igloo Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 The Sleepy Superpower AwakesThe U.S. is on the move again around the globe, and it's about timeBy CHARLES KRAUTHAMMERMonday, Aug. 04, 2003The Great Wall of China, roughly defining the northern contours of the Chinese empire, has stood in the same place for 2,200 years. The Great Wall of America — the barrier of bases set up around the world to define the contours of the free world and hold back the Soviet empire — is about to disappear after just 50 years.We are living a revolution, and hardly anyone has noticed. In just the three months since the end of the Iraq war, the Pentagon has announced the essential evacuation of the U.S. military from its air bases in Saudi Arabia, from the Demilitarized Zone in Korea and from the vast Incirlik air base in Turkey — in addition to a radical drawdown of U.S. military personnel in Germany, the mainstay of the Great American Wall since 1945.For a country that is seen by so much of the world as a rogue nation, recklessly throwing its weight around, this is a lot of withdrawing. The fact is that since 9/11, when America awoke from its post — cold war end-of-history illusions, the U.S. has not, as most believe, been expanding. It has been moving — lightening its footprint, rationalizing its deployments, rearranging its forces, waking from a decade of slumber during which it sat on its Great Wall, oblivious to its immobility and utter obsolescence. Why, after all, are we in Germany 60 years after the fall of the Nazi regime and more than a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union? Because it took a decade — and 9/11--for the U.S. to see the obvious. It took that long to dispose of the colossal anachronism known as the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which made sense in a world of two antagonistic superpowers but made no sense in a world of rogue states and proliferating missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Similarly, it took a decade to recognize the craziness of stationing 15,000 U.S. troops as a sacrificial trip wire just yards from North Korea's million-man army. Iceland is a perfectly nice place, and Icelanders are perfectly nice people. But what exactly are the U.S. Air Force jets stationed there protecting the Icelanders from? (The Pentagon is in talks to finally remove them.) And what is the point of our huge investments in air bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey? We were forbidden to fly combat missions out of them at the most critical of times, during a war against an Iraqi tyrant who threatened the entire neighborhood. The war in Iraq also made plain that our 68,000 troops in Germany are totally out of place, far from the action. They were unable to get to Iraq by land because Austria, with classic old Europe self-righteousness, refused to allow our troops to cross its territory to join the fight. We are in the midst of a revolution, and it has two parts. The first is leaving places where we are not wanted. America is moving out of old Europe, which sees its liberty as coming with the air it breathes, and being welcomed in the new Europe of Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, which have a living memory of tyranny and a deep understanding of America's role in winning their liberty. South Koreans regularly demonstrate against the U.S. presence in their country. Since the reason for that presence is for Americans to die in defense of Seoul, one has to ask oneself at what point strategic altruism becomes strategic masochism. The second part is leaving places that mark the battle lines of a long-dead war. The great threat today is not Soviet attack but radical Arab-Islamic terrorism and instability in that part of the world. Hence the redeployment of American forces from the plains of Europe, Korea, perhaps next Japan, to the battleground of today: the Horn of Africa, Central Asia, the Persian Gulf. The world talks in ominous terms about the new American empire. But the U.S. was far more of an empire in, say, 1949, when it sat behind its great wall of tank armies and nuclear bombers in static defense of large territories in Western Europe and the Pacific Rim. That empire we are in the process of dismantling. The Soviets are gone, and those places, having risen from the ashes, are quite capable of defending themselves. The threat from North Korea, for example, is no longer the spread of communism but of nuclear weapons. The response should be not a sitting-duck standing army but a quick and light air-sea reaction force.Moreover, many don't want us. So we're shifting into the far more difficult and dangerous game of containing and ultimately destroying the new enemy — nimble, mobile and undeterrable. That requires an entirely new strategy: small bases in new places, some simply forward staging areas with supplies awaiting the arrival of highly mobile troops in an emergency. Less plodding, less heavy, less static, less fixed. This is the new American strategy: Empire Lite. Its assembly, having been announced piecemeal, has largely been missed. Make no mistake, however. We are in the midst of a great redeployment that will not only redraw the map of the world but also mark the ground to which history itself has moved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghhhhhost Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 oh i thought u were talkin about greenland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 4 Author Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by ghhhhhost oh i thought u were talkin about greenland :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 4 Report Share Posted August 4 american imperialism=promoted in a nice article. slavery will never end, it seems., whether it is mental or physical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 4 Author Report Share Posted August 4 Originally posted by sassa american imperialism=promoted in a nice article. slavery will never end, it seems., whether it is mental or physical. :zzz: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by sassa american imperialism=promoted in a nice article. slavery will never end, it seems., whether it is mental or physical. you really missed the point of the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mursa Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 "the sleepy superpower awakes - thank god "..........................superiority complex anyone ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 I agree with some points in the article. Our global deployment of troops is still based on cold war strategy. I think that now for the future we need to keep more of our troops at home guarding our own borders not turkeys or south Koreas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0nythelover Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by seximofo2k . I think that now for the future we need to keep more of our troops at home guarding our own borders not turkeys or south Koreas Its our duty as the worlds strongest militarized country to defend "the little guy" who gets picked on. IE South Korea, Turkey, Iraq, and so on. If we were one of those countries, we'd look to someone like England or whoever else to protect us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by acmatos you really missed the point of the article. did i? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by sassa did i? i think so, you should be happy that we're getting our troops out of these countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by acmatos i think so, you should be happy that we're getting our troops out of these countries. really? under what conditions?what makes me sad is that they should have had the foresight to not get involved with other people's business in the first place. never mind this "saddam is a dictator" bullshit. there are fucked up heads of state all over the world. there is one big, profitable reason why the US illegally invaded iraq. in politics, a move is never, never made without considering economic issues. this is a staple in political science and diplomacy.if they stuck to their original reason of fighting terror, maybe it would have been understood. but the fact that the first target was bin laden, and they could not find him, shows that they needed another plausible target to go after or they'd risk looking like idiots in the international community (sic..hmmm) all in all, a vicious cycle, or cat and mouse game, that most of us cannot comprehend. only special players are allowed to join in, and you have to be at their level to even succeed remotely. i'd rather retain my dignity and fairness than become a cold, conniving, money hungry vulture. which is what the majority of politicians in the world are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by sassa really? under what conditions?what makes me sad is that they should have had the foresight to not get involved with other people's business in the first place. never mind this "saddam is a dictator" bullshit. there are fucked up heads of state all over the world. there is one big, profitable reason why the US illegally invaded iraq. in politics, a move is never, never made without considering economic issues. this is a staple in political science and diplomacy.if they stuck to their original reason of fighting terror, maybe it would have been understood. but the fact that the first target was bin laden, and they could not find him, shows that they needed another plausible target to go after or they'd risk looking like idiots in the international community (sic..hmmm) all in all, a vicious cycle, or cat and mouse game, that most of us cannot comprehend. only special players are allowed to join in, and you have to be at their level to even succeed remotely. i'd rather retain my dignity and fairness than become a cold, conniving, money hungry vulture. which is what the majority of politicians in the world are. I'm not sure what you mean by "under what conditions." But how can we not get involved in other people's business when most of these other people make it their business to bring us down?I won't argue about politicians being pieces of shit, b/c most of them are. But i think you need to be a bit more patient with your own government. All the links between Iraq and various terrorist organizations existed, whether you want to believe them or not is irrelevant. Its like everyone on the planet is given all the time and opportunities they need to succeed, but when it comes to the US, we are held up to this stardard of absolute perfection which is totally unfair and unrealistic.Another thing; It is about terrorism. Since the Saudi's are the ones funding most of this terrorism in the first place, the only real way to send them a message, other than bombing them(which i think we can agree is not the best way) is to disrupt their oil monopoly. How do we do this we take out a ruthless dictator that the world is better off without and happens to control the second largest oil exporting country, and set up a government(controlled by Iraqis) that we can depend on for our oil needs, thus fucking the Saudis and letting them know that shit isn't sweet and they better start making changes.I really don't get it? Its like you want bad things to happen to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 5 Report Share Posted August 5 Originally posted by acmatos I'm not sure what you mean by "under what conditions." But how can we not get involved in other people's business when most of these other people make it their business to bring us down?I won't argue about politicians being pieces of shit, b/c most of them are. But i think you need to be a bit more patient with your own government. All the links between Iraq and various terrorist organizations existed, whether you want to believe them or not is irrelevant. Its like everyone on the planet is given all the time and opportunities they need to succeed, but when it comes to the US, we are held up to this stardard of absolute perfection which is totally unfair and unrealistic.Another thing; It is about terrorism. Since the Saudi's are the ones funding most of this terrorism in the first place, the only real way to send them a message, other than bombing them(which i think we can agree is not the best way) is to disrupt their oil monopoly. How do we do this we take out a ruthless dictator that the world is better off without and happens to control the second largest oil exporting country, and set up a government(controlled by Iraqis) that we can depend on for our oil needs, thus fucking the Saudis and letting them know that shit isn't sweet and they better start making changes.I really don't get it? Its like you want bad things to happen to us. the "under what conditions" question was about how the troops were being pulled out? under what conditions? see?see, why is it my words are always seen as meaning that i wish death and illness upon this country? no, that's not the case. the US is not perfect, it's like any empire/republic/oligarchy/monopoly. i have a right to bitch about it, like anyone else. funny how we would be making a point to the saudis by taking out saddam. doesn't sound right...... anyways...... maybe, maybe not. who knows. so you agree it's about oil, then. and why not. billions of dollars are at stake. why wouldn't the government make sure they could get their hands on a great deal of supply? they could drill alaska, but they won't. they'll spend $4B a month in iraqi military operations. fuck them because they are not americans right? i have many problems with this country due to other reasons: ESPECIALLY education. i find it mortifying and very stupid that a superpower can neglect education. it's like being stupid is the cool thing. nothing in life will make you aware of anything except education. but you also need the right kind. that's another topic though. and i'm getting beyond myself. i have other reasons for my lack of enthusiasm for the US government (mind you, i said the GOVERNMENT, not the country or the people, but the GOVERNMENT=democrat, republican, whatever they're all the same shit), but i won't discuss them on a public board. i still don't agree with them going there. they should target the roots of the problem, not just retaliate after every attack. of course it makes sense that they would, but if they really wanted to stop terrorism from that particular group of people, then they should look into why they would want to harm the US in the first place. and maybe consider what they're doing wrong. there are too many things.by the way, i love how people now say " fundamentalists" like it's a bad thing. original fundamentalist muslims were taught to never harm or kill women, plants, animal life, or children. yet now the word is played with and means any radicalist zealot member of al-qaeda or another terrorist organization. lol...ever read 1984, by george orwell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted August 5 Author Report Share Posted August 5 Sassa,The bottom line is you really do not get it....and enbarassingly so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 Originally posted by igloo Sassa,The bottom line is you really do not get it....and enbarassingly so... you know what's funny? i think the same exact thing about you. and it's EMBARRASSINGLY, not enbarassingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 Originally posted by sassa the "under what conditions" question was about how the troops were being pulled out? under what conditions? see?see, why is it my words are always seen as meaning that i wish death and illness upon this country? no, that's not the case. the US is not perfect, it's like any empire/republic/oligarchy/monopoly. i have a right to bitch about it, like anyone else. funny how we would be making a point to the saudis by taking out saddam. doesn't sound right...... anyways...... maybe, maybe not. who knows. so you agree it's about oil, then. and why not. billions of dollars are at stake. why wouldn't the government make sure they could get their hands on a great deal of supply? they could drill alaska, but they won't. they'll spend $4B a month in iraqi military operations. fuck them because they are not americans right? i still don't agree with them going there. they should target the roots of the problem, not just retaliate after every attack. of course it makes sense that they would, but if they really wanted to stop terrorism from that particular group of people, then they should look into why they would want to harm the US in the first place. and maybe consider what they're doing wrong. there are too many things. I think imperfection goes well beyond just empires/republics/oligarchies/monopolies. Its not that we are going after the saudis by removing saddam. Saddam was a real threat to this country. What I was trying to show was that we were in essence trying to kill two birds with one stone. The saudis control the oil market, so what better way to hurt them than to totally disrupt OPEC. I don't think that it was all about oil, even though I don't think it would be bad for us to have a friendly oil producing nation in the region. So I take it back. Were trying to kill three birds with one stone. We should be drilling in Alaska. Bush supported that, but was unable to make it pass through congress.Just curious, what do you think we're doing wrong that makes these people want to harm the US? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 Originally posted by acmatos I think imperfection goes well beyond just empires/republics/oligarchies/monopolies. Its not that we are going after the saudis by removing saddam. Saddam was a real threat to this country. What I was trying to show was that we were in essence trying to kill two birds with one stone. The saudis control the oil market, so what better way to hurt them than to totally disrupt OPEC. I don't think that it was all about oil, even though I don't think it would be bad for us to have a friendly oil producing nation in the region. So I take it back. Were trying to kill three birds with one stone. We should be drilling in Alaska. Bush supported that, but was unable to make it pass through congress.Just curious, what do you think we're doing wrong that makes these people want to harm the US? like so many people say: The US is not the world's policeman and has no right to act like one, unless a state is desparate enough to call upon it for help. then they cannot blame anyone but themselves.if the US wants to hurt the saudis, why would they continuously try to maintain ties with them, even after 9/11, and why would they say they are 'friends' with the saudi kingdom? just doesn't add up. of course it comes down to one thing, though: business ties. so you admit the US manipulates states and destroys regimes if it chooses to, merely because, (and I quote from you), you "don't think it would be bad for us to have a friendly oil producing nation in the region." no offense, but do you realize how selfish that sounds? what the US is doing wrong to provoke other states' and people's wrath? many things. the way they're imposing their culture around the world, the way they're pushing for democracy to be a staple in every region (democracy is NOT the best form of government that exists), their arrogance in foreign affairs, their ignorance about the rest of the world, how the have conducted themselves in the past (japan in wwii, korea, vietnam, nicaragua, panama, cuba, iraq, israel, balkans, laos, russia), too many things. i suspect you know some of the reasons yourself though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 9 Report Share Posted August 9 Originally posted by sassa like so many people say: The US is not the world's policeman and has no right to act like one, unless a state is desparate enough to call upon it for help. then they cannot blame anyone but themselves.if the US wants to hurt the saudis, why would they continuously try to maintain ties with them, even after 9/11, and why would they say they are 'friends' with the saudi kingdom? just doesn't add up. of course it comes down to one thing, though: business ties. so you admit the US manipulates states and destroys regimes if it chooses to, merely because, (and I quote from you), you "don't think it would be bad for us to have a friendly oil producing nation in the region." no offense, but do you realize how selfish that sounds? what the US is doing wrong to provoke other states' and people's wrath? many things. the way they're imposing their culture around the world, the way they're pushing for democracy to be a staple in every region (democracy is NOT the best form of government that exists), their arrogance in foreign affairs, their ignorance about the rest of the world, how the have conducted themselves in the past (japan in wwii, korea, vietnam, nicaragua, panama, cuba, iraq, israel, balkans, laos, russia), too many things. i suspect you know some of the reasons yourself though. we are not the world's policeman, but we have the right to take actions to ensure our national security. Also the hipocracy is on the part of the rest of the world. When the US decides to do something, everyone starts whining about how the US meddles in everyones business. But everytime one of these countries needs help, especially money, they start crying "where are the americans?" In the end, we are not perfect but we have to do the best we can. There will be mistakes made along the way, but inaction is far worse. Its easy for people to sit here and let everything go to shit. It takes guts to actually do something about it and I think we are fortunate to be in a country that does step up and do things.I see your point about the saudis, and I think these ties are in the process of being dissolved, but we must be patient. Things sometimes have to run their course. Unless of course we just tell the saudis to fuck off and then we can watch as gas prices skyrocket. But maybe you wouldn't mind paying $10 for a gallon of gas. Another thing. Please don't take my quotes and use them in your negative arguments. B/c me saying, "don't think it would be bad for us to have a friendly oil producing nation in the region." in no way implies that "the US manipulates states and destroys regimes if it chooses to" That is not what I think and that is not what my words were implying. Too selfish?? You better look again if you think that this world isn't selfish. As a matter of fact, we are the most unselfish country that ever existed. Did you know that over 70% of all the food aid provided worldwide comes from the US. But I guess that doesn't count. Only the bad things the US does matter, right?I'd have to disagree with you about America imposing its culture around the world. I'd say that the rest of the world wants to impose the american culture on itself. This is a whole different topic that we can discuss later. I agree that we have made mistakes, but most of these situations were not entirely our fault. Most of these countries' problems were from within. There is no way the US can know how everyone they help will act in the future. We can only take a situation at face value with the information available at the time. As a whole, though, I'd say the world is a friendlier place since to the US has been on top. What is a better form of government than democracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seximofo2k Posted August 9 Report Share Posted August 9 Originally posted by mangos Its our duty as the worlds strongest militarized country to defend "the little guy" who gets picked on. IE South Korea, Turkey, Iraq, and so on. If we were one of those countries, we'd look to someone like England or whoever else to protect us. Why is it our duty??? Who are we protecting Turkey from?? I see in many of these countries where we have a large amount of troops ie South Korea and Okinowa that have a population is largely against our presence in their country and yet we are their to protect them? Let them protect themselves. The cold war is over and our troop positioning around the world was based on that conflict so hence i dont see why we should not remap our troop positioning around the globe and i dont see why we should not be able to maintain more troops on our own borders to protect ourselves from present day problems like terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acmatos Posted August 10 Report Share Posted August 10 Originally posted by seximofo2k Why is it our duty??? Who are we protecting Turkey from?? I see in many of these countries where we have a large amount of troops ie South Korea and Okinowa that have a population is largely against our presence in their country and yet we are their to protect them? Let them protect themselves. The cold war is over and our troop positioning around the world was based on that conflict so hence i dont see why we should not remap our troop positioning around the globe and i dont see why we should not be able to maintain more troops on our own borders to protect ourselves from present day problems like terrorism. I agree 100%. Thankfully we are in the process of remapping our troops. There have already been major movements in terms of our locations in Europe. The East is the next step. Once we deal with N. Korea(however that may be) I think we will see our troops leaving Japan and Korea and setting up elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.