US's High Costs of Pursuing Might by Might - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14366970
By Zaher Mahruqi

In her glory days, the US resorted to its might less and it grew mightier in the eyes, mind and heart of the world. When the opposite became frequent, the excessive use of power, America started struggling to hold unto anything it can. The many wars through which the US wished to assert itself as an unchallengeable nation have dimmed the celebrity that was the United States of America.

The most direct victim of US’s muscle policies is the loss of fear-of-the-unknown factor by would be adversaries. The US army has for a number of decades been exposing herself tactically and technologically. Many a times where the US has been forced to use it latest technologies to end wars that shouldn’t have been waged in the first place.

From her prime adversaries, such as Russia and China to trademark Jihadi groups, almost all benefitted in one form or another from the US’s exhibitions of her technical and technological achievements. The US had ignored the most important rule of war-fighting is to keep your enemies in the dark so that the element of surprise is on your side. So much for John Rambo’s ability to wipe out a full battalion, the real American marine has been growing ordinary by the day. We all remember how many commandos and invisible helicopters were required to attack a compound of a single aging man.

The so called war on terror has exposed the US in a more graphic manner. The Wiki Leaks regarding Afghanistan and Iraq among other places and the Snowden revelations have only managed to antagonize even closest of allies.

As America was busy using wars mainly to coerce her economic interests and protect Israel, the Chinese and others have been doing the hard work of industrialization and commerce on a global and unprecedented scale.

While the US was busy violently pursuing total domination, others have been smiling to the world and the world is duly smiling back. The US had made one gigantic error in judgment; it assumed that the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in wars would be dwarfed by its potential returns that it thought could even buy friends.

The intervening factors such as the unexpected stiff resistance by those it targeted, the rise of China and the financial meltdown has turned things upside down; the melt down that surely has been fueled among other things by US’s military spending. Spending that has made the US’s debts increase exponentially rendering the super power nearly a bankrupt entity which even adversaries are freely buying pieces of.

The brand that was the US has been wounded beyond repair. The attitude now is that, anything America can do so can we; I phone for Samsung and Harley Davidson for TVS. At the time that the US is in dire need of image repair, unbelievably its politicians are blurting out profanities against its only hope, the EU.

On a more positive note, there are some indications such as the warming up to Iran and the softer approach to Syria that would suggest that the US might be shifting gear; the realization that, in a contemporary world, wars cannot bring about economic nor territorial might, the understanding that the opposite is true is setting in. Perhaps the US’s politicians and businessmen have finally realized that a peaceful world is a better world even for America.

Mr. Kerry’s comments last week on Israel settlements activities could possibly suggest another important shift in strategy. That the US cannot be blindly overburdened by a country that only adds to its antagonized world stance. Perhaps the time has come when US officials and public finally understand the extra weight they are carrying in the name of Israel.

The incessant warmongering and the blind adherence to Israel’s wishes has done a great deal of damage to the American political position internationally. The US is perceived by many countries to be a trigger-happy blood thirsty power that can’t be taken as a serious broker to end disputes and conflicts around the world. There is still some influence that the US enjoys but most is based on historical considerations and even more so is based on indirect bribery or direct threats; stick and carrot. The problem is that the carrot is hastily drying up.

Even the puppet governments such as Egypt who have been beneficiaries of American’s billions for many decades are now snubbing the US. Mr. Sisi’s visit to Russia which is surely a trip to seek support for his presidential candidacy is also meant to show the Americans that theirs is no longer the indispensable power it once was. Whilst the next Egypt’s president seduces the number one adversary of the US, he has opened all gates for Egyptian media to throw jabs at the US’s policies towards it. Ironically, even when America is “right” as is the case with its opposition to the coup in Egypt, many still choose not to respect her view.

Softly-softly approach has been working wonders for other powers such as China and Russia in terms of economics and politics and the way the world is moving the US will have to follow suit if it is to continue having any meaningful influence on it.
#14370342
An interesting piece. Do you have a link?


assignmentswiz wrote:The most direct victim of US’s muscle policies is the loss of fear-of-the-unknown factor by would be adversaries. The US army has for a number of decades been exposing herself tactically and technologically. Many a times where the US has been forced to use it latest technologies to end wars that shouldn’t have been waged in the first place.

From her prime adversaries, such as Russia and China to trademark Jihadi groups, almost all benefitted in one form or another from the US’s exhibitions of her technical and technological achievements. The US had ignored the most important rule of war-fighting is to keep your enemies in the dark so that the element of surprise is on your side. So much for John Rambo’s ability to wipe out a full battalion, the real American marine has been growing ordinary by the day. We all remember how many commandos and invisible helicopters were required to attack a compound of a single aging man.



The logic here is similar to an idea which existed in ancient Saparta. That was, it is a mistake to prolong conflict with a given adversiary as that foe will be trained in Sparta's fighting techniques if they have enough time to adapt. Agesilaus II was accused of this in the skirmishes with the Thebians leading up to the famous Spartan defeat at the battle of Lectura (371 BC). Howver, as Plutarch points out in his biograhpy of Agesilaus, the leaders of the Thebans were quite capable in hteir own right (eg: Epidmonas) and were actively training their Hoplites to take on the Spartans. Likewise, America's opponents in today's world are not passive recipiants but are actively training their forces to take on the Americans.

So I argue that line of reasoning is weak.



assignmentswiz wrote:Softly-softly approach has been working wonders for other powers such as China and Russia in terms of economics and politics and the way the world is moving the US will have to follow suit if it is to continue having any meaningful influence on it.



Events show this paragraph to be extraodinarily misrepresentative of the world we live in. China has been busy antagonising their neighbours for some years now, causing an arms race in the western Pacific. Russia has also been active in disputed regions, such as northern Caucases and now the Ukraine, amongst other places. 'Softly-softly' is not the term I would use to describe either example nation that the author offers. I really don't understand how the author could possibly believe what he wrote here.


So, having presented soem critisisms, I still find myself agreeing with the author's general theme: the USA ought drop the arrogance if they want to wield soft power along with hard power. And also the underlying belief that hard power only goes so far, soft power being a cheaper and often more effective means to secure an objective.
#14373738
I think the article is "Right On"

Regardless however of a measured approach and recognition of the cost of Israeli blind support we are hampered in implementing a new strategy by the hands that control the money supply "(political tune)".

Search XAT3 & History of Money

A long but fruitful read in respect to understanding "What makes the world go round"

They are the rule. Statistics prove this. I'm in[…]

See this article : Hmm...this sounds a lot mor[…]

End of maduro - hopefully.

The government of Venezuela lacks general intelli[…]

I have no idea why anybody would criticize Bill […]