November 28, 2006
JUST WAIT FOR THE CHAPTERS WE HAVEN'T WRITTEN YET...:
Once upon a time in the west: a review of DANGEROUS NATION: America and the World 1600-1898 by Robert Kagan (Robert Cooper, Sunday Times of London)
The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 — that the US would not accept European interference in the Western hemisphere — was unilateral, like all subsequent American “doctrinesâ€. But America also retained an ideological preference for Britain over the continental powers; if not a republic, it was at least a liberal monarchy. This was not the special relationship that the British still like to imagine. Britain was the superpower of the day; and it is this that accounts for the remarkable survival of Canada on a continent where the United States took everything else within reach. Dealing with America is always easier if you are powerful.Why was the nation dangerous? Because it believed in itself and in its cause. America, Kagan tells us, was never a status quo power. It wanted to remake the world in its own image; and because its cause was righteous it saw no reason to limit its power. Reacting to the American wish to be rid altogether of the French and Indians, Edmund Burke argued for a balance of power in America. The idea that you could feel secure “only by having no other Nation near you was alien and repulsive to the European mindâ€. The search for absolute security — which was American policy then and now — represented, like the search for absolute power, immoderation; and that was dangerous.
So are idealism and democracy. The unnecessary wars that America fought in the 19th century — in 1812 against Britain, and in1898 against Spain — began on a wave of popular enthusiasm. (By contrast, America entered the necessary wars of the 20th century with reluctance.) Throughout this period the United States was long on ambition but short on the power to impose its ideals. But by the end of the century it had taken over most of the continent, settled the question of slavery, and was sending gunboats to Samoa, Brazil and Korea.
Dangerous Nation’s emphasis on democracy as a constant goal, accompanied occasionally by regime change (starting 200 years ago, during the war on piracy, with an attempt to overthrow the Pasha of Tripoli), make this a neoconservative history. Perhaps, but the case is well put and is beautifully written. This reader could not put it down, and cannot wait for part two.
MORE:
Back to the Future (Fouad Ajami, November 26, 2006, US News)
The sin of George W. Bush, to hear his critics tell it, is that he unleashed the forces of freedom in Arab-Islamic lands only to beget a terrible storm. In Iraq and in Lebanon, the furies of sectarianism are on the loose; and in that greater Middle East stretching from Pakistan to Morocco, the forces of freedom and reform appear chastened. Autocracy is fashionable once again, and that bet on freedom made in the aftermath of the American venture into Iraq now seems, to the skeptics, fatally compromised. For decades, we had lived with Arab autocracies, befriended them, taken their rule as the age-old dominion in lands unfit for freedom. Then came this Wilsonian moment proclaimed in the course of the war on Iraq. To the "realists," it had been naive and foolhardy to hold out to the Arabs the promise of freedom. We had bet on the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, thrilled to these young people in Beirut's plazas reclaiming their country from Syrian tyranny. But that promise, too, has been battered, and in the shadows, the old policy of ceding Lebanon to the rule of Syria's informers and policemen now claims a measure of vindication. On the surface of things, it is the moment of the "realists," then: They speak with greater confidence. The world had lived down, as it were, to their expectations. And now they wish to return history to its old rhythm.Posted by Orrin Judd at November 28, 2006 2:36 PMBut in truth there can be no return to the bosom of the old order. American power and the very force of what had played out in the Arab-Islamic lands in recent years have rendered the old order hollow, mocked its claims to primacy and coherence. The moment our soldiers flushed Saddam Hussein from his filthy spider hole, we had put on display the farce and swindle of Arab authority.
Primacy and power. We can't shy away from the very history we unleashed. We had demonstrated to the Arabs that the rulers are not deities; we had given birth to the principle of political accountability. In the same vein, we may not be comfortable with all the manifestations of an emancipated Arab Shiism--we recoil, as we should, from the Mahdi Army in Iraq and from Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut--but the Shiite stepchildren of the Arab world have been given a new claim on the Arab political order of primacy and power. In the annals of Arab history, this is nothing short of revolutionary. The Sunni Arab regimes have a dread of the emancipation of the Shiites. But American power is under no obligation to protect their phobias and privileges. History has served notice on their world and their biases. We can't fall for their legends, and we ought to remember that the road to all these perditions, and the terrors of 9/11, had led through Sunni movements that originated in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Odd, that Kagan does not include the Mexican War along with the War of 1812 and the Spanish-American War as among the "unnecessary" wars of the Nineteenth Century.
It should be apparent that all three were necessary wars such as Machievelli named just indeed. In each case, the real cause of the war was American manifest destiny. To create the kind of world in which the nation we willed to become could exist, it was necessary that we become a great and then a superpower.
In 1812 this meant opening what we then called the Northwest as against the savage. Mexico needs no explanation. 1898 was the explosion of Mahan's sea power. Each "unnecesary" war left us much more "dangerous," as Kaqan puts it than we had been before.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 28, 2006 5:17 PMIf we're so dangerous, how come nobody's scared of us and will leave us alone?
Posted by: Sandy P at November 28, 2006 5:43 PMThe smart ones are, and do.
The dumb ones aren't, and those that don't----eventually leave us alone. Unfortunately for them, they usually learn the hard way -- as we destroy them.
For those of us who have been alive long enough, remember the trouble that Qaddafi/Libya gave us? That suddenly stopped in 1986, when we sent air strikes in to indicate our displeasure.
Posted by: ray at November 28, 2006 8:12 PM"But American power is under no obligation to protect their phobias and privileges." So true. We should have left Iraq after extracting Saddam from his spider hole. Then we should get rid of the mullahs in Iran, and the optician in Syria. Each and everyone of these countries would fight their own civil wars until they realized that either they lived with each other like civilized human beings, or died like savages. Hopefully their mess also brought down the Saudis and their wahabism(?). Meanwhile, we can develop our and Canadian oils, and leave the rest of the damned world alone.
Posted by: ic at November 28, 2006 9:50 PM
“What kind of foreign policy does the American public want?†That's the central question posed by a new poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Among the chief findings of the polling of 1,058 Americans were: that “the United States would best serve the national interests by thinking in terms of being a ‘good neighbor'â€; and that the U.S. government “plays too much on the public's fear to justify its foreign policies.â€
Seventy-nine percent of the respondents believed that “the United States should think in terms of being a good neighbor with other countries because cooperative relationships are ultimately in the best interests of the United States.†That same broad majority said that the “United States should coordinate its power together with other countries according to shared ideas of what is best for the world as a whole.â€
Sixty-five percent agreed with the statement: “When the U.S. government justifies its foreign policies to the American people, it plays on people's fears too much.â€
The new poll, completed Oct. 15, underscores the longing of many Americans for a foreign policy that reflects the good neighbor principles of mutual respect and cooperation. It also pointed to the need for a foreign policy based on hope and determination rather than on fear.
Such a foreign policy is not an exercise of the imagination. “Mutual respect†and “freedom from fear†were the guiding principles of U.S. international relations during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
What kind of foreign policy does the American public want?
The data from the new PIPA poll offers new reason to believe that Americans would support a Global Good Neighbor policy that recognizes the limits of U.S. power, seeks the benefit of international cooperation, and wisely situates U.S. national interests within the context of an improved global neighborhood.
A.g.n.:
They may get their wish, but they aren't going to like the results.
Posted by: Peter B at November 29, 2006 6:39 AMThe data from the new PIPA poll offers new reason to believe that Americans would support a Global Good Neighbor policy . . . .
It might help my understanding if I knew what a "Global Good Neighbor" policy means. Is overthrowing tyrrany and promoting freedom part of the program? Or does "good neighbor" mean "agree with the UN on everything and keep sending the foreign aid checks"? Or something else entirely? More important, were the survey respondents provided a definition of "good neighbor" or were they left to supply their own understanding of the phrase, which could well have been different from PIPA's definition?
I don't ask all these questions just to be snarky. I write legal documents for a living, and we use explicit definitions for the sake of precision all the time. "Global Good Neighbor" is a brand name, not a description. If you want to persuade me to support it, you'll have to give me more than a marketing slogan.
Posted by: Mike Morley at November 29, 2006 6:48 AMIf an armed man held your family hostage would a good neighbor intervene or welcome the fact your kids were quiet for once?
Posted by: oj at November 29, 2006 7:40 AMDangerous to whom?
o/t - Still getting the same error messages when trying to post comments.
Posted by: erp at November 29, 2006 8:05 AM“Mutual respect†and “freedom from fear†were the guiding principles of U.S. international relations during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Yes. We all remember the great mutual respect that Hitler and Tojo and Roosevelt all showed each other, and the great world disarmament movement of 1938-45 that kept war from breaking out.*
*"Freedom from fear," according to FDR himself, "means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world."
Posted by: Mike Morley at November 29, 2006 8:52 AMI guess Kitty Genovese had good neighbors.
Posted by: jdkelly at November 29, 2006 8:52 AMThe Global Good Neighbor, aka isolationism.
Posted by: ed at November 29, 2006 9:04 AM