'Metal Storm', Turkey and the U.S.

Remove all ads!

While this comment has some merit, consider what the world was like while the US had the USSR to balance its power. I'd say the world's become a better place.

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are a *hell* of a lot better off than the folks in Vietnam and Afghanistan were when the French/Americans and the Soviets turned those two places into their respective playpens.

And it isn't as though the world lacked for US intervention during the Cold War, either...

Er, what? Japanese culture was not alien to American culture circa 1945? Hell yes it was. The emperor was a sacred, holy figure, "death before dishonor" wasn't a catch phrase, ritual suicide was still practiced and approved of. and so on. It was no less alien than Islamic culture, perhaps even more so.

And Japan's "parliament" had been a facade up until that point, nothing more. Rather like Germany's parliament was while Bismarck was around--which figures, since that was the model the Japanese used.

Japanese ecnomomy wasn't really capitalist, either, as the government built the industrial infrastructure (paying for it by taxing the peasantry 90%) and then sold it off to the highest Japanese bidder. Meaning ye olde gentry smoothly transitioned from being nobles to being monopolists, complete with both vertical integration and horizontal integration.

Not exactly a free market society.

 

I'm not someone crying for the old days when the world was one button away from nuclear holocaust. With that in mind I find the folks speaking of unprecedented peril in face of terrorists just ridiculous. Oh yeah? I'd say America is much safer with Bin Laden around compared to the risk of an all out nuclear war in Cold War times, so why the hysteria all of a sudden?

I doubt it makes a differnce for the people in Iraq, Afghanistan if their country is rubbled in a war to prove a domino theory as in Vietnam or because of a domino theory of kickstarting democratic revolutions in the Greater Middle East (I also think Power Point has an adverse effect on today's decisionmaking, war looks just too easy on it). On the receiving end the exact motivations of the politicos isn't really a big issue, your priorities likely are to survive, duck and seek cover, and find something to eat.

But what I like to stress is in fact that the US have no incentive to exercise restraint in their policies. The only thing we can do to slow down their pace is to make it politically costly for them to do their silly wars. The cost the US impose on themselves are that they will be going to be perceived as the big bully on the block, and will be resented, and of course, the financial burden. Deficit anyone?

Even an Eagle Scout gets resented when he helps protesting old ladies over the street, despite their "No, thank you!". And I doubt that an Eagle Scout is really true to himself when he starts to beat up people for some self-defined greater good.

The lack of self-restraint and the messianic US foreign policy and the neocon school of thought are a dangerous combination.

As I have said a few times before, we all live on this globe, and when the US acts unwise and messes up the we all are affected. If I take a plane I'm in Baghdad in approx four hours. The **** the US kick up there hits us first.

The neocon idea of US 'benevolent hegemony' can't be a replacement for an international order. The founders of the US constitution also saw that a benevolent King might not be so bad, but also understood that something like that is unlikely to ever happen and that that requires checks and ballances and rather a ruler on time.

So who's cheking the hegemon?

Claims of inherent goodness and moral clarity rendering unneccessary checks and ballences don't convince me.

What I'd like to see is a replacement for the lost restraining effect deterrence had on the cold war blocks.

As that can't come from outside, it's up the the US public. But their media and the people in general have IMO been much too inert on this. I think, also because they haven't yet recognised the importance of effective government oversight. The US have turned their president into an elected king for time.

I wonder how a country with a traditon of gvt distrust can give their administration so much benefit of doubt.

* * *

And as for Japan and Germany: Point taken, not free market, but rather capitalist - I picked the wrong word here. There wasn't much adaption needed to what the US wanted to see in place.

As there were the general principles of parliament and a republic in place. Sure Japan had the Tenno but the decisionmakers were still elected, even though parliamentary process was mostly a facade. It still generated experience. In Japan there were, despite the rigid system, parties and politicians to take over the country under tight US control. The US didn't explain the japanese what a parliament is, they told them to play after the rules of a parliament and not to cheat.

And in Germany democracy worked pretty normal even under the late Bismarck, in the end Germany was a constitutional monarchy. And don't forget Weimar. Germany had an experienced political cadre standing attention when the US remade Germany's political system.

I always get a little furious when some wiseguy from overseas comes along, to claim: "Hey, we brought you democracy!" Nonsense. Germany's democratic past started in 1848, well before Bismarck, not 1948. The US helped restoring it. No America didn't invent it, and America DID NOT invent apple pie, too

[ March 16, 2005, 12:59: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Oh, I wasn't saying Germany didn't have democratic experience, I was saying Japan didn't. Bismarck was cited to illustrate what the Japanese were going for, though they took it further.

Your point about Germany's well founded. I just don't happen to think the same applies to Japan. *shrug*

 

Recent article from the CSMonitor
Turkey, US relations hit new rough spot.

Reason is that Rummy accused the Turkish to be in part responsible for the insurgency in Iraq, also saying that, had the US had the chance to attack from Iraq they's have crushed the insurgency quickly.

He wants to say that ... the invasion was botched for lack of allies, lack of international support even, for their silly little war? Lack of troops perhaps? Never.

Rather blame the Turks - because when asked if perhaps he should have sent more troops into Iraq in the beginning in order to better secure and protect the country after the invasion, Rumsfeld said more US troops would have created an image of "occupation" rather than "liberation.

How again was that part about dissolving the Iraqi army and the chaos resulting from that power-vaccuum? Nevermind.

The Turks are also pissed that the US is telling them which of their neighbours they should like and not like, and how much of both - I'm speaking about Syria. The US found the Turks being too *friendly* with the Syrians - probably feeling that limits their leverage to dictate things on Damaskus - eventually the US are up to spread f***ing *peace* in the Middle East, goddammit.

And on top of it, the US withdraw aid from Turkey, to armtwist them into obedience again. The official position, of course, is that Turkey doesn't need it. Right.

That's how you make friends - first you ignore their concerns about your policies, then you produce results they've warned you of right from the start, and then you punish them for being pissed off about you and winder how they could possibly have become so rather noncompliant because they see vital interests endangered by you ... it must clearly be a pathological Anti-Americanism.

Sure thing. Who needs friends anyway?

The unconfirmed notion that the US ambassador Eric Edelmann resigned and is likely to go to a Pentagon position, right in neocon central, is just the cream on the sh*t-sandwich. Everything's in tune.