On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:26 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/21/11 6:52 AM, Julio Huato wrote: >> Louis Proyect wrote: >> >>> Carter?!?!?! I give up... >> >> So, remind us: How many countries did Carter bomb, invade, and occupy? > > About the same as Gerald Ford. Ford and Carter operated under the > constraints of the "Vietnam syndrome". Reagan's presidency was a direct > challenge to the post-Vietnam consensus that military interventions > could backfire. From Reagan through Clinton, the consensus in Washington > changed to one of the feasibility of military intervention using local > proxies or NATO, with the exception of the first Gulf war--a bipartisan > affair. From Dubya through Obama, the pattern has been one of a > readiness to put American boots on the ground. Of course, the > differences between the two parties over war and peace is mostly for show.
there is a difference: while the GOP of Bush #2 and after is more unilateralist (requiring less help & consent from NATO and other allies), Obama is more multilateralist. That's partly because #2 blew it in Iraq (in military & diplomatic terms), stretching US military resources too far (while largely forgetting what much of the elite thought was more important, i.e., Afghanistan and al Qaeda). This is a big difference inside the foreign-policy elite, though not for those who the boots ground into the dirt. BTW, the elite's "post-Vietnam consensus" (that constrained Ford and Carter) was based on its tactical/strategic defeat in Vietnam and the popular resistance to further wars, including inside the rank and file of the US armed forces. BTW2, Jimmy Carter has been a much much better ex-President than he was a President, making his presidential years seem better in retrospect. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
