The collapsing presidency of George Bush taking us all with it
Take just a minute to buzz through the first half of this interview with new Russian PM Medvedev.
It's really pretty unbelievable, but, I think importantly, it captures the current state and tone of the world towards the US and the current US president. Countries are simply ignoring the proclamations and wants of the Bush administration without real consequence, without any fear.
Our country is viewed as wounded, by Iraq, by debt, by oil prices, by our mortgage and economic crisis......
This administration began by swaggering about trying to use the military and blunt diplomatic force to bludgeon the world towards (what they viewed as) US ends. Instead they ended up hollowing out the country.
This was always the problem with the vision of "the Project for a New American Century." It's basic premise was to use the current US military advantage to try and hold back the larger shifting historical trends. But you can't do that.
The forces moving America from hyperpower back to superpower are the waves of history, and a few small wars cannot hold back the endemic and systemic economic and cultural trends that are making that happen.
This was always my primary disagreement with the Bush administration. We should have spent this time building international legal frameworks that would work to our advantage later rather than spending everything we had on some half assed plan to try and hold back history in the sands of Iraq.
(Sorry, not much of a July 4 message, but there are days when you've just had enough.)
It's really pretty unbelievable, but, I think importantly, it captures the current state and tone of the world towards the US and the current US president. Countries are simply ignoring the proclamations and wants of the Bush administration without real consequence, without any fear.
Our country is viewed as wounded, by Iraq, by debt, by oil prices, by our mortgage and economic crisis......
This administration began by swaggering about trying to use the military and blunt diplomatic force to bludgeon the world towards (what they viewed as) US ends. Instead they ended up hollowing out the country.
This was always the problem with the vision of "the Project for a New American Century." It's basic premise was to use the current US military advantage to try and hold back the larger shifting historical trends. But you can't do that.
The forces moving America from hyperpower back to superpower are the waves of history, and a few small wars cannot hold back the endemic and systemic economic and cultural trends that are making that happen.
This was always my primary disagreement with the Bush administration. We should have spent this time building international legal frameworks that would work to our advantage later rather than spending everything we had on some half assed plan to try and hold back history in the sands of Iraq.
(Sorry, not much of a July 4 message, but there are days when you've just had enough.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:43 AM
6 Comments:
So the only ones Bush sway to his will... is the US Congress. The putative watchdog of the Executive branch. Un-frickin'-believable.
By
-epm, at 8:22 AM
I really think you're being too hard on this Dem Congress. They're positioning. Getting the GOP veto pen gone is worth a whole lot towards future legislation, so if they have to make a few deals now......
But, yeah, in the minority they were complicit.
By
mikevotes, at 10:45 AM
It's basic premise was to use the current US military advantage to try and hold back the larger shifting historical trends. But you can't do that.
Exactly so.
I would say that the neocon (PNAC) premise was to create an American Empire without all of the messy administrative work that colonies entail. We just dictate the "important stuff", and the "colony's" military makes sure it happens.
That has always been the sticking point with empires; they are expensive to administer, both in terms of money and military force. This was, however, the "upside" of being a colony, ostensibly. The imperial power would manage things and make the trains run on time, so to speak. PNAC found a way around that: we don't care if the trains run on time, we don't care about an "upside". We just want control on a few things, and the colony has basically go to hell beyond that. Any problems with that model could be solved by "giving the wogs a whiff of the grapeshot", in terms that the British Empire would have put it.
This all falls apart because we aren't dealing with nations armed with spears anymore. Any third-rate insurgency can now acquire weapons roughly equal to our own - not bombers, tanks, and field artillery, but those are only really useful in a conventional war. They are a liability to an insurgency, requiring a substantial infrastructure. This is what Vietnam should have taught us, but it didn't.
As far as the complicity of the Democrats, it's important to point out that the Party is not a monolithic force like the GOP is. It was the DLC that pushed the whole capitulation thing, in a misguided effort to 'win' by being "Bush-lite". Hillary's defeat, however marginal, was the leading edge of the increasing irrelevance of the DLC.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:46 PM
And there's a point at which the military application no longer fits.
I think there's definitely a point to be made that the increase in single man powered weaponry has dramatically shifted the equations, but I'm not so sure that hard power doesn't still play a role in all of this.
I disagreed with the Central American operations strongly because I didn't think the human cost was worth the Imperial benefit, but it could be argued that that worked. It put off the anti-American wave for at least two decades.
(A little longer. The increase in the power of available single man weaponry, AK, then RPG, now medium tech explosives has drastically changed the equation, but I'm not so sure that it necessarily automatically negates the power play.
The real problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there is a weak, non-functioning, conflicted state which is playing several sides. If we were stepping in to assist a functioning police state, with a functioning security force, borders and weapons control would go much better. But instead we're dealing with governments and security forces riddled with the enemy.
Plus, in both cases, you have huge crossborder support for the chaos with no real ability to shut that off. Sort of a Ho Chi Minh trail into the insurgency battlefield.
It's still harder than it used to be on the generic tabletop (like Indonesia, maybe?), but Iraq and Afghanistan are far more complicated than the generic tabletop.
You know what I'm saying?)
By
mikevotes, at 3:51 PM
The real problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there is a weak, non-functioning, conflicted state which is playing several sides. If we were stepping in to assist a functioning police state, with a functioning security force, borders and weapons control would go much better. But instead we're dealing with governments and security forces riddled with the enemy.
Absolutely agree. I was going much more broadly on the concept of empire feasibility, though.
but I'm not so sure that it necessarily automatically negates the power play
It means that you can't do whatever the hell you want without people fighting back and making the costs greater than the benefit to you.
It put off the anti-American wave for at least two decades.
Ah, Mike, yer killin' me.
There's a difference (and a not-so-subtle one) between an "anti-American" regime and one that refuses to be dominated, controlled, and played as a pawn by some dark forces within the American government.
We ensured compliant regimes (some democratic, some not - we don't really care) for two decades. Hooray?
I imagine this sounds very leftist and America-hating, but it's not. It's about calling a spade a spade. It's about control, not democracy or the best interests of other countries. In virtually every case, these "anti-American" enemies really are "anti-US-policy" and turn out to like America itself.
So, yes, I know what you're saying.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 7:05 PM
Fair point on anti-American vs. local support. I was caught in the devil's advocate camp arguing for military action towards empire. It has a habit of corrupting thought.
One of the many reasons we shouldn't do it.
By
mikevotes, at 10:25 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home