There is definitely a middle ground between invading countries like Vietnam and Iraq on the one hand, and being complete isolationists on the other.
Isolationism won't work in the long run, and it throws allies under the bus in the short run. Doesn't mean the EU shouldn't be doing more, but that's not an excuse to just bail on people the way the US recently bailed on the Kurds.
Shame on Persuasion for following the narrative to support military intervention abroad. Same old military industrial complex feeding stories to media and “expert consultants” to manufacture consent for violence. Past examples too numerous to list. IT ISN’T DIFFERENT THIS TIME! The Russians and Chinese are not the threat portrayed. We are not morally justified in initiating violent conflict. Hell, given our intelligence community’s actions, our extra judicial drone killings, and covert operations, we aren’t even the good guys. A Democratic president’s violence is no more justifiable than a Republican’s.
It is revealing that in an article pretending to cover Foreign Policy since 1945, the neither the words "Vietnam" or "Iraq" are mentioned. American has to pick its fights more carefully than in the past. The recent ramping up of US opposition to Putin's probing of the Ukraine is a move in the right direction, as well as also bringing in Europe (reluctantly on their part to be sure). But we cannot engage every one of our scattered bases throughout the world against "bad guys" and have any long-term success, like that which was achieved against the U.S.S.R.
Europe has more people than the U.S. and a bigger economy. Of course, Europe is morally superior to the U.S. (at least they think so). Clearly, Europe should take the lead in advancing/defending/promoting the liberal international order. However, there is a deeper point here. China is very good at build dams. The U.S. is very good at enforcing PC. The U.S. is in no position to lead anything (other than exporting the poison of PC).
In 1970, the U.S. was a highly effective nation that could and did promote ‘liberal’ (using the European definition of ‘liberal’) values around the world. In the same year, China was a model (the Cultural Revolution) of insanity and highly ineffective (to say the least). Times change. The U.S. is now a model of ineffectiveness and China is a model of effectiveness.
In 1946, the US accounted for roughly 50% of global manufacturing output and around 50% of CO2. US oil and gas production was well above 50% of the world. The US was (by far) the dominant power of the world. Times change. 1946 was 76 years ago.
The global shift in economic output is just one reason, the U.S. can not lead the world as it once did. Of course, the US is hobbled by 'woke', but that is a separate story.
Not surprised this is just a book excerpt. It doesn't actually say much. You don't want the US to "pull back from the world and salve its wounds?" Ok. Not very useful to have a conversation about foreign policy at such a level of abstraction.
I'm surprised, and quite disappointed, to see so many comments here opposing the essay. As I pointed out in response to one of them, we are -- with all out faults -- clearly the Good Guys in relation to our global opponents. Ceding the field to them, then, will only make the world a worse place -- not just for America, but for everybody. Throwing around terms like "Forever Wars" is just sloganeering.
Reading these comments strongly suggests that the era of liberal interventionism is over. One commentor (miles) points out that the left and right are both isolationist these days (for different reasons). He is probably right.
If these wars are so key, then institute a military draft that applies to all, regardless of whether in college or not, etc etc. American wars should not be fought by a force drawn from about 2% of the population. Oh, and their costs should be borne in the present via taxes, especially by the rich who profit handsomely from them.
I take it that by "the debacle of Afghanistan" you mean that it lasted 20 years and not a single person has been held accountable for that disaster. And the same neo-con claque that drum-beat for Iraq is now hitting the airwaves (Bon Jour, Monsieur Frum) wanting more wars to definitely not be fought by their children nor paid for by their taxes.
great thoughts and provocation - thoughts on the perception at home and abroad of the current "leaders" of our society in the USA and how that reality effects this positive idea? thx
There is definitely a middle ground between invading countries like Vietnam and Iraq on the one hand, and being complete isolationists on the other.
Isolationism won't work in the long run, and it throws allies under the bus in the short run. Doesn't mean the EU shouldn't be doing more, but that's not an excuse to just bail on people the way the US recently bailed on the Kurds.
Shame on Persuasion for following the narrative to support military intervention abroad. Same old military industrial complex feeding stories to media and “expert consultants” to manufacture consent for violence. Past examples too numerous to list. IT ISN’T DIFFERENT THIS TIME! The Russians and Chinese are not the threat portrayed. We are not morally justified in initiating violent conflict. Hell, given our intelligence community’s actions, our extra judicial drone killings, and covert operations, we aren’t even the good guys. A Democratic president’s violence is no more justifiable than a Republican’s.
It is revealing that in an article pretending to cover Foreign Policy since 1945, the neither the words "Vietnam" or "Iraq" are mentioned. American has to pick its fights more carefully than in the past. The recent ramping up of US opposition to Putin's probing of the Ukraine is a move in the right direction, as well as also bringing in Europe (reluctantly on their part to be sure). But we cannot engage every one of our scattered bases throughout the world against "bad guys" and have any long-term success, like that which was achieved against the U.S.S.R.
Europe has more people than the U.S. and a bigger economy. Of course, Europe is morally superior to the U.S. (at least they think so). Clearly, Europe should take the lead in advancing/defending/promoting the liberal international order. However, there is a deeper point here. China is very good at build dams. The U.S. is very good at enforcing PC. The U.S. is in no position to lead anything (other than exporting the poison of PC).
In 1970, the U.S. was a highly effective nation that could and did promote ‘liberal’ (using the European definition of ‘liberal’) values around the world. In the same year, China was a model (the Cultural Revolution) of insanity and highly ineffective (to say the least). Times change. The U.S. is now a model of ineffectiveness and China is a model of effectiveness.
The era of U.S. leadership is over.
In 1946, the US accounted for roughly 50% of global manufacturing output and around 50% of CO2. US oil and gas production was well above 50% of the world. The US was (by far) the dominant power of the world. Times change. 1946 was 76 years ago.
The global shift in economic output is just one reason, the U.S. can not lead the world as it once did. Of course, the US is hobbled by 'woke', but that is a separate story.
Not surprised this is just a book excerpt. It doesn't actually say much. You don't want the US to "pull back from the world and salve its wounds?" Ok. Not very useful to have a conversation about foreign policy at such a level of abstraction.
I'm surprised, and quite disappointed, to see so many comments here opposing the essay. As I pointed out in response to one of them, we are -- with all out faults -- clearly the Good Guys in relation to our global opponents. Ceding the field to them, then, will only make the world a worse place -- not just for America, but for everybody. Throwing around terms like "Forever Wars" is just sloganeering.
Reading these comments strongly suggests that the era of liberal interventionism is over. One commentor (miles) points out that the left and right are both isolationist these days (for different reasons). He is probably right.
OK!!!! We get it: Forever Wars.
If these wars are so key, then institute a military draft that applies to all, regardless of whether in college or not, etc etc. American wars should not be fought by a force drawn from about 2% of the population. Oh, and their costs should be borne in the present via taxes, especially by the rich who profit handsomely from them.
I take it that by "the debacle of Afghanistan" you mean that it lasted 20 years and not a single person has been held accountable for that disaster. And the same neo-con claque that drum-beat for Iraq is now hitting the airwaves (Bon Jour, Monsieur Frum) wanting more wars to definitely not be fought by their children nor paid for by their taxes.
What a disgusting gaslighting article.
I am extremely grateful for your objection!
great thoughts and provocation - thoughts on the perception at home and abroad of the current "leaders" of our society in the USA and how that reality effects this positive idea? thx
Happy to see Raymond Aron acknowledged for his tough-minded lucidity. His realism was never defeatist