This ultimate provocation, alas, can no longer be ignored.

Time to declare the War On Banality.

I take the point about the phrase "war on terrorism", but I think this point is oversold. The phrase does, after all, have a meaning that is immediately intellible to the intended audiences, both among our friends and our enemies, and that meaning is different from a "war on Islamicism". The war on terror is, in fact, a better phrase, as Islamicism would be misunderstood, mostly willfully, by both audiences. Nor is this type of phrase unique: Wilson, after all, felt he had to sell WWI, not as a war on Germany, or even to save England and France, but rather as the war on war, so to speak.

The point, of course, is that if Afghanistan or Iran or whoever wants to reestablish the Caliphate within its territory, or enforce shari'a, that's not any particular business of ours. Such a course is it's own punishment and worse than anything we could inflict, but we will treat acts of terror against us -- by those governments or their non-governmental allies -- in furtherance of that program as acts of war to which we will respond as we see fit.

Looked at this way, we see that a war on Islamicism would be too broad, though it would fit well with your theory that, if we can easily do so, we have an obligation to free unfortunate foreigners from oppressive regimes.

War on Terror, war on Islamicism, war on Iraq, whatever. This is the one thing that drives me totally nuts about the media. They do not understand that a clear majority of Americans know who we are fighting in this war, labels or no labels. The current poll in the Washington Post is one example I saw today. They kept asking questions as if the War on Terror and Iraq were two different things. Maybe to 30% (Dean) of the population they are. But to most Americans they are the same thing. I guess just because Bush says they are it just can't be true.

One of my bigger concerns(among many) is the short attention span of Americans.Give us WW2 and its measurable progress and we do okay.I fear given a generation long war,fought largly in shadows out of public view will not hold public attention.Look at how quickly we've returned to our hedonism after 9/11.

Except that we bailed out of WWII with the USSR still extant and dominating Eastern Europe--democracies win wars and lose peaces.

There's also lesson to be learned in the ways in which the Wars against Fascism and Communism were fought. The first was publicly bloody and caused a lot of people a lot of pain but was over quickly, while the second was more private and caused a lot of people a lot of discomfort but only a few people a lot of pain and that pain lasted a long time. (and in somecases like North Korea and Cuba, still lasts.)

A lot of the so-called, self-described anti-war types haven't figured out that the Islamists/Terrorists are not just going to go away quietly if we ignore them So the choice is between which type of war we are going to fight, and pacifists seem to be determined, in the name of ~peace~, it make sure this conflict is as bloody and painful and deadly as possible.

OJ,we fought WW2 for the same reason we fought WW1,to prevent one power dominating eurasia.The Cold War was simply an extension of that policy.

M:

That's British policy, not ours. What do we care?

"...they'll collapse on their own" and "what do we care?"

The problem is, before they collapse, they might kill us first. That's what we care.

In addition, of course, to out Christian roots, that we *do* care when we see others suffer and can extend a helping hand. You can see that with the Iraq situation. If we didn't care about the people, we'd have just flattened Baghdad from 45,000 feet.

OJ,it is our policy that any power strong enough to dominate eurasia is a threat to us.We went to war with Mexico in 1846 less for land than to destroy a potential continental rival.

M:

That's nonsense, we've never cared about that any more than we'd allow Europe to prevent us from dominating our hemisphere. That's why WWI and WWII required actual "attacks" on us before we'd pay any attention.

ray:

What are the Europeans going to do to us while they're busy fending off their own Algerians and Turks? And we already know from experience that a mere Holocaust won't get us to intervene.

OJ,we never cared because Britain stood between us and them.

The US has persued 3 basic foreign policies:

1)Secure national indepence
BY
2)Levering eurpoean power out of the new world and preventing any new world rival(hence the war with Mexico)
3)Oppose the strongest power in eurasia,an extension of British contenintal policy.(culture counts)Fisrt Germany,then Russia and in the future,China and the EU(if they pull it together,which I strongly doubt).

"What are the Europeans going to do to us while they're busy fending off their own Algerians and Turks?"

European economic collapse would be catastrophic,despite your anit-eruo views,you should see that.The collapse in world trade would trigger reactions everywhere that could make the 1930's look almost good in comparison.The legitimacy of the CCP rest entirely on nationalism and economic growth,would you enjoy a nationalist China on a rampage after their trade dries up?The return of latin fascism in S. America?

M:

Thus our opposition to Napoleon? Victorian England? Tsarist Russia? Nazi Germany? German Reunification? etc., etc., etc.

Europe is going to collapse economically, get over it.

"Thus our opposition to Napoleon? Victorian England? Tsarist Russia? Nazi Germany? German Reunification? etc., etc., etc"

Britain did it for us.

"Europe is going to collapse economically, get over it"

I know it will,and it will be a disaster not confined to Europe.
Do you mind if I scream as the car goes over the cliff?

No, Britain did it for Britain. There is no significant school of thought in 200 years of American diplomacy that we need share Britain's concern over a dominant power in Europe, thus our historic isoltaionism/unilateralism.

It's not our car. Wave at it and laugh.

Mr. Judd;

It's not our car but it's going to land on our house.

Britain eliminates France in Canada

WE take independence from Britain

We eliminate Spain by buying FLA(and finish them off in 1898)

We prevent French return by buying LA.

We eliminate Mexico as potential rival 1846-48

We eliminate Russia by buying Alaska.

We threaten to invade Mexico,demand French withdrawl.

We invade CAnada twie and fight 2 wars with Britain and avoid war at least twice more in the 19th century.Roosevelt levers Britain(last euro empire in new world)out of caribean with bases for destryers deal.

WE engage in Cold War after Britain pulls out of Greece,Russia breaks wartime agreements and realize Europe too weak to contain USSR.

Isolationist history?

That's all our Hemisphere, where you're right: our doctrine is that one power should predominate. In fact, the longest periods of European peace--Napolean until WWI and WWII until now--occurred when predominant powers arose there: Britain and then USSR--suggesting that if peace is the goal a bipolar world works best for us.

AOG:

That's what we convinced ourselves when we got ourselves into WWI, WWII and the Cold War for no good reason...

We mistake each other,OJ.I agree we don't really care what happens in eurasia,as long as one power does not dominate and therefore threaten us.But we will take steps if that seems likely.Had Europe been able to contain the USSR,we would have withdrawn(as we were doning prior to 9/11),but they could not,so we assumed the burden.

To the list of interventions above above,let me add these outside the western hemisphere:

Hawaii,the Barbary Coast,Japan and Korea and a number of pacific islands we did not value but claimed simply to keep them away from Germany as coaling stations for their Pacific squadron(including one naval incident),all in the 19th century.

We have only been isolationist in the same way Britain was merely seeking favorable trade terms in the sub-continent.

Nazi Germany stretched from Paris to Cairo to Stalingrad and we didn't bat an eyelash. You're simply mistaken.

Whatever the value of this interesting debate about 19th century foreign policy (and Orrin's view is hard to fit into our actual behavior, opening Japan and -- even odder -- Korea), the world revolves, and Barnett's views relate to a totally different situation.

When Chinese Gordon set out to chastise the Mahdists,there was no possibility that, even if he lost his head (as he did), the Mahdists were going to create trouble in London or New York.

As we set out to chastise the new Mahdists (and that's exactly what they are), there is every possibility that, even if very largely repressed, they may be able to do great damage in London or New York.

Furthermore, the Mahdists of today, unlike those of 1898, are capable of forming and willing to form deadly alliances against us with infidels (Columbian drug runners, N. Korean communists).

Barnett is well past his sell-by date. His strategic thinking, as applied to World War II, was acute. As applied to the 21st century, foolish.

"Nazi Germany stretched from Paris to Cairo to Stalingrad and we didn't bat an eyelash. You're simply mistaken."

Lend Lease.
Destroyers for Bases deal.
U.S. destroyers escorting Brit convoys in E. Atlantic.
U.S. occupation of Greeneland.

Greenland? That put us right in the middle of Europe.

Hitler thought so. Aden put Britain in the heart of Arabia, too.

It would interesting to know how you interpret the confrontation between Mackinder and Mahan. You sound like a Mackinerist. The last one in captivity, I believe.

Harry:

They were both wrong. Neither land nor sea matter. No one can dominate other peoples for long.

Orrin:

Maybe not, but boy, can they cause painful havoc during the short times they can.

As opposed to the wars?

US policy outside the western hemisphere has not been domination ,but to prevent domination.Let the powers of eurasia intrigue and compete(and latin america as well),as long as one doesn't become dominant.We are a naval power for the same reason the UK was a naval power,it gives us options and denies options to others.Ask Napoleon and Hitler and the CCP today how wide a strip of water really can be,after all.

Orrin:

Yes, as opposed to the wars. If we are just measuring death and pain and trying to avoid it, Europe's approach to international affairs has much to commend it.

Define "long." The Mongols dominated the Russians for longer than the U.S. has existed, the Muslims dominated the Hindus for longer than the U.S. has existed, the Turks dominated the Arabs for longer than the U.S. has existed.

None of them were modern peoples. The 20th Century experience suggests a maximum of forty years before the Imperial power crumbles because of its own contradictions, but the USSR likely would have crumbled faster had we not opposed it and thereby unified its people.

Taken over history, two data points don't amount to much of a case against taking the precautionary approach.

I advocate the precautionary approach--eschew war; the isms will crumble from within.

All of those big tyrannies were under considerable outside pressure.

It's true that they all also went looking for trouble where (to an outsider's thinking) they did not have to.

It's a fair question, I think, whether the Japanese militarists would have been ousted if the Army had got its way and attacked north instead of the Navy which attacked south.