Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Thing is, though, they (the British) already did rule that part of the world, yet they intentionally gave it up. If we Americans wanted it, we could have taken it by force.
Absolutely not the case. The Americans, or the people who run the country, are smart enough to know that diplomacy will achieve more than war. For a start, wars are costly both in terms of investment and international condemnation.
Whether through diplomacy or war, both are costly. We've also had to put up with our share of international condemnation, although I'll agree that much of what the US government does seems to be motivated by wanting to keep up appearances. Still, it's not as if very many people are fooled by the whole charade.
There's also the question of whether or not it achieves its intended purpose. You say that diplomacy will achieve more than war, but in terms of Israel and the Middle East, we've been at this for nearly 70 years. If we haven't achieved positive control over the region yet, even after all this time, then I would question the efficacy of such a policy. Because of this, I would contend that the goals of the US government must be different than what you surmise. If control of the region was our goal, we should have achieved it by now.
quote:
Basically, parts of the world are left with two options - become like the Americans in terms of trade and ideas or face the threat of some sort of action whether that be sanctions or invasion. Invasion will always be a last resort. The US isnt the first country to act like this and there are plenty more out there which would willingly step into the United States shoes in terms of extending their influence.
Still, we're talking about the methods by which the US is allegedly seeking control over these parts of the world. As you probably already know, the US started out as an expansionist power seeking to control much of the North American continent, which we gained mostly through force. To me, the moral implications of greed, expansionism, and imposing our will on other nations are basically the same, whether done through war, subterfuge, or diplomatic intrigue.
The primary difference is whether we want to control a territory directly under our own laws and enforcement mechanisms - or through non-American proxies and mercenaries to whom we would have to give up part of our control to. It's a risk, and we've seen numerous times where the policy has failed to maintain US control. To the best of my knowledge, the US has never lost any of its own territory to war, insurrection, or revolution. But we have lost territories where we attempted to control by proxy, such as in Iran, Cuba, and South Vietnam. So, in terms of the US taking one path or the other, the covert rule-by-proxy approach has demonstrated a higher rate of failure. Hell, we've had to invade Iraq twice in the past quarter century due to wanting to keep up appearances and make the world think that we respect Iraqi sovereignty and independence. Yet, we still don't have them under any positive control and we might have to invade again.
So, either the US government doesn't actually want control over the region, or our policies have been engineered by complete twits who have led us to a failed foreign policy and a crumbling economy here at home.
The other countries of the world have more than just the two options you outlined above. There are other major powers in this world which, if they chose to, could seriously give the US a run for its money in terms of world domination. The US is not the only game in town. And, because we've wasted so much of our resources and capital on failed policies, we're now in an overall weaker position in terms of our reputation and ability to influence the world than we were at the end of WW2. Looking at the results of how it's affected America, the policy you're referring to has already shown itself to be a failure.
And there's still no end in sight.
quote:
It has been a long standing policy of the US government to maintain chaos in the region because it prevents a strong Arab front who would pose a greater threat to US interests in the area. Its more or less what the British Empire did for centuries.
There are some differences, the most notable of which is that the British Empire actually ruled directly over its domain. At least at first, they didn't make any pretense about any of these territories being "independent" or "sovereign," as we have done. The existence of the British Empire was also a source of great pride to them, and it wasn't kept secret or deemed "classified for reasons of national security."
It's a matter of flags. Which flag is flying over a territorial capital/HQ is what makes all the difference. When India became independent, they took down the British flag and raised up the Indian flag - all very public and above-board.
In the Middle East, the US position might also be somewhat conflicted, since we have different interests in the region. The most obvious interest is oil, but if oil is all that we're interested in, then all we'd have to do is draw upon our experience in Latin America and relive those glorious days of United Fruit. (But then again, Latin America has a good deal of oil too, so we don't really need Middle Eastern oil that much.)
Our support of Israel is different, since Israel doesn't really have much in the way of domestic oil production. Israel can't give us any oil, so our interests in that territory obviously have nothing to do with oil. It's the religion. Many US policymakers are religious, and in our history, not every policy implemented by the US necessarily has a direct economic benefit. Tyrants and conquerors may be power-mad and greedy, but there have been some who have embraced some rather kooky and mystical ideas, in addition to their violent avarice.
As a result, the incongruity between our religious interests and economic interests in the Middle East is what led us to this quagmire. Whatever failures we've seen is largely because we, as a country, can't seem to figure out what we want to do in this world or how we want to do it. Our own internal interests don't all run parallel or in concert with each other, and this is where our foreign policy can suffer due to inconsistent and biased ideas as to what constitutes "US interests" in the Middle East or elsewhere in the region.
Other reasons for wanting to control the region might be more strategic in nature, since that area is the hub between three continents and proximate to major shipping lanes.
quote:
Put simply, the US has strategic and economic interests in the area and as the worlds leading power they are in a position to make sure their ends are met, but theyd never in a million years waltz in there and use force unless they felt they had no other option, and at the moment they do have other options - create friendly Arab governments, maintain chaos in the region and support Israel as a like minded nation. And, its all qworking fine for the Americans as theyre getting what they want without a costly war.
But it isn't working fine, nor has it worked fine in a very long time. It works more like a machine which keeps breaking down and has to be constantly jerry-rigged and held together by spit and baling wire. I'm not saying that the US should use force, and I think that my opinion of US strategic and economic interests would be markedly different than that of those who formulate and implement US foreign policy. They're just thinking about their own interests, not the interests of the US as a whole.
Creating friendly Arab governments is also problematic, and from the point of view of US motorists who had to contend with oil embargoes and massive jumps in gasoline prices, we haven't really gotten a very good deal. Also, how can we create friendly Arab governments while concurrently maintaining chaos in the region? Political stability and harmony are far better for business than chaos, which is actually a dangerous and unnecessary risk. We've already seen a number of costly wars and other military actions in the region, as well as the cost of maintaining troops and a military infrastructure over there. If costs are the only factor here, then we have to weigh the costs and compare them between different options we have.
If we're attempting to maintain control through diplomatic intrigue and proxy governments, then we should examine the historical results of such methods as they've been used in the past, evaluating whether the long-term costs outweigh whatever short-term benefit might have been derived from carrying out such policies. We should also be mindful of how much blood has been spilled in the process of carrying out our "economic and strategic interests." We've also had to contend with a great deal of international condemnation and even some rather sharp criticisms from our own allies. I don't think we can continue this policy for much longer. Such a policy takes too much for granted and assumes too much, as if our policymakers still seem to believe that the world is still as it was back in the 1950s.
|
RE: The current middle eastern crisis is Israels fault... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread