security and insecurity

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"

I know I wrote in my last post that I'd sit on my hands and wait for
others to respond but darnit it's just so hard to keep quiet. So
I'll for the moment just restrict my comment to one of your
paragraphs.

> Just for a start, the USA is currently fighting two major foreign
> wars (Afghanistan, Iraq)

Really, did the US have a choice with either country? Afghanistan
was a viper's nest of terrorists and the central government of the
Taliban was giving them refuge and active support. What should the
US have done? Invited Osama and Mullah Omar over for a State Dinner
and asked them why they attacked the WTC? Perhaps awarded them State
Honors in the hopes that they would play nice. Should the US have
ignored the national trauma of 9/11?

Iraq flouted 12 years of UN resolutions, kicked out inspectors, and
by its own statements was developing WMD.

Look how hard a task the US is having in Iraq. Now consider that the
US has the world's most sophisticated military and is probably the
only military that can deploy 150,000 troops, and if it needed to
could go significantly higher.

It is a sad state of affairs that Canada can't muster more than
2,000 troops for overseas deployment to Afghanistan and has no
sealift ability to move its materiel. It even has its equipment held
hostage by private shippers.

Europe as a whole is in about the same state of affairs. It couldn't
even keep order in the Balkans which are only a few hundred
kilometers from Austria, across peaceful Slovenia.

We've seen with the Balkans and with 12 years of UN sanctions
against Iraq how effective *soft power* is. Soft power is a fallacy.
The kind of people who cause international havoc are bullies, they
understand how to intimidate (Saddam, Milosevic) and they don't
bargain as *gentlemen.* They're quite happy to stab you in the back
if it will benefit them. Soft, persuasive power means squat with
that type of adversary.

The US has *hard power* at its disposal and it has the option of
using persuasion or force.

Europe and Canada don't have the option of hard power. It's galling
for them to see themselves marginalized through self-inflicted lack
of means. The game for them is a misguided one. What has become a
primary goal is to hobble the US. Not hobbling the underlying issues
that the US feels are national threats and quite properly are also
broad threats to the rest of the world but actively opposing US
power in its own right. The anti-war protests aren't so much anit-
war as anti-US and greatly exacerbated by anti-Bush fervor that is
heaped on top of the anti-US feelings.

If Europe had to act to defend itself in some fashion as the US is
doing now, it COULDN'T muster the force that the US has in Iraq.
That is pitiful.

Terrorists operating from Afghanistan and a madman with WMD are
threats to the WORLD, not just the US. These terrorists aren't the
same as the Bader-Meinhof, IRA, Red Brigades. This is a whole new
war, where WMD are the sought after weapon and total catastrophe is
the aim.

> plus a couple at home (drug war, million+ imprisioned from
> class/race war related to the drug war and poverty, etc.)

I happen to think US mandatory sentencing guidelines are a crime in
themselves but the *drug war* has support of a significant
percentage of the electorate. This is a social policy decision that
should be fought in the legislatures and courts. Perhaps marijuana
decriminization and State control (beware Canadian Gov't pot - I
hear it's like smoking burlap) cound mitigate much of the harm
caused by the drug war and the war could be focused on cocaine,
crack, heroin, meth, LSD, etc. These drugs do a lot of damage to
people. Perhaps the same could be said for marijuana - I'll grant
that there's more leeway for debate on grass, but I've not heard
anyone say anything positive about crack.

Class/Race war - There are many questions that can't be asked on
this front. All people see are the consequences and without a
thorough analysis are blindly reaching for conclusions. Perhaps the
downtrodden of class and race are limited by their genetic or
cultural behavior. It is verbotten to ask that question. Cultural
relativism holds all cultures to be of equal value. Are they? If so,
how do we know they are? Shouldn't empirical measurements of varied
statistics carry some weight in the discussion? No, cultual
relativism is dogma, like so much of the leftist agenda. Interesting
times are ahead for class and race war believers. Human Bio-
Diversity is being studied in depth and gene sequences are being
identified that are distinguishing all sorts of genetic linkages to
what were once thought strictly behavioral traits. The Class/Race
war isn't strictly dominant culture oppressing the unfortunate. Look
to the thorough debunking of Stephen Jay Gould and the Marxist
ideology underlying his science. He's just one of many who are
having their world view turned upside down by scientific
discoveries. How will they reconcile philosophy to a growing body of
scientific literture which documents reproducable results derived
from scientific method.

> plus the US just backed down from a trade war over steel,

If you follow these things over time, you'll see that trade wars are
very common, they're played for domestic political reasons, and the
US is trying to liberalize trade legistlation on more fronts than
most countries. That said it is indeed guilty of a protectionist
streak under Bush. It's interesting that you criticize the US for
its protectionist stance for I would have pegged you to be anti-
globalization and pro-protectionist. You've confounded my
expectations. :)

> and the US has been busy stirring up trouble with China,

You mean like siding with the Communists in suppressing the
aspirations of a democractic state for self determination in Taiwan?
Or perhaps you're referring to the US displeasure with the Chinese
balance of trade and the Chinese reticence to allow the Renminbi to
float against the Dollar? Let's see you're criticising the US for
anti free trade antics in protecting its steel industry and also
criticising the US for trying to get China to let its currency trade
freely in relation to its value, rather than have its value set
arbitrarily low. Hmm, you seem to be speaking out of both sides of
your mouth here.

> North Korea,

Where have you been hiding? Clinton signed an agreement with the
North Koreans that provided them with aid and fuel oil, as well as
construction of a reactor that would prevent proliferation in
exchange for the North Koreans abandoning their weaponization of
nuclear materials. The North Koreans *admitted* that they violated
the agreement. How is it that the US is stirring up trouble? Isn't
the US involving the regional players in negotiations in order to
avoid be labeled unilateralist?

> Iran,

The largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Sitting on one
of the world's largest oil reserves and declares a need for nuclear
power. Where are the Greenpeace protesters? Oh that's right, they
abide by the saying, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' If Iran
is against the US, then Greenpeace surely can't be against Iran, for
that would mean that Greenpeace and the US were on the same side.
Also, don't forget that Iran was secretly working on weaponizing its
nuclear infrastructure when it voluntarily signed the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty which forbade this behavior. How again is the
US stirring up trouble? Oh you mean by calling Iran on its
duplicitous behavior.

> Syria,

Sponsor of state terrorism. Hezbollah, maybe you've heard of them?
Hey where are all the protesters demanding that Syria end its
occupation of Lebanon? How's the US causing these problems?

> Cuba,

The US is well within its rights to not have diplomatic relations
with any country. The US is not blockading international sea
transport to Cuba, it's just not permitting its own citizens to have
relations with Cuba. There is no transgresson here.

> and so on in various ways ("axis of evil"

I don't see many people saying North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are model
countries and that they want to immigrate there. Do you want to
immigrate there? They commit many crimes and don't even for a second
try to equate the nature of those regimes to that of the US. What I
think pisses people off is that Bush had the audacity to speak in
absolute terms and not be evasive in his references.

> and "crusade" comments,

Yeah, well we know Bush isn't dealing with a full deck and is quite
often oblivious to nuance and history. Although I'm loath to label
my political orientation I don't want readers to think I'm a Bush
supporter. I happen to think he's a buffoon, I don't understand his
appeal to so many people, I cringe when he opens his mouth, I
thought that there had to be more capable people in the Republican
Party who could carry the banner better than he, but, and here's a
point that leftists just can't stomach, just because Bush holds a
position doesn't mean it's wrong or ill-formed. He does get things
right sometimes.

> trade wars, etc.)

Why are so many countries dependent on the export sector of their
economies? Where is their domestic consumption? Why does the US have
to be the importer of the world? Why aren't the other countries
developing healthy domestic consumption? The US economy is the
engine for the world economy. That's not free and fair trade based
on competitive advantage. A trade war results in the messy area
regulations and governmental involvement. Airbus, European
agriculture, GM foods, etc.

> and is fighting an indefinite worldwide war against "Terrorism"

How does one fight a definite worldwide war agaisnt terrorism? There
are no regiments nor any battalions, nor any uniformed soldiers of
the terrorist army, nor is there any discrete battlefield that can
be won or lost. Terrorism is a war fought in shadows. It's very
difficult to see anything definite in the shadows, therefore the
very nature of this enemy necessitates an indefinite battle on a
worldwide stage.

> which is defined as "You're either with us or against us"

While I too hated Bush's homage to the mythic Texas gunslinger, I do
accept that some things in this world are indeed Black and White.
You are either for law, order and trying to preserve civil society
or you're for terrorism and anarchy. Unfortunately for all the fence
sitters, this is one issue which has no middle ground. Either it's
OK to blow up people in a cafe or it's not. It's too bad that Bush
delivered the message in the fashion he did, but it was reaching out
to his domestic political audience and they respond like lap dogs to
this type of jingoism. That's simply a part of the *typical* American
psyche. Note my *typical* reference.

> -- or in other words, as a political cartoon I saw recently put
> it "Unless Bush is elected, the Terrorists win" :-)

Sadly, the polarization of American politics has gone so far that
there really are two nations dwelling amonst each other. For the
Bush supporters to not be able to rest easy with a Democrat at the
helm in the war against terrorism is a sad commentary on the times.

> plus on top of that the US has declared a doctrine of preventive
> warfare (i.e anyone can be attacked by the US at any time for any
> reason, maybe Britian next if they cross us?)

When you write something like this I don't know what to make of you.
Do you hit the send button and then regret shooting off in
frustration, or do you really believe what you write?

The doctrine of preventive action is one that is full of nuance. The
US fully realizes it can't do as it pleases and expect other
countries to abide by a different set of standards for that would
wreak havoc in the international community. Conversely, it can't sit
idly by and wait for tragedy in order to be able to justify a
response. It is clearly insane to know that a country is about to
attack you and kill thousands or millions of your people and do
nothing to prevent it. This is clearly a messy concept but one that
can't be swept under the rug. It's now out in the open and the world
knows it is US policy. I don't see the validity in criticizing the
statement of policy. When it is first invoked I hope it is done
after careful deliberation and with good cause. Iraq might have been
a good test case, but there is enough room for debate as to whether
there was authorization for war. You may agree or disagree on the
conclusion but surely all see that each side has some merit to their
position. We'll have to wait for the future to see whether criticism
is warranted. Perhaps the open acknowledgement will serve to inhibit
the ambitions of would be attackers. For you to use Britain as a
plausible example is outrageous and just makes me wonder through
what filter you view the world.

> plus there are still tens of thousands of nukes on the loose (some
> unaccounted for, possibly backpack sized ones intended as land
> mines).

Hence US motivation in Iraq, Iran, North Korea (hmm, all axis of
evil countries - what a coincidence.) Let's not forget the nightmare
of a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID 031020-115059-8319r

And while I'm on the topic of Saudi Arabia, for those who are
interested in visiting my analysis of the dysfunction of the Mid-
East region and our oil dependency, see here:

Recall that a good portion of Russian aid is received from the US in
order to keep nuclear scientists on the payroll and not freelancing.
Further, monies are being paid to secure Russian WMD.

> This doesn't sound to me like an ideal national security situation
> for the US (or the world), especially projecting it forward into a
> Bush second term (I hope not).

Too bad John McCain fizzled out back in 2000. As is so often the
case, I personnally don't find any candidate appealing, Republican
or Democrat. Political culture often drives the ablest out of the
game and rewards those who play the game well with the top prize.
Unfortunately playing the election game well is not an indicator of
quality, integrity, and intellect that are suitable for governance.

Look here for the incongruities of the Republican electorate.
http://www.rgj.com/news/printstory.php?id=57365

Don't get too smug. The left is even worse, it's just that I don't
have a ready reference to share that illustrates that point.

That is what politicians have to pander to.

> If we're so inherently secure in the US, why does the US have to
> spend half a trillion dollars a year on the military just to prop
> up the US infrastructure and hegemonic economic system?

Because other countries are free riders and aren't pulling their
fair share. I would feel very secure in wagering that if the US
pulled back from its overseas commitments and adopted an
isolationist policy, that after testing the waters to see that the
US really wasn't going to venture beyond its shores, China would
make a move against Taiwan. The Balkans would erupt once again.
Pakistan and India would have a go at it. Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Israel and pick your country from the Mid-East. Turkey and the
Kurds. Russians and the Chechans. Hutu and the Tutsi, ad infinitum.
The US wasn't given the role of guarantor of peace; all the other
countires abdicated their commensurate responsibilites. Clearly
there is a need for a military the size of the one that the US
possesses or havoc would visit upon us.

> If we were really tough, we'd be like the prize fighter who can go
> in the ring and just take it, wearing down any opponent until they
> fall over from exhaustion, without striking a blow. [Like if Bush
> had said, "we'd rather have towers fall every day than give up on
> liberty and compassion as our way of life".]

False dichotomy. There is no need to be hapless victims in the face
of agression. Self-defense is morally appropriate. The smart warrior
takes the battle to the enemy. Better victims over there than over
here. I know that will stoke the fires of White Guilt and WHite
Oppression in some but that's the way of the world, even down at the
level of tribes and families. Better the victims be in the other
tribe rather than yours.

> But the US can't just take it in terms of reduced energy supply --
> as the oil crisis of the 1970s showed. So, "you're either with us
> or against us."

Your conclusion is not supportable. Better to conclude that
maintaining the status quo vis a vis oil/gasoline is easier than
implementing a secure energy future in orbit.

Just reading your paragraph leads me to conclude that you have a
deep disdain for things American. I too see many problems with
American society but I can think of no better country to be the
Hyperpower. Imagine if China or Iran or even France had the power
and influence that the US has today. I wouldn't like that world.

See, this is what you get for baiting. :)

TangoMan