Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die..

Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Alumbrado -> Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (7/31/2008 8:47:14 PM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080731/ts_nm/usa_military_strategy_dc Seven years after the September 11 attacks, the Pentagon on Thursday officially named "the long war" against global extremism as its top priority .... ... The Defense Department, in a new national defense strategy, also emphasized the need to subordinate military operations to "soft power" initiatives to undermine Islamist militancy by promoting economic, political and social development in vulnerable corners of the world. 'Soft power'? Because we did such a great job trying to manipulate beliefs, economies, and governments in Central America and Southeast Asia, and so forth and so on? Because the Cold War left so many warm fuzzies behind? Because previous colonial empires did so well? In all of history, how many times have belief systems been successfully eradicated in the long term by military operations? Any unintended consequences?

TheHeretic -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (7/31/2008 8:50:01 PM)
Every so often, an isolationist North American Union seems like a decent idea....

Owner59 -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (7/31/2008 8:59:23 PM)
Isn`t this what Kerry said we needed, before being called "French" by the GOP? Isn`t this also Obama`s position and plan? Isn`t this the strategy that McCain has derided ? Thanks for the OP,Al.

Vendaval -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 2:32:13 AM)
See also "post-colonialism" and "national identity" for fun and informative reading! [8D]

meatcleaver -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 3:23:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado 'Soft power'? Because we did such a great job trying to manipulate beliefs, economies, and governments in Central America and Southeast Asia, and so forth and so on? Because the Cold War left so many warm fuzzies behind? Because previous colonial empires did so well? If you read the various histories of the European Empires, the most successful was the British because unlike the others, it prefered to use soft power when and wherever possible. It controled India with less than half the troops the US has struggled to subdue Iraq with. It only used military might when it thought it had no option. I'm not saying the British Empire was a force for good, there is nothing good about imperialism, I'm just saying soft power served the Empire better than hard power. The reason the US has such a poor image in the world is because of rightwing administrations knee jerk belief that military might can solve problems, it can't and after the Iraq debacle, it should be clear to all rightwingers that military power in isolation has very severe shortcomings.

asyouwish72 -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 5:32:56 AM)
<playing devil's advocate... read accordingly> quote: In all of history, how many times have belief systems been successfully eradicated in the long term by military operations? Any unintended consequences? History is absolutely full of them. I was compiling a list, but it looked a bit too radioactive to post. I'll include the first and last items, since neither should upset anyone too much: 1. The Empire of Carthage- this was militarily annihilated by the Romans in the late Republican period 2. National Socialism- everyone should already recall the details here quote: The Defense Department, in a new national defense strategy, also emphasized the need to subordinate military operations to "soft power" initiatives to undermine Islamist militancy by promoting economic, political and social development in vulnerable corners of the world. Sure, this could be as disastrous as our ham-handed propaganda responses to things like Al Jazeera, but "soft power" can cover an awful lot of ground and is not necessarily a bad thing. If building schools, roads, and clinics in poor/underdeveloped countries can help take the legs out from under extremist ideologies, that would seem a much wiser investment of resources than just sporadically assasinating ememy leaders with airstrikes.

DarkSteven -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 5:49:48 AM)
Yeah, right. So the Pentagon will scrap its longstanding policy of ever more sophisticated gizmos on high tech weaponry in favor of cultural war? Isn't this the same Pentagon that froze the State Department out of Iraq when it decided that it could do nation building just as well as the State Department?

thornhappy -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 12:13:47 PM)
Yeah, but have you noticed how a few prominent members of that crowd are no longer in service? thornhappy

Vendaval -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 1:23:00 PM)
Yup, throw enough bodies, bombs and money at any enemy...I mean foreign policy problem...and eventually the outcome may change! (sarcasm) quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The reason the US has such a poor image in the world is because of rightwing administrations knee jerk belief that military might can solve problems, it can't and after the Iraq debacle, it should be clear to all rightwingers that military power in isolation has very severe shortcomings.

Alumbrado -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 4:51:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If you read the various histories of the European Empires, the most successful was the British because unlike the others, it prefered to use soft power when and wherever possible. It controled India with less than half the troops the US has struggled to subdue Iraq with. It only used military might when it thought it had no option. I'm not saying the British Empire was a force for good, there is nothing good about imperialism, I'm just saying soft power served the Empire better than hard power. The reason the US has such a poor image in the world is because of rightwing administrations knee jerk belief that military might can solve problems, it can't and after the Iraq debacle, it should be clear to all rightwingers that military power in isolation has very severe shortcomings. Britain was successful in their military imperialism when they went after pretty much defenseless people, and there is no historical record of them being in the least reluctant to do so. All of which is beside the point of the OP. Hidden behind the grand sounding Nye-esque definition of 'Soft power' is a reality built on non-traditional military initiatives like addicting as many Chinese as possible to heroin, and propping up puppet dictatorships, forcibly relocating people like chess pieces, sending in smallpox infected blankets, covert assassinations, destabilization, and so forth... one would have to be incredibly naive to think that reference to 'soft power' as an adjunct to the 'long war' against an ideology, is only a plan to pursue honest diplomacy and negotiation... it is just another way of saying 'All's fair...'. When the US tried to emulate previous powers in those sorts of games, or even worse, tried to go in and clean up after England, France, and so on, the consequences came back to bite them in the rear, time after time. Among those consequences is a poor image in the world becase we didn't stick to open and recognized military operations, but tried to play the same old dirty tricks as had been played by the oppressors for centuries. Thinking that we can clean up Britain's mess in the Middle East by recycling things like the SOA, or otherwise attempting to change 'hearts and minds' by playing intrigue is bound to bring around the worst possible backlash, and using the euphemism 'soft power' is not going to help a thing.

Alumbrado -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 5:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: asyouwish72 <playing devil's advocate... read accordingly> quote: In all of history, how many times have belief systems been successfully eradicated in the long term by military operations? Any unintended consequences? History is absolutely full of them. I was compiling a list, but it looked a bit too radioactive to post. I'll include the first and last items, since neither should upset anyone too much: 1. The Empire of Carthage- this was militarily annihilated by the Romans in the late Republican period 2. National Socialism- everyone should already recall the details here quote: The Defense Department, in a new national defense strategy, also emphasized the need to subordinate military operations to "soft power" initiatives to undermine Islamist militancy by promoting economic, political and social development in vulnerable corners of the world. Sure, this could be as disastrous as our ham-handed propaganda responses to things like Al Jazeera, but "soft power" can cover an awful lot of ground and is not necessarily a bad thing. If building schools, roads, and clinics in poor/underdeveloped countries can help take the legs out from under extremist ideologies, that would seem a much wiser investment of resources than just sporadically assasinating ememy leaders with airstrikes. I had in mind examples of eradicating the belief system without eradicating the people....if the goal is to persuade them to change their way of thinking, they generally need to be left alive...so the Aztecs, Incas, and Carthage are all pretty much failures on that account. And I would submit that the National Socialists built a belief system that could probably be re-assembled in very short order, under the right conditions... not by that name perhaps. Italy even had a bout of revisionist Mussolini mania a few years ago. Later generations may embrace the darndest things. Agreed that soft power is not neccessarily a bad thing.. but when put forth by the current administration, I have little faith that they mean the idealized version. I'd love to be proven wrong, but...I'm skeptical.

Politesub53 -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 5:30:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Thinking that we can clean up Britain's mess in the Middle East by recycling things like the SOA, or otherwise attempting to change 'hearts and minds' by playing intrigue is bound to bring around the worst possible backlash, and using the euphemism 'soft power' is not going to help a thing. It`s naive to think that the current situation in the Middle East is solely due to British policies of the past. Although i can see where it`s easy to pass the blame to someone else. Yes Blair was foolish to agree to the action in Iraq, but there is more to the current situation than British imperialism after WW1. In the long term hears and minds, and financial aid, is the answer.

Alumbrado -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 5:51:04 PM)
Pass the blame to someone else? You seriously think George Bush had a hand in the Palestine Mandate, Transjordan, etc.?[8\|] Or the Suez Canal? Black Shabbat? Opium Wars? John Hawkins? General Amherst? Sorry, it is pure BS to cling to the notion that the British Empire was built by victory in honorable combat, and brilliant diplomacy. That may be what they are teaching in the schools over there, but it is not the whole story by a long shot. You are really reaching to call it passing the buck for condemning those atrocities which originated long before the current or even some previous US administrations.

Politesub53 -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/1/2008 6:13:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado To someone else? You seriously think George Bush had a hand in the Palestine Mandate, Transjordan, etc.?[8\|] So the U.S, France ect had no part in the UN mandate about Palestine. The US vote and Russia voted for it and the UK voted against it, Begin opposed it as did several Arab nations. Thats not even taking into account that the situation in Iraq stems from recent problems in Iraq and not past problems. Opps i almost forgot this. [8\|] Edits to add, i am not claiming the British Empire was perfect, and nor did Meatcleaver. We are both saying that most of it was done trough trading and technology, mostly in thanks to the industrial revoloution. You mention John Hawkins, but not William Wilberforce, who helped end slavery. You mention General Amherst yet there is no evidence he had authorised the introduction of smallpox infected blankets to the native indians, or that it was carried out successfully. Even so that doesnt represent the whole of the history of the Empire, just as Abu Gharib (SP)doesnt represent American history in general, or indeed the American people. Your posts on this issue really are selective.

pahunkboy -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/2/2008 8:18:45 AM)
not really. the pentagon is worng. the fight is and will be over resources to consume. russia and others will reallign. oil comes to mind but you could throw in fresh water as well and strategic metals. a few bad men with weapons isnt THE threat-- is is the complete breakdown of society which is the trheat. Gee. and I dont even work for the goverment...

Alumbrado -> RE: Geeezz! Now we're all gonna die.. (8/2/2008 8:40:26 AM)
quote: Your posts on this issue really are selective. Selective? As in your mentioning Wilberforce, who's 'conversion' came decades after American Quakers began the abolition movement (which the British resisted until 1840, and then set aside millions in reparations to slave owners)? As in arguing that slavery or todays' mess in the Middle East aren't the direct product of British imperialism? As in glossing over things like the wealth that every British citizen today benefits from being garnered through military imperialism combined with dishonorable tactics like the Opium Wars by pretending they were just a occurence like Abu Ghraib? Selective, like trying to shift the blame for that whole 'The sun never sets' empire thing, onto the bit players and later emulators? And trotting those claims out to argue against the notion that the US should at some point learn from the lesson of British and other imperialism? Riiiiight... [8\|]

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125