----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:05 AM Subject: Re: brin: war
> d.brin wrote: > > > Moreover, I am all in favor of Pax Americana, which has led to vastly > > more human opportunity and happiness than any other 'pax', and which > > may lead to a world of Justice and Law. > > This may indeed be the case. However, I cannot for the life of me understand > how so many Merkins expect the rest of the world to be happy with this > state of affairs. I can understand why others wouldn't be happy in a unipolar world. If we had Pax Britannica, and the US was an ally with minimal influence, then I'd probably be less than sanguine about that situation. But, this raises the question: what is a reasonable way to get out of that situation? I have strong personal prejudices about that. These prejudices are from my work and volunteer experience; not inherently political. But, I'll get to them in a bit. In reality, the US has done all the heavy lifting for developed non-Communist world for the last 60 years. The US and USSR, to first order, won WWII between them. Other countries were involved; it would have been much harder to invade France without a staging area in GB, but a good first order approximation to the effort is the US and USSR. (Actually, a good zerorth order approximation is that the USSR beat Germany.) The pattern continued when the US and USSR became adversaries instead of allies of convenience. The general agreement in Europe was that the European countries would focus on being much more appealing than the East European countries by having a better economy and a strong social welfare state. They would spend relatively little on defense. Part of this plan included the US defense of Europe as if it were US soil. The US stated its willingness to escalate any war of aggression against Europe into WWIII. That is why the USSR pledged no first use of nuclear weapons, but the US didn't. This, along with the policy of containment, worked well enough to win the Cold War. Then, the whole thing needed to be rethought. There were two key tests of this: the Gulf War and Bosnia. The first was a full fledged tanks across the border driving to the other border invasion. Further, it was an invasion that begged the question of what might be the next invasion: Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Those countries could not stand up to what was then, IIRC, the 5th largest and 5th best equipped army in the world. If that were to happen, then Iraq would have enough control of oil production to threaten the economy of the western world. As Hussein has shown by his actions over the last 10 years, he would have been more than willing to trade the loss of income for the political power that would give him. The possibility that he would take over the Arab world; would bring Europe and Japan to their knees was enough for a broad coalition to form to oppose him. But, to first order, the US did all the work. British planes helped some, and there were some other forces that were enough involved to say they were there. But, except for the staging advantages of protected Saudi Arabia from within Saudi Arabia, the practical military value of those forces were minimal. Also, for the initial step, protecting Saudi Arabia; there was no other country who could possibly have rapidly sent troops. Now, lets turn to Bosnia. I remember reading about it as it developed during the '90s. At the start, it was a matter of European pride that they would handle the situation in their own back yard. On paper, they easily had the forces to handle it. I definitely remember thinking that this was a good development; it represented a sound way to handle the new situation. The NATO partnership would become more equal. However, that did not happen. The Europeans frankly, did little with the mess in their own back yard. One of the worst parts of this was when the Dutch stood aside to let the Serbs massacre the Bosnians. I have an explanation for why it happened; but it is not flattering. Europe was so use to depending on the US being the one that gets its hands dirty; it was unwilling or unable to use force to stop the Serbs. This does not reflect well on Europe's ability to project power. Indeed, when push came to shove, Europe relied on the old familiar pattern: call on the US, and then sit back an critique the actions of the US. This is not a stable situation. Before 9-11; it was fairly well tolerated/ignored in the US. However, one should note, that there was a growing reluctance in the US for being the one who was always called upon. After 9-11, the safety of Americans was seen to be at risk, and things changed. How they changed is still in progress; but I think one thing is clear: Americans will look to the safety of the US as a prime policy goal. It may very well result in a strain between the US and other Western Countries. Further, as the US becomes less of a white European nation; its natural ties to the Old Country will lessen. Hispanics, blacks, and Asians do not have the same affinity for Europe as someone who is half Luxembourg, a quarter Irish, 3/16ths German, and 1/16th Polish. But, to get back to my main point. To first order, the US has to do the massive projects for the security of the world by itself. In addition, other countries and their citizens feel free to criticize the US for how it is doing it, without offering any concrete suggestions or help in the matter. Look at the present situation. As far as I can tell, the suggestions of those opposed to US actions to let the same inspectors who the UN let be thrown out 4 years ago to act, without any real provision for what would happen if they were stymied again. Further, the same people who argued that sanctions should have been dropped 18 months are now arguing to keep on relying on sanctions. I've seen, floated around, reasonable alternatives for all out war. However, they are not being codified into proposed competitive UN resolutions. The only competitive resolution is to send inspectors and then see what happens. But, its not a resolution with any consequences for the inspectors not getting to see anything written into the resolution. A cynic might say that France rightly concluded that it would be spared any attack if it is seen to be slowing the US down. Since the US would be the first to be hit with a MWD attack, say a nuke in a shipping container, and since France now has good contracts (as does Russia) to develop the oil fields in Iraq when sanctions are lifted, it makes sense to not upset the apple cart. There will be plenty of time for that if and when the US is attacked. > It goes against what seems to be one of their own most > cherished beliefs that there needs to be a system of checks and balances. But, it also matches another cherished belief: one must take responsibility to be part of the decision making process. This gets to the point of my prejudice. While both working professionally and doing volunteer work I've seen folks who weren't willing to actually do the work, but more than willing to tell you how you should have done it. I remember a Brit. in particular, who was scathing in his criticism of how things were done, but didn't have one suggestion when we devising the new way to handle it. I have little time for folks who want authority and the right to criticize and be a part of the decision making process; yet eschew the actually dirty work and/or the responsibility for the work once it is done. Now, I realize that there was a historical practical reason for the US shouldering a disproportionate fraction of the burden, particularly at the start of the Cold War. IMHO, it has now become a bad habit. For example, everyone knows that the US will ensure that the people of Taiwan will not be forcibly reunited with China; while still ensuring good relations with China by refusing to let any of their parts being involved in the weapons that the US sells to Taiwan. The US can be counted on to take on all of the responsibility, cost, and risk associated with fulfilling the promise of scores of nations to defend South Korea after the armistice, while feeling free to write the treaty on land mines so that the US does not fall under the special exemption that was given to land mines of European design. So, once the US has been attacked, and the people of the US feel that they must act in self defense, the need for changes has been accelerated. As it stands now, it appears that the US is like the world sheriff who is expected to buy his own equipment, work without pay, but still take orders from the community. Yes, for big actions, a posse will be formed, but they will mostly stand back and watch the sheriff work. When the sheriff's family is threatened, he is told that he may protect them, but only as the community sees fit to allow him to. He may strongly urge community action, he has a vote like everyone else, but he may not act on his own. The question from an American perspective, then, is how much do countries like France, China, and Russia think about the US's needs. If they are interested only in their own national interests, is the US obliged to put those interests ahead of its own. Particularly, when those interests seem to be the financial benefits of doing business with Hussein. >I keep hearing about the need to protect people from oppression by their >own government, yet these very same people think that the rest of the world >should blithely accept whatever the US decides is right. I think that's a cheap shot, without much validity. Do you really want to compare the US government acting in a manner it feels necessary to protect its citizens to the actions of a leader who shoots his own cabinet members in front of the others, uses WMD on ethnic minorities within his own country, and invades other in order to annex them. Do you really think that the US government is planning on owning Iraq oil. Now, I'll grant you, it might set up a government that does not feel obliged to honor the lucrative deals that Hussein has set up with non-American companies, but that is not the same thing as the US gaining control of Iraq's oil. > There was so much goodwill towards the US after 9/11, but somehow it has > been squandered. Part of the reason is the view (strongly expressed by >some Merkins on this list) that because the US is militarily so far ahead of >the rest of the world, that no attention needed to be given to any opposition >to any policy by friends and allies. Instead of harnessing the international > support the US had, anyone who dares voice any concerns "is not with us, >but against us". Unfortunately, from my vantage point, the support was a mile wide and an inch thick. The only suggestion I've seen is returning to the policy of the US during the mid-90s that those same countries criticized as worse than useless two years ago. My guess is that if the US agrees to that, there will be arguments to lift the sanctions and forget about weapons inspections within a year. I'm not really on board with Bush's plan, but I see no other real plans out there. Well, that's not true, I've seen other plans like inspections with armed backup proposed by a think tank, but the official alternatives are only the mid-90s plans. In short, I'm very disappointed with the US's allies who oppose Bush's plans for not putting forth real plans of their own. IMHO, the bad habit of not taking any responsibility needs to stop. I'm not totally sanguine about how relationships will work out in the future. I think we may go to a world in which the US acts alone, other people kvetch about it, but will do nothing to change the strategic balance, or imbalance if you were. Doing something would involve costs and risks. A far safer course is to do nothing, but point out that the US should have done something different. This is not an effective check or balance, because the good will of those that kvetch has little practical value. So, there is a real risk of alienation between the US and its present allies. I'm guessing it will never get to the point where those allies feel that they need to do something to change the imbalance. The window for doing it on friendly terms through burden sharing is starting to close...well in terms of decades, not months or years. Europe is about to start fading, the US appears to keep on growing. Now, Europe could share a lot of the balance for maintaining peace in the world, but in 20 years it would be much harder...particularly when it will have an overwhelming pension burden and fewer workers to pay the taxes for the pensions. In short, the practical way to stop a unipolar world is not for the US to promise to get permission before it acts at all. Rather, it is for other countries to be able to actually act, instead of just telling the US how to act. Finally, Gautam has written a very interesting senior thesis on this subject. I'm guessing he would be willing to have it given to anyone who would be interested. I don't agree with him on everything, but it is a very interesting analysis. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
