Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on December 16, 2006, 05:59:17 PM
-
(Charles Krauthammer article continues)
Historically, whenever one country has arisen above all the
others in power, anti-hegemonic alliances immediately formed
against them. The classic example is the alliance against
Napoleon in the early nineteenth century, and of course the
alliances against Germany from World War I to World War II,
particularly in the 1930s, where you had the rise of an
aggressive, hegemonic Germany in the heart of Europe. What
is interesting about our unipolar era is that whereas we had
achieved unprecedented hegemony in the first decade and a
half, there were no alliances against us. What I think we
are beginning to see now is Iran positioning itself at the
center of a regional alliance against us, again with the--
Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Sadr--looking to overawe the entire
region with the acquisition of nuclear weapons, which would
make it the regional superpower. And Iran is receiving tacit
backing for its regional and anti-American ambitions from
two great powers: Russia and China. That, I think, is the
structure of the adversary that we will be looking at for
the decades to come.
As the Bush Doctrine has come under attack, there are those
in America who have welcomed its apparent setbacks and
defeats as a vindication of their criticism of the policy.
But the problem is that that kind of vindication leaves
America in a position where there are no good alternatives.
The reason that there is general despair now is because if
it proves to be true that the Bush Doctrine has proclaimed
an idea of democratizing the Arab/Islamic world that is
unattainable and undoable, then there are no remaining
answers to how to counter ultimately the threat of Islamic
radicalism.
It remains the only plausible answer--changing the culture
of that area, no matter how slow and how difficult the
process. It starts in Iraq and Lebanon, and must be allowed
to proceed and not precipitate an early and premature
surrender. That idea remains the only conceivable one for
ultimately prevailing over the Arab Islamic radicalism that
exploded upon us 9/11. Every other is a policy of retreat
and defeat that would ultimately bring ruin not only on the
U.S. but on the very idea of freedom.
-
:huh
-
Do you have a point or is this just boozonics posting walls of text in multiple threads because you're too drunk to do it in one?
-
Sorry for my clumsiness in posting this presentation. Midway through, I realized I should have just tried to link it.
But it's readable if you take it slowly, and if I didn't think it wasn't one of the best summations of the Middle East dilemma, I certainly would not have bothered posting it.
Don't let my awkward posting turn you off from this piece. Everyone should read it. I mean, everyone.
-
even Dexter Manley?
-
It was a good read Halo. Thanks for posting it.
-
Krauthammer is a genius, but they gonna delete your post, save mebbe the link
-
"More effort spent in 5 threads than 1." I hate math, but in this case, it would've worked for me.
-
Learn from my mistakes.
1. This article forwarded fine in AOL. So thought I could just copy and paste it here. Wrong. This bulletin board limits lengths. I've seen a couple two-part posts here and they weren't bad. So I started breaking it up. Too long for two parts; thought surely three would work. Nope. Had to add a fourth. Well, clumsy, but readable, and the article is worth it.
2. Early on, thought I'd just link it. But I was too obtuse to realize that when copying a link that ended a sentence, that period was enough to make the link fail with the message: Site Under Construction. Another misleading error message.
After the four-parter was finally completed, finally figured out to delete the period in the link.
Now you have this article in four parts here, or a link. That's all I can do. I hope you get past the construction and realize this is a very fine article well worth your time.
-
What strikes me is his examples of the two regimes which had anti hegomanic alliances formed against them. Both were aggressive empire building dictatorships. Both had illusions of grandeur and both believed in their right to conquer. Both were ultimately defeated as much by their own hubris as their enemies.
I don't think the United States can realistically be compared to Napolean's France or Hitler's Germany. However the USA has been described as an empire and has many features of an empire. But Washington is not the new Rome. Washington does not so much control it's empire with troops and bureaucrats but by it's economic muscle and it's influence.
However it is all in the perception. If Iran, Syria et al are forming an alliance against the United States. It is because they believe that the USA is changing the culture of that area
It's a threat to their world order. To their mind it's empire building and they have the example of Iraq to show them what will happen if you take on the USA alone. That perceived threat drives them into the arms of the radicals or at least gives them a shared enemy.
Also there is a persistent notion that Islamic radicalism is something new. It's a permanent feature of Islam. It waxes and wanes and is mostly aimed against other Muslims. Only lately has it directed it's energies at the west in general and the US in particular. That in part is due to their belief that the USA is changing the culture of that area
The USA also supports the regimes radicals hate.
Attempting to bring democratisation to these countries may in fact have the opposite effect. The current rulers don't want it and neither do the radicals. Not exactly fertile ground for the seeds of freedom and democracy.
-
That perceived threat drives them into the arms of the radicals or at least gives them a shared enemy.
--- They ARE the radicals, they BREED the radicals, they TRAIN the radicals, and they FUND the radicals
The USA also supports the regimes radicals hate.
--i.e. Israel--Let Israel fall and the Jews therein be slaughtered, ...mebbe they won't hate us quite as much
Attempting to bring democratisation to these countries may in fact have the opposite effect. The current rulers don't want it and neither do the radicals. Not exactly fertile ground for the seeds of freedom and democracy.
Yup, can't argue that point--saw an article the other day which pointed out that there are only 3 REAL countries in the middle east, the rest are mobs controlled by dictators, or chunks of land parsed out by wars--Egypt, Iran, and Turkey being the real ones
-
Thanks Halo, interesting read.
Any chance you can edit the multiple posts, and make each section a reply to the previous section all in one post?
Definately worth reading, just hard to find all the parts.
-
Hmmm, posting a long find by making each section a reply to the previous. Yeah, good idea for future posts. I certainly did this one long and backwards.
Too late for me to edit it anymore, but you can read it quick and clean by reading the link post and clicking on the link, which I finally got right.
I mean this link, right here:
http://www.fpri.org