We have two distinct kind of opponents; those that should know better because they, too, are ostensibly free, and those who are bound by dictators who subjugate either by brute force or messianic enthrallment. We need to ignore, benignly, the former, and battle, ferociously, the latter.

We also need to develop the ears of a mother who knows the difference between when her children are just screaming harmlessly or when they are in pain. For the former, selective deafness is best; for the latter, swift action is needed.

To continue MBear's analogy, we also need to recognize or dispute whether they are our children, or merely truants and scapegraces running amok in the neighborhood. How a neighbor might enforce restrictions on unacceptable behavior is different than how a parent might do so. But for the US to take responsibility for all of its indirect influences on the rest of the world is both unrealistic and logically defective. Having international veto over US policies leaves these international agents with the latitude to hide behind national sovereignity when they desire, while assymetrically constraining the US.

In other words, hegemons are dominant powers because they are not constrained. But if they are to be constrained, they must be constrained by countervailing strength, not by unilateral weakness.

It is very simple. We will be safe at home or we won't be. If we aren't, we will rearrange the world until we are. We have the power to do so. We did not start doing so until we were attacked at home.

Those who fear American exercise of power have two basic options: oppose our use of power, ineffectually or otherwise, or make it unnecessary.

The ones who choose the latter are, if not our friends, at least not our enemies. Those who choose the former are definitely not our friends given that we only started to exercise that power due to being attacked at home. They might graduate to the status of enemies if they try hard enough.

Much of the world distrusts and fears the US because of our strength, and what we might do with that strength.

It seems we have been stong (or viewed as strong) since the end of the Spanish-American War, the Great White Fleet, etc. This appearance of strength has not been continuous (isolationism before the WW I, and to a lesser extent before WW II, and various times since.

Is there a correlation between US weakness and major wars/attacks on the US? We were also viewed as weak by OBL before 9/11.

So far, after battles in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is viewed as strong once again, and the only terrorist attacks seem to be limited to a small area, as opposed to worldwide in the run up to 9/11 (USS Cole, Kenya embasy, Khobar Towers, etc)

I submit that the world is a more peaceful and safer (relatively) when the US is viewed as strong.

Any comments??

As I noted, Phil, I think the art is in being seen as being 'strong enough'. To the extent that we get intoxicated with our power - and I think that's a real risk - we wind up in Paul Kennedy's imperial overstretch. To the extent that we're seens as pusillanimous, people who measure themselves by strength will decide that fighting us is a good idea.

I like the notion that Puff The Magic Dragon needs to be seen as having teeth and claws...

A.L.

A.L. Right- It seems to me that most of the US ( I'm referring to the population)generally wants to be left alone, and it take a lot to get us riled up. But once we switch to aggressive mode, there is little that can stop us. Will the US ease off when we perceive we are safer?? Or will the "blood lust" carry us into the "imperial overreach"? IMHO-yes.

But as they say, lets see what happens.

Khobar, Kenya, and the USS Cole all took place in the majority Muslim world. The only difference is that the terrorists were fools and targeted civilians this time. We've no idea if they're in the US and just waiting.

I posted a link to this on a friend's blog a few days ago. This is the response I got:

" Calling it a Theory of Everything is a bit of ironic self-mockery, of course. There's nothing really revolutionary or new about his theory (although it may be new to the sort of people who were puzzled by why "they" hate "us" in the first place).

This guy loves globalism -- I mean, he literally wrote the bestselling book on it, it's like globalism is his personal brand or something. He sees it as progress and can't admit that, at best, it's an inevitability, at worst a tragic mistake. And he understands why other countries wouldn't like an American hegemony over the world, but since he believes that hegemony is benign he doesn't get it that there is something inherently unjust about a system where the US has the bulk of the power and the rest of the world only gets to kibitz from the sidelines. It is unjust the way slavery is unjust, or the disenfranchisement of women. But he only asks how the US should "manage" this situation, not what a just international order would look like. "

I can't roll my eyes far enough back in my head.

A.L., it's funny you mentioned Paul Kennedy's book, I told him he should read it.

Imperial Overstretch is my worst nightmare. Just how big is the military budget becoming?

Also, Phil, I completely agree that the majority of Americans would just like to be left alone. The strangest thing about 911 to my mind is how many people who seem to be in denial about that day. After Pearl Harbor were there so many who believed we "deserved" it? The response from people in Europe and the far left is mind-boggling imo. What would it take to knock them back into reality?

linden:

Great questions-

What would it take to knock them back to reality?--a Democratic President would do it. Then the question would be-what happens after the next attack? OBL and his ilk read the papers, and would certainly have reason to doubt any Democrat's resolve. What would the current critics of the war say then??

"Why can't we all just get along??" (Rodney King)

What would it take to knock them back to reality?--a Democratic President would do it.

But that would just be petty partisanship. What will convince them and change their minds? They would just claim he was acting Republican again.

Then the question would be-what happens after the next attack? OBL and his ilk read the papers, and would certainly have reason to doubt any Democrat's resolve. What would the current critics of the war say then??

That we incited it by not prostrating ourselves before OBL and Hussein in asking for forgiveness. We brought it upon ourselves by invading Iraq, Afghanistan...

Phil said:>>>
..."Or will the "blood lust" carry us into the "imperial overreach"? IMHO-yes.

I meant to say "No"-US will NOT go into "imperial overreach" Sorry for the late correction.

lindenen

But, what are they waiting for?? There are more than enough reasons to act. Could it be that they have seen what's happened to Hussein and the Taliban and are not so enthusiatic to go to Nirvana any more?

I don't believe this 100%, but greater than 50%.

The disjunction between how we would like to be seen and how we are seen is captured in Phil Winsor's statement:

--- Much of the world distrusts and fears the US because of our strength, and what we might do with that strength. ---

The key term is might do.

Military analysts use the word "threat" to describe a possible adversary's capabilities, without reference to his intentions. If our intentions were as bad as many of the world's horror regimes, we'd use our fantastic power to make ourselves slaveowners over the whole world. Hell, if our intentions were even as bad as those of the Chirac Administration, the world would be in for a very rough ride.

Since there is absolutely no chance that America will ever deliberately diminish herself militarily just to make other regimes comfortable, all we can do is promote our intentions. This will be a matter of both words and deeds, and the congruence between them.

Just now, the protestations of a few Old European powers notwithstanding, we're doing well at it. Not perfectly, but well. Keep your fingers crossed that we continue to do so.

Francis:

Well said.

Despite my disagreement with the Democrats, their rhetoric is a necessary weight on the scales of justice. Too much weight on either side is bad, but Democrats view the swinging of the pendulum away from their cherished views as unstoppable. While this scenario is possible, I judge it as doubtful. After all, look at the firepower the Right has had to overcome to start getting the scales to tilt the other way-In 1992, the Democrats had the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, along with a stranglehold on the Media. If the scales tip too far from balance, forces will act to correct the imbalance. (We all fervently hope)
I think we have seen this happen over the last 10 years.

I shouldn't think "imperial overstretch" is a serious problem at the moment. The US budget for 2003 spends about 3.3% of GDP on the military.
IIRC, the comparable figure for the British Empire in 1937 was around 5%.

As the US appears able at present to balance increased commitments in Iraq etc with reductions in Europe, the situation is hardly dire.

What might be a problem is if deficit financed tax cuts fail to reinvigorate the economy, and produced long term structural deficits if the US is unwilling to reduce total govt. expenditure. Similar to the Reagan deficits Paul Kennedy was concerned about.

Comparisons with the British Empire pre WWII are difficult. Most of the British colonies were "self financing" and raised territorial troops and taxes to run the country without much input from the UK. I.e., the Indian Army in WWII was the largest volunteer army in the world, and this army was able to keep order up till 1948 even when London was doing its best to undermine British political suzerainity over the subcontinent. The current US situation in even Iraq isn't going to be self financing, and will be open ended as was the Palestine Mandate for the UK post WWI, and the situation in the Balkans is even less self supporting.

From 1989 to 1999 worldwide, the percentage of GNP spent on military expenditures dropped from 4.7% to 2.4% (the share of military expenditures as a percent of central government expenditures -CGE - fell from 16.9% to 10.1%). Similarly the number for the US fell from 5.5% to 3.0% (and ME as % of CGE fell from 25.5. to 15.7).

What does this tell us? We spend more, proportionately on defence than most folks - not a surprise. Particularly when viewed as a portion of CGE - again, not a surprise, since the US doesn't spend nearly as much on social programs and healthcare as do other nations.

What is actually significant, however, is that the portion of GNP spent on military expenditures has fallen over the last decade. This runs directly contrary to Kennedy's central thesis.

It would be great if folks would post links or sources for their stats; that way we can all go dig around...

...just a thought.

A.L.

My numbers are from the US State Department, Bureau of Verification and Compliance report "World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1999-2000" and can be found in Table i*here*.

If you care to really dig into the numbers, take a look at China's increase in military expenditures, drops in both North Korean GDP and military expenditures, as well as regional trends in the Middle East. The inability of those folks to generate economic growth may have nothing to do with anything other than their insistence on arming themselves to the teeth.

You can also get the gory US defense stats, to include the portion of DoE's budget devoted to nuclear arms, from the budget links at www.defenselink.mil (the green books at http://www.defenselink.mil/sites/b.html#budget , year by year). CSIS is also good for foreign countries which are significant militarily (http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/index.htm).

2268 http://www.e-roulette.info