1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

Beyond Hegemony

Discussion in 'Alley of Lingering Sighs' started by Ragusa, Jun 5, 2007.

  1. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    I just read an excellent article my Michael Lind, who explains the American post-Cold War hegemony strategy, and the article is worth reading for that alone. It allows to make some sense of much of the policy we have seen the last seven years and even in the time before.
    That means when today the US outspends the rest of the world in military expenses that has a reason and is not because those Americans are crazy and love nukes so much.
    Facinating read.
     
  2. Aldeth the Foppish Idiot

    Aldeth the Foppish Idiot Armed with My Mallet O' Thinking Veteran

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    12,434
    Media:
    46
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    That was a rather interesting read. It's a rational arguement, but the problem I have with it is that it seems so overarching that there would be no practical means to keep all of this information so secret. So while I agree that it is fascinating, it also makes me think of conspiracy theories when I read it. Granted, I have no proof that this is some conspiracy theory-esque thinking, but that's what makes conspiracy theories so effective - they cannot be readily disproved.
     
  3. AMaster Gems: 26/31
    Latest gem: Diamond


    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,495
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    50
    My big problem with the article is the idea that deceiving the public about the purpose of American foreign policy is somehow new. I also take issue with the notion that hegemony is a break from traditional foreign policy, when even a cursory reading of the past century would demonstrate otherwise.

    Well, okay, it is a break, but only if you're going to go back to before the Spanish-American War, and if you're going to pretend that the conquest of half the damn continent wasn't the exercise of foreign policy.
     
  4. The Shaman Gems: 28/31
    Latest gem: Star Sapphire


    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    54
    Well, with a more liberal reading of the Monroe doctrine (and that has certainly been done, especially in the 19th century), what happens in America is an internal matter of sorts for the US. Likewise, I believe several thinkers spoke of "natural boundaries" extending to the Pacific.

    True, it's not like it didn't happen in other countries. I doubt that if, say, Britain or France were in the place of the US in 1946, things would be so much different during the Cold War. As for hegemony... I guess it's tempting for every state ,)

    [ June 07, 2007, 10:38: Message edited by: The Shaman ]
     
  5. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm somewhat short of time atm, so let me just throw in a few brief points:</font>
    • Aldeth, I also do not think about a 'conspiracy'.
      .
    • The 'cabalistic' aspect is what I dislike about Chomski, who with a grain of salt suggests the 'leading class' colluded since before WW-I for US empire. He's a good empiricist, and he gets his facts right, but his interpretation is 'broken' by his ideological prism. Frankly, I find him inspiring, enlighting, but sometimes simplicistic.
      .
    • I think US empire is about opportunites seen, and used.
      .
    • The explanation why the policy of dual containment isn't publicly discussed could be because it is considered self-evident by all involved. It is 'in the book', and done 'by the book'. And in this respect I have found Americans extraordinary doctrinaire. Much like the Soviets.
      .
    • Hegemony is opportunistic. The hegemony strategy didn't change dual containment, it simply added global dominance. That is, it was expanded it rather than fundamentally re-thought. After the end of the cold war, the end of history, there was no perceived need for it. It is intellectually lazy, or the reason could be institutional inertia, or intoxication by the perceived victory. Somewhat understandably so: 'We won the Cold war! Dual-containment worked for 40 years. We are the militarily strongest nation on earth. We have the end of history. We have the midas-touch that cures all the world's ills! Let's give dominance a shot (pun intended).' And then, don't forget America's sense of mission.
      .
    • Openness is self-defeating. Of course you cannot speak aloud about hegemonic policies - for obvious reasons. Common sense dictates that. Aftert 9/11 Bush decided he no longer needed to hold back and stated it openly and look at the fallout he got. It was only after Bush's new National Security Strategy the French started to loudly propose their dissenting view of a multipolar world. However, when you look especially at Air Force documents and concepts from the Clinton years, it was after the Gulf War when the US Air Force suddenly started to strategize over 'Full Spektrum Dominance' and the like.
      .
    • What needs to be examined is what benefits the US intended to and actually gained during iot's client states during the Cold War. Costs. Benefits.
      .
    • Did the US really 'win' the Cold War as Americans are fond to take for granted, or did they just not (yet) go bankrupt because they have alwas been richer than Russia? Do we reach this stage of overstretch now? Means, did it just longer for them to lose the Cold War?
    Food for thought. Feel free to point out contradictions in my post.
     
  6. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Another bit, a backgrounder on US nuclear modernisation and the implications arising from it: The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy. That article is especially interesting in view to the ongoing missule defense debate in Europe, which is about many things except Iran.
     
  7. Tiamat Gems: 17/31
    Latest gem: Star Diopside


    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Messages:
    944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Heh. I should probably read newspapers more often. I have no trouble following that, but can't necessarily think of anything more to contribute beyond this:

    Yes, I sincerely doubt that there is some kind of global "conspiracy" in place (it's the Illuminati, hide! ;) ) For starters, conspiracy implies covert or duplicitous actions, whereas everything America has done to ensure its primacy has been very much above-board, they simply haven't publicly stated this line of reasoning because many smaller explanations will do. Furthermore, conspiracy implies the perception of deliberately doing something you feel will be opposed, which is not how I understand US policy to function in this regard; they seem to feel they are entitled to global leadership.

    As I was saying in the FAI, there's a certain view of America as a "white knight" or "crusader", which probably derives from the time when the accumulated fault lines in the European balance of power led to the world wars, where the US was initially blissfully free of entanglement; they were a new state, unburdened by these past leadership failures, and when they finally decided to take a side they charged in there and saved all our butts - or so many seem to see it.

    As a result, it only became easier thereafter for the US to justify any intervention outside its borders as "saving us from ourselves", whether that be from Communism or a dictatorship or, well... it goes on. At some point, the line between protecting democracy and protecting national interests blurs. The extreme right-wing military dictatorship that oppressed Greece in the 70's was US-funded and US-supported.

    (Caveat: I don't mean to offend any Americans reading this, as I'm sure this perception I'm suggesting is by no means universal, and I'm sure to be reading my own biases into things somewhere.)
     
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.