JohnR
09-05-2014, 07:27 AM
I was arguing on the Internet with someone recently, doch and was making my points with someone that thinks the US is the aggressor pushing the Kiev Nazis and that the peace loving Russian people are the victims. We were talking about the roughly 70 years of Pax Americana, roughly led by the US and the west, that has roughly influenced no major wars in 70 years. I also asked what would happen if the US continues to reduce out international footprint and influence, leaving a vacuum for the next likely candidates to occupy: Russia and China. Chew on that a bit.
Anyway, I read this yesterday from Mitt "2 years too soon" Romney which I thought summed up pretty well some of what I was saying. Military is not the only aspect but it is half of the carrot & stick, and certainly improves the efficiency of the carrot. We do need to have a more credible military and a much better State department with more career professionals then the political hacks that seem to be working these days.
Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,” according to the defense secretary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/08/21/pentagon-leaves-door-open-to-strikes-in-syria-to-curb-islamic-state/) ) threatens — and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.
Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.
The president asserts that we must move to “a new order that’s based on a different set of principles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/politics-of-the-past-decade-reflect-growing-uncertainty-among-people/2014/07/27/e57d25a4-1596-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html), that’s based on a sense of common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.
It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.
There are those who claim that a multipolar world is preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek to conquer the others, unleashing world war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-world-needs-a-mighty-us-military/2014/09/04/f5234064-342d-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html
Well put for the upcoming mushypolar world.
Anyway, I read this yesterday from Mitt "2 years too soon" Romney which I thought summed up pretty well some of what I was saying. Military is not the only aspect but it is half of the carrot & stick, and certainly improves the efficiency of the carrot. We do need to have a more credible military and a much better State department with more career professionals then the political hacks that seem to be working these days.
Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State (a terrorist threat “beyond anything that we’ve seen,” according to the defense secretary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/08/21/pentagon-leaves-door-open-to-strikes-in-syria-to-curb-islamic-state/) ) threatens — and Washington slashes the military. Reason stares.
Several arguments are advanced to justify the decimation of our defense. All of them are wrong.
The president asserts that we must move to “a new order that’s based on a different set of principles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/politics-of-the-past-decade-reflect-growing-uncertainty-among-people/2014/07/27/e57d25a4-1596-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html), that’s based on a sense of common humanity.” The old order, he is saying, where America’s disproportionate strength holds tyrants in check and preserves the sovereignty of nations, is to be replaced.
It is said that the first rule of wing-walking is to not let go with one hand until the other hand has a firm grip. So, too, before we jettison our reliance on U.S. strength, there must be something effective in its place — if such a thing is even possible. Further, the appeal to “common humanity” as the foundation of this new world order ignores the reality that humanity is far from common in values and views. Humanity may commonly agree that there is evil, but what one people calls evil another calls good.
There are those who claim that a multipolar world is preferable to one led by a strong United States. Were these other poles nations such as Australia, Canada, France and Britain, I might concur. But with emerging poles being China, Russia and Iran, the world would not see peace; it would see bullying, invasion and regional wars. And ultimately, one would seek to conquer the others, unleashing world war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-world-needs-a-mighty-us-military/2014/09/04/f5234064-342d-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html
Well put for the upcoming mushypolar world.