A Change of Guard

សូមស្តាប់វិទ្យុសង្គ្រោះជាតិ Please read more Khmer news and listen to CNRP Radio at National Rescue Party. សូមស្តាប់វីទ្យុខ្មែរប៉ុស្តិ៍/Khmer Post Radio.
Follow Khmerization on Facebook/តាមដានខ្មែរូបនីយកម្មតាម Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/khmerization.khmerican

Friday 9 December 2011

Darwinian Stupidity

by Richard Schwartzman, November 28, 2011
blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu

"A strong nation does not come from a strong military. Rather, it comes from a healthy and dynamic economy where free people create and produce. Only a warmongering nation that makes enemies needs military bases all over the globe"
One has to question the mindset of the current administration in Washington. The country is $15 trillion in debt due to the ever-increasing welfare-warfare state.

The warfare side of the equation is imperialistic to the point of crippling stupidity. Not only do we already have as many as 900 military bases, and military personnel in an estimated 130 different countries, and not only did we just establish a drone base in Ethiopia and commit troops to Uganda, but President Obama has just announced a new base for 2,500 U.S. Marines in Darwin, Australia.

The Chinese are angry about it, and that’s a bad thing; the Chinese government owns more than $1 trillion of our overblown debt.

According to a story in the New York Times, this is the first long-term expansion of the American military in the Pacific since the end of the Vietnam War.

“It comes despite budget cuts facing the Pentagon and an increasingly worried reaction from Chinese leaders, who have argued that the United States is seeking to encircle China militarily and economically,” the Times story said.
According to one Chinese official quoted in the story, “It may not be quite appropriate to intensify and expand military alliances and may not be in the interest of countries within this region.”
But Mr. Obama told the Australian Parliament, “ [The United States] made a deliberate and strategic decision — as a Pacific nation, the United States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future.”
How much larger a role does the president want the country to play, and at what cost? We still have bases in Japan 66 years after the end of WWII, and bases in Korea almost 60 years after the end of hostilities there. We still have bases in Thailand and the Philippines as well as in Europe.
The president said he’s not trying to isolate China, but the story suggests he has become wary of that nation’s intentions.
A more objective view of the situation would indicate that foreign nations should be wary of U.S. intentions. While China has the ability to field a larger military force than the United States, the United States still has the most potent and the most technologically advanced (as far as we know) military in the world, and we have shown the willingness to use it.
That is not a flag-waving rah-rah statement. It’s an indictment of our foreign policy.
We’ve killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis for no valid reason or just cause. Those people didn’t attack the United States, and neither did their governments.
The insanity continues even beyond the hawkish screeching over some perceived need to go to war against Iran. Making matters worse is that the administration is now looking at another war in Africa. According to the Los Angeles Times,
Kenya’s government has made an urgent appeal to the Obama administration for the Pentagon to provide intelligence and logistical support to Kenya's faltering month-old military operation in Somalia against the Shabab, a powerful Al Qaeda-linked militia.
Administration officials are considering the request.
With respect to our new Australian base, the New York Times says,
While the new military commitment is relatively modest, Mr. Obama has promoted it as the cornerstone of a strategy to confront more directly the challenge posed by China’s rapid advance as an economic and military power. He has also made some progress in creating a new Pacific free-trade zone that would give America’s free-market allies in the region some trading privileges that do not immediately extend to China.
While libertarians might question the truth of the phrase “free market,” it’s clear that the actions are a challenge to China, as the story states.
“Some allies have expressed concerns that the United States, facing war fatigue and a slackened economy, will cede its leadership role to China,” according to the NYT.
So it’s a show of strength, or maybe just perceived strength. Yet, it makes one do some questioning.
What do U.S. politicians mean when they say they want to keep our country strong, to keep a strong military? And who says a strong military is a good thing? In 1783, the mightiest military in the world lost a war and 13 colonies. In 1939, France was considered by some to have the strongest military in all of Europe. In 1975, the unequivocally best military in the world lost a war in Vietnam. And in 1989, after 10 years in Afghanistan, the nation with the second most powerful military in the world dissolved.
A strong nation does not come from a strong military. Rather, it comes from a healthy and dynamic economy where free people create and produce. Only a warmongering nation that makes enemies needs military bases all over the globe.
Richard Schwartzman is managing editor at Chadds Ford Live in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania - FFF.org

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The US and UN should become one intertwine entity.
Imagine that the UN be able to issue insurance policy to member state like Cambodia,who pay premium and asking in return the international recognition and guaranty that Cambodia territory will be (virtually) guarded against any lost caused by the stealing,
encroachment from any other countries.
The UN then needs a powerful military tool to operate and secure the world. The arm force of the USA will become the world standard and US military bases will be needed through out the world.
Of course other powerful countries like China and Russia should be welcoming and joint in this huge Enterprise as well.
Hey guys! urge the governments to vote for me to be the next UN secretary general!! And in the mean time I seek the support from School of Vice too.

Anonymous said...

Who is the most of the two devils, white devil or yellow devil? U.S.A or China. America always blame someone attacking it first. Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in Dec. 1941 and Muslim terrists attacked WTC in Sept 11,2001, next America will find another attack from, China perhaps? America doesn't seem to run out of reason to go to war with anyone. Soon or later another major war will broke out. America is poping up here and there round the world, it's just a matter of time until America find a way to poke China to go to war. We shall see how America deal with an enemy that is almost equally in many ways, militarily. So far, America has been picking on the smaller countries.

School of Vice said...

You put forward a sound and reasoned vision. From what I understand, the UN and its predecessor - the League of Nations - was founded with such order and inter-states security vision in mind, and of course, the organisation still relies heavily upon the funding of its diverse member states to carry out its 'missions' to that end, with Washington being its most influential member due to its wealth and global presence.

It wouldn't be responsible of me to discus this complicated matter in a few words whilst there are plenty of specialists and better informed people out there who could enlighten the public better.

My view is that the UN as a peace-keeping device is only as strong or effective as the unity and political will of its many members, specifically, those super states like the US and China. The existence of "rogue states" like North Korea or the blatant infringements of UN Charter and articles committed by some states in relations to their weaker neighbours point to the inherent disunity and powerlessness of the UN as the world's appointed 'policeman' - short-comings which states like Thailand and Vietnam could [and have] exploit in advancing their own national greed and agendas with relative impunity from sanctions.

My fear is that China's "peaceful rise" will not be peaceful in the foreseeable future, unless there is a sea-change in the way that vast nation is governed politically.

Perhaps, it's possible for that democratic transformation to happen, perhaps, not (certainly not within the near future) given China's still fresh memories of national humiliation at the hands of European imperialism or colonialism, and due to some prominent Chinese nationalists' conviction that "without a strong State the Chinese nation would disintegrate like a handful of loose sands".

Of course, you have my full, sincere [moral] support, but I'm not sure if that counts for much!

Anonymous said...

The elephan fight the arn that die.