tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post2266195179040814921..comments2024-03-19T11:28:58.168-04:00Comments on History Unfolding: Whither the USA?David Kaiserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-29579837231254608512007-02-15T08:36:00.000-05:002007-02-15T08:36:00.000-05:00In response to anonymous, the current national sec...In response to anonymous, the current national security strategy states:<BR/><BR/>"The President and Secretary of Defense continue to highlight the increasingly<BR/>dangerous nature and capabilities of adversaries. The threat posed by adversaries,<BR/>especially those that possess WMD/E, is so great that the United States must adopt a<BR/>global posture and take action to prevent conflict and surprise attack. Achieving<BR/>this objective includes actions to shape the security environment in ways that<BR/>enhance and expand multinational partnerships. Strong alliances and coalitions<BR/>contribute to mutual security, tend to deter aggression, and help set conditions for<BR/>success in combat if deterrence fails. Preventing conflict and surprise attack is not,<BR/>however, solely defensive. The potentially catastrophic impact of an attack against<BR/>the United States, its allies and its interests may necessitate actions in self-defense to<BR/>preempt adversaries before they can attack."<BR/><BR/> "Before they attack" would be pre-emptive war. "Before they can attack is preventive war. And I don't care how many other people may have supported either option--I don't.David Kaiserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05020082243968071584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-41045777162536497772007-02-14T16:19:00.000-05:002007-02-14T16:19:00.000-05:00Where in the 2006 NSS does the Bush adminstration ...Where in the 2006 NSS does the Bush adminstration require "preventative war?"<BR/><BR/>Page 16 talks about "some conflicts" that require conflict intervention. In the same paragraph, the document talks not about taking unilateral military action, but strengthening NATO and the UN. <BR/><BR/>Page 17 states there is a "moral imperative that states take action to prevent and punish genocide." However, the cited USG efforts are "economic, diplomatic, and law-enforcement." <BR/><BR/>Page 18 and 23 talk about acting preemptively in the interest of self-defense -- an option even John Kerry was emphatic about retaining. <BR/><BR/>If you mean the 2002 NSS, John Gaddis treats that subject in his Jan 05 Foreign Affairs piece. <BR/><BR/>The 2006 NSS does advocate the "most effective long-term measure for conflict prevention and resolution is the promotion of democracy." However, so does the 2003 European Security Strategy -- "The best protection for our security is a world of well-governed democratic states."<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting the President should base his foreign policy on popular opinion? If the Democrats believe their majorities in Congress resulted from a rejection of the President's foreign policy, especially in Iraq, then they should cut off funding and stop this "non-binding" resolution tact. Should Wilson have changed his course after the 1918 mid-term elections? Gulf War I would not have occurred if Bush 41 followed public opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-15297158397968457642007-02-11T16:21:00.000-05:002007-02-11T16:21:00.000-05:00A Time magazine review of it drew my attention to ...A Time magazine review of it drew my attention to Generations in 1991. I found the work useful in that it provided (what seemed to me to be) a sensible paradigm through which to view the flow of American history. So, late in the day of 9/11/2001 my thoughts drifted back to a paragraph on page 382 of the book:<BR/><BR/>“What happens if the crisis comes early? What if the Millennium--the year 2000 or soon thereafter--provides Boomers with the occasion to impose their “millennial” visions on the nation and the world? The generational cycle suggests that the risk of cataclysm would be very high. During the 2000-2009 decade, Boomers will be squarely in midlife and nearing the peak of their political and institutional powers. From a lifecycle perspective, they will be exactly where the Transcendentals were when John Brown was planning his raid on Harper’s Ferry. Boomers can best serve civilization by restraining themselves (or by letting themselves be restrained by others) until their twilight years, when their spiritual energy would find expression not in midlife leadership, but in elder stewardship.”<BR/><BR/>Of course, they were not restrained, by themselves or others. The good news is, the nation moved on from the truncated Civil War cycle. The bad news is, as horrible as the killing technology of the late 1800s was, ours today is infinitely worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-73097680839192035332007-02-11T14:07:00.000-05:002007-02-11T14:07:00.000-05:00Rice has always struck me as a Galatea --an anti-A...Rice has always struck me as a Galatea --an anti-Angela Davis construct, virgin and conservative. Just unreal. <BR/><BR/>Flying back from Spain, there were some US overseas contractors. Conversing among themselves, they compared Bush to a gambler who, losing badly at the table, bets everything he has.Nur-al-Cubiclehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13240215262850274264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8746692.post-54302112564504103662007-02-11T10:40:00.000-05:002007-02-11T10:40:00.000-05:00Very good, as usual. 2 Comments:1) Rice is, as u...Very good, as usual. 2 Comments:<BR/>1) Rice is, as usual, wrong about the Great War. The multipolar European state system was the backdrop for Great War, but the War itself resulted from the German decision to upend that system. The German leadership wished to impose their version of what you call benign hegemony. As with so much else, Rice is ignorant of the basic facts of modern European history.<BR/>2) Hamilton's comment does not specifically apply to the "democratic peace theory" idea. The basic idea of the latter is that democracies don't fight each other, though they certainly fight other types of regimes. Republics, like Rome and Sparta are not democracies in the modern sense. This idea originates with Kant's theoretical writings in his Perpetual Peace but has good empiric support. There is a meticulous examination of this hypothesis in a book by the historian and former physicist Spencer Weart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com