Dr. Brin:
Glad to see you are doing well and thriving..... though it is
disappointing that you aren't supporting the liberation of perhaps one of
the world's most oppressed peoples - the Iraqis.
At 05:20 PM 4/1/2003 -0800 d.brin wrote:
>What the rightwing never, ever does is ask itself the sci fi
>question. What will humanity/Earth be like in the future? DO you
>honestly expect to see a loose 'international' system of sovereign
>states, with America striding about as the sole superpower,
>indefinitely deciding for itself what's to be done for everybody's
>own good? How about a billion years from now?
To try and answer your question, I see the US as being the preeminent
superpower for at least the next 100 years.
I do not see a serious supranational infrastructure encompassing the US and
Europe, let alone including Russia, China, or much of Africa in that
timeframe either.
Now, while this is not going to last forever - I don't jump from this to
the inevitable conclusion that the only way to save ourselves from a slide
into barbarism is for the US to covince France of the merits of liberating
Iraq.
Indeed, Robert Kagan has recently been pushing a thesis that mid-tier
powers, who lack the ability to unilaterally provide their own security,
tend to favor supra-national international systems of rules and regulations
that protect themsevles. I think that you are right in arguing that the
US at some point must prepare for its sunset by creating such a system that
will protect it in its older, less-powerful days. In the meantime,
however, the US is a hyperpower, and as Kagan predicts, tends to resist
international rules and regulations that might tie it down and limit its
course of action. Where I part company with Kagan is noting that
hyperpowers don't just fear iinternatinoal rules and regulations of
selfishness to use their power as they please, but also because of the
asymetric threats from the non-powers and rogue states and terrorists, that
have little conventional military power, but have chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons and other weapons of terror that can cause great
destrucion. The problem is that these non-powers/rogue states end to
bypass the mid-tiers and target the top dogs. Thus, the US while the most
powerful state, is also the most threatened, a point that is often missed
by mid-tiers like France.
The ironic thing is, as you often note, that the US is perhaps the
superpower most willing in human history to be constrained by an
international system and to do things for the general self-itnerest.
Heck, we FOUNDED the United Nations and NATO and even to a degree the
European Union (the only other mid-term threat to our hyperpower status
besides China) as well as any other number of regional organizations.
More recently, we conceived the idea of an International Criminal Court and
a Landmine Ban, before we had a falling out with our allies whom we gave
such a voice in shaping those structures that we eventually felt compelled
to leave.
Still, the point remains, the US is clearly willing to support an
international system. What needs to happen though, is that the US needs to
be convinced that the mid-tiers are serious about making the international
system WORK. Unfortuantely, every single piece of evidence from the
past twleve years indicates that France is fundamentally not serious about
preventing Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and then
potentially using them to monopolize the world's oil reserves. France
has been a consistent opponent of sanctions on Ira and inspections in the
mid-1990's, and just recently opposed every measure of coercion to ensure
Iraq's disarmament. Thus, the US is very rationally concluding that any
international system, particularly one that grants significant power to
France, cannot be trusted to guarantee our security.
Until that changes, the US will be forced to make some tough decisions ....
of course, even now we can hardly e said to be ducking internationalism and
"going it alone" (see below.)
>The idea is absurd even 50 or 40 years from now. At the rate China
>is growing, we should be ready for trouble in 15.
I don;t know what economic projections you are using, but even assuming
that China's official growth figures are accurate and sustainable over the
course of the next century, China will not be able to rival the US for a
good 100 years or so.
>ANd make no mistake, we need the French.
I think that there is a huge difference between "needing the French" and
"having the French would be a very good idea."
Nevertheless, off the top of my head, let me run a tally of a "Western
Civilization Democracies" and their position on the US-led liberation of Iraq:
Support:
US
UK
Australia
Japan
Spain
Italy
Poland
the Netherlands
Hungary
the Czech Republic
Slovenia
Denmark
Norway
Iceland
Portugal
Opposed:
France
Germany
Belgium
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Brazil
This kind of puts it in perspective doesn't it? This is not the US
against the world, it is an issue on which the great democracies of the
world are divided, but of which the US has the support of the majority.
>Let me ask you something. Whose fault is it if a company or platoon
>or alliance falls apart? The whiney, carping underlings? Or the
>leader who failed to keep it all together?
>
>Right now the Western Alliance that saved civilization lies in
>shambles around our feet. Paris is actively talking with Berlin,
>Moscow, Beijing and Singapore (plus 40 others) about forming a new
>counterweight to bring us down a peg.
> We did not need for it to come to this!
> Ever hear of "the buck stops here"? All blame -- ALL of it --
>must go to our leaders who let the Western Alliance dissolve, acting
>like schoolyard bullies instead of sages in the tradition of George
>Marshall.
I must totally disagree here. Do you realize what power you have just
given France? Under the above system, France can simply ask for whatever
bribes it wants of us, because all blame belongs to the US.
Let us remember here that France rejected a compromise plan on Iraq even
BEFORE the Iraqis did so. All of your above writings are based on the
assumption that France intends to work for the greater good of a Western
Alliance in which France will always be a second-fiddle to the United
States.
Unfortunately, France has never seemed willing to accept that, and indeed
has often made little bones about how their foreign policy priority is to
cut down the United States.
Indeed, all you have said is well and good Dr. Brin, but it has little
relationship to a world in which France sees the United States as a more
serious strategic threat to their national interests than Saddam Hussein's
Iraq.
>Baloney. We needed one thing. Basra. We needed to go in there with
>sudden, overwhelming force and free the people quickly, so they would
>be seen worldwide cheering us in the streets. Then gently capture a
>few regular army divisions, cull out the bad officers and send those
>divisions marching to Baghdad.
>
>That would have sufficed. Taking away Saddam's victims and his oil
>wells - north and south. Charging to Baghdad was the stupidest
>imaginable plan. If it works (and I now hope it does) it will be
>thanks to toweringly skillful US Arrmy & Marine noncoms, saving the
>generals' hash
Ahem. Given the very real fears that Saddam Hussein would burn oil wells,
blow up his dams, destroy bridges, and perhaps even destroy some of his
cities - I think that a *very* valid priority for the long-term success of
this liberation was ensuring that Hussein did not do that. On these
terms, the war has been a fantastic success - and indeed, it is only two
weeks old.
Maybe more troops would have been able to liberate Basra quickly and easily
- but I'm not sure that any number of troops could have made house-to-house
urban warfare in Basra go quickly and easily. Moreover, even if the
Shias of Basra welcomed us with open arms, I am not at all sure that this
would directly lead to the Sunnis of Baghdad producing a similar welcome
for us.
>Proud... of a leadership class whose actions can be pre-guessed with
>100% certainty on one basis alone. "Will the action being considered
>benefit the 2,000 top golf buddies... including 100 Saudi Princes, or
>won't it benefit them?"
Dr. Brin have you seen 100 Saudi Princes supporting this war that the rest
of the world doesn't know about?
Also, how does releasing millions of barrells of cheap Iraqi oil onto the
market benefit Bush's golf buddies who own very marginal oilfields
(producing expensive oil() in Texas and off the Gulf Coast?
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
