--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ronaldo Carpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:37 PM > Subject: Re: US and Europe (L3) > > > > There was an article in last month's Atlantic Monthly by a couple of guys > > with (I think) the Cato Institute: > > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/schwarzlayne.htm > > > > They argue that the US chooses to be the world's overwhelming military > > power, in part because it doesn't want Europe, Japan, and other potential > > "great powers" to emerge. > > > The Cato institute is Libertarian/Conservative. That means it wants > virtually no government. Also, if you read between the lines, they are > really arguing for isolationalism and a very narrow view of American > interests. To illustrate this, let me give you their suggestion for > handling Tawain: > > > "With respect to China, the United States would recognize that the Taiwan > issue is an internal Chinese matter. Taiwan's unresolved status is a legacy > of the civil war that ended on the mainland in 1949. It is worth recalling > that before the outbreak of the Korean War, Secretary of State Dean Acheson > advised that the United States should extricate itself from the unfinished > business of the Chinese civil war and leave Taiwan to its fate." > > Basically, its let the democracy in Taiwan be overrun. > > > > >I don't know how true this is, but if so, then > > you shouldn't be surprised when other countries spend less on their > > militaries, or when the inevitable complaining from some in those > countries > > occurs. > > I know that some folks argue that a unipolar world is better than a > multipolar world because multipolar worlds tend to have a lot more wars than > unipolar worlds. But, I think that can be overcome with democracies. I > think that group dynamics is at the foundation of why the US keeps its > military dominence among the industrialized democracies. > > Dan M. >
The article is quite explicitly isolationist, but that doesn't mean they're wrong about the motivations behind what they call the "grand strategy". I looked at the book they mentioned (_The Grand Chessboard_ by Zbigniew Brzezinski) and it seems to jibe with their argument. I don't know if those views are shared by the rest of the US foreign policy establishment; I'd be interested in what Gautam Mukunda has to say about it. Ronnie N. Carpio __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion! http://greetings.yahoo.com
