----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Coster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:40 AM Subject: US and Europe
> > Behalf Of Dan Minette > > > > So, I take it that you are opposed to the Clinton doctrine? If a dictator > > is practicing genocide, the world should keep hands off? The US > > should have > > told Europe to handle the Balkins by itself? If a million people > > died, that > > would have been better than what happened? > > > > No, I include moral interventions as part of the external interests. And I > see that as being something that should be done under a UN or regional > grouping, such as with NATO or SEATO etc. But much preferred under UN > auspices. Well, it is preferable to handle things with the UN, if the politics can be swung. But, the reality is that China can veto anything at the UN, and that the UN General Assembly is dominated by non-democratic governments. The history of the UN's attitude towards Israel and Jews shows how that, even though the UN can be useful, it cannot be counted on. > > > Dan:> > > Why in the world are you comparing the US government to the Nazis. Who > > attacked Germany? Have we invaded Canada? Have we annexed Cuba? > > I tried to make clear that philosophically there is no link. If I failed, > I'm sorry. I appreciate the apology. I'm still puzzled, though, why the Nazi's are the obvious comparison to the US. You could have used Britian as a better example of dominence. Remember, the US was the dominent power in the world during 33-39. > > What I am concerned with is that the US, which already far outspends all > other national defense budgets is contemplating a further increase. Already > the US has total military dominance: there is no single nation and possibly > only one combination of powers: All of Europe, China, Russia AND Japan that > could come even close to matching the US militarily. So why does the US want > to build even more of a gap? Isn't enough enough? Well, that's a good question, and I think it can be broken into two parts: How important is it for the democratic countries of the world to have overwhelming military superiority over other countries? Why must it be the US? I addressed the answer to the second in my earlier post today. In reality, there is now no absolute need now for the US to carry a disproportionate share of the load. Its just the way that people seem to want it to be. The first part is the critical question. Why should the democratic industrial powers need such military superiority? I think that there are several answers for that. First, is the existence of force dividers. What sort of superiority did Europe have over the armies of Serbia? Why was the US needed? I think part of it is that the superiority needed to win a conflict without a long ground war, with zillions of civilian and friendly forces casualties is far greater than the superiority needed to win a slogged out war. Part of the near parity in the Cold War was the inability of the US to act in a number of circumstances. A prime example of this was when the US and NATO stood by during the 1956 invasion of Hungary. If the West had the superiority over the USSR that it now enjoys, then it probably would not have stood by. You can also see it in how China's human rights abuses are treated. China has enough missiles to kill, probably, 50 million Americans. That limits the ability of the US to act. Even with overwhelming superiority, the US took a couple of months to achieve its aim in Afghanistan. I'd argue that it is very helpful for the western alliance (including Japan) to have tremendous superiority over countries like Iraq or China. If we kept the same average GDP investment of 3% and just spread it around, then it would be worthwhile. One other advantage of superiority such as the US has enjoyed: it allows for military campaigns that minimize civilian casualties. > Such a dominance will eventually lead to people fearing, rather than > admiring the US. I think that that would be a bad situation all round. > As the sock puppet says, "Fear breeds anger, anger breeds hate, ..." ;-) I think something different is happening. I think we may have a Nash equilibrium. The US gets to be the #1 power in the world, with all the advantages that go with it. Other democratic countries can rest easy knowing that their vital interests will be defended by the US, which lowers their costs. Why should Europe go through the agony of compromising national pride and increases in expenditures when it knows that, when push comes to shove, the US will always be there to defend its vital interests? > > True, in percentage terms of GDP what is 3 or 3.5 percent? But look at the > GDP! Well, Western Europe's GDP is 86% of the US's. (I think it's population is about 10-15% more). Their military expenditure is about half of the US's. Hmmm..they don't seem to have half the military force of the US...which argues for inefficiency. > You have world interests, but then so do others. I would far rather see an > America that sees itself as an equal partner with world society than as one > that dominates. At the moment it seems that you want to extend that military > domination. But, even with our military power, we are defending Japan, Australia and Europe without using it as a major economic lever over the last 50 years. All we do when treaties are written that have the US uniquely disfavored is not sign them. If we were less responsible, we would threaten to withdraw troops from Europe, or some such unless favorable trade terms were agreed upon. > > We should be responsible for our interests. If that includes trade routes to > our major trading partners, then so be it. As it is, through aid and other > programs we have generally good relations with all our neighbors. Think about it. Are you willing to spend the kind of money it would take to protect your shipping interests if the US stopped? > If the US also has interests in the area, I have no problem with the US > deciding that it may need to intervene also. But why not do so in > conjunction with other countries that also have the same sort of interests? What has happened is that the US takes 90% of the load and spreads the decision making power. Other countries are either unwilling or unable to help. > At the same time, we have a defense force that numbers about 55,000 - total, > so noone has any reason to fear that we'll do anything unilaterally. We > learn to cooperate and convince, not dictate. Isn't that a rational policy? Yes, knowing that you have the US to stand behind you to fight if need be; to do the dirty work. If the US didn't defend Australia, and China started pushing hard, what could you do? Britain would help, but there is only so much Britain could do. > > So, for SE Asia why not a coalition of Australian, US, Japanese and say Thai > forces for example working together to protect mutual interests? Why won't it be like its always been, the US doing 90% of the work and everyone else providing political cover for the actions. I think the problem is that the whole world is use to the US taking on the roll of defense for democracies. During the Cold War, the US could not afford to lose allies. Thus, it defended France after France told the US to leave...only not on French soil. Look at Korea. Korea is a bigger problem for Australia than the US, yet Australia didn't commit the same % of its manpower to the war that the US did. In conclusion, what I am arguing is that the world has become comfortable with the US acting as sheriff and everyone else telling the sheriff when to act. The attack last September changes things for the US. We were very lucky that 20,000 were not killed. If the attack was 1 hour later, and if the original attack did not result in effective the evacuation drills, I don't think 30,000 people could have gotten out very quickly. It is reasonable to assume that a country like Iraq or North Korea will have the ability to detonate a nuclear device in a US harbor within the next 10 years. It is possible that terrorists can. Given the fact that the US will bear the brunt of any attack, it is reasonable for the US to worry about the ability of these countries more than any other country.
