmmm, as a family planning advocate, this line just sort of tickled my funny bone. Because, you know, sometimes when you *ahem* pull out, you leave something behind that you didn't mean to...and it takes on a life of its own. Hardy har har.
But seriously, I'm being funny about something that's not so funny. What if the Islamists/Jihadists/whateveryouwannacall'em are emboldened buy this pulling out business? What if they see it through totally different lenses than we do? What if they *do* perceive this as a sign of weakness? Ok I know I probably sound like Chicken Little, but what do you think? I'm asking the impossible maybe: get inside the mind of an anti-American terrorist and tell me what you think he sees this withdrawal as a sign of.
I don't know. I don't think pulling out of that region is a bad idea, obviously...I just worry about what kind of unintended signal it might be sending to people who have already demonstrated that they see the world in a vastly different light than the U.S./it's leadership does...
Your thoughts? I value your insight.
Terrorists?
Wasn't no terrorists crashed the World Trade Center. Was Nixon's OSHA. Forbade the use of asbestos even in projects already under construction. If the Towers had been built according to the architect's plans or even the City building code (State properties are exempt) they would be standing today. They way they were constructed, any big fire would have caused a collapse.
As for withdrawal, it would have been disastrous to do it other than from a position of strength.
The big issue between the Arabs and us is Israel. And the Arabs are right. Our blank check support for the most reckless Israeli faction enrages the world -- and may doom Israel. Maybe from a position of strength Mr. Bush can apply effective pressure there. If he does I will vote for him.
Unless the domestic police state is too loathsome. (The terriorist squad terrorized the patrons of an Indian restaurant in midtown last week. What if I had been there with my wife? What if she didn't have her green card with her? What if I were on some database of Vietnam dissenters or fans of Middle Eastern dance or supporters of Father Elias Chacour?)
Perhaps the best we can hope for is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, one with enough votes (or Republican crossovers) to repeal the PATRIOT Law.
It is not so hard to get into the mind of a terrorist. Have you seen Michael Collins? The Battle of Algiers?
no subject
According to the prophets
I hate to see my own country lead Israel further away from the path of righteousness.
They have suffered enough.
The ashpile image bothers me, as I associate it with Trotsky, whose intellectual heirs have corrupted both Jerusalem and Washington.
Re: According to the prophets