This is a brilliant analysis and it feels right. America has no need for all these entanglements, and that the American taxpayer is funding European socialised health care via its giant share of the world's military budget is one more spur to getting out. Why should American taxpayers fund health care for anti-American weasels? If the Europeans are forced to cut back on their welfare programmes, they will be well able to afford to pay for their own military protection, as are the S Koreans. This is as it should be.

America will go home and look after its own. The United States has never had a strong taste for empire.

What the analysis didn't address was, where will be the Anglosphere in this massive shift. Granted the UN will be long gone within 10 years. It's dead in the water already and good riddance. If it's still clanking around like a ghost in five years, I'll be surprised.

Given that the US will disengage militarily from the rest of the world, except to protect its own interests, which is as it should be, will Britain cleave to dying-on-its-feet Europe or head out? If the Vilnius 10 join the EU, will the EU continue to be poisoned by the virulent anti-Americanism currently fueling its system, or will Old Europe be sidelined? Will the Vilnius 10 gravitate to Britain and, by extension, the US? They are all northern European civilisations, like Britain, the Danes and Swedes, and bloody minded. And America's withdrawal from the arena will concentrate minds.

I think there might be a tectonic shift. The northern Europeans, including the Vilnius 10, will look west for their allegiance. The Mediterranean countries, led, il va sans dire, by France, will form their own sulky little alliance and will eventually bring in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and even Libya. So France will get its hegemony over the Arab world, which it hungers for, after all. Where would this leave Spain, a large economy which has proven its mettle during these last few months? The last thing they will want is a shift to the magreb. Also, where does it leave Germany? (We won't bother to mention Belgium for the highly rational reason of, who gives a shit?) Will Germany and France go their own way, incorporating the south?

This is a fascinating analysis and leaves so much scope for interesting thought and speculation. I hope there's a big postbag.

I think US disengagement is going to happen - for good or ill. Iraq could be the last hurrah.

Even many US 'hawks' agree that it is over-stretched and that many commitments i.e. Germany are outdated.

A'Fortress America' may indeed be a good thing, for others as well as Americans. However, to be credible it would have to go further than many currently advocate i.e. dissolving NATO, ending financial and military suport for Israel etc.

I don't think this is likely in the near future.

Ian

Take a look at this:
http://www.airbornelaser.com/
In 3 to 5 years the US will have the capability to shoot down any incoming missile aimed at it (or aimed anywhere else). This is revolutionary. The impregnable fortress America.
The technological gap in military power between the US and the rest of the world is widening.The US will be able to withdraw it's ground troops and enhance it's deterrence capability worldwide at the same time. Warfare changes. Might isn't measured any more by counting soldiers, tanks or divisions. Russia and China lose their relative advantages in these areas.
So, while the US may well withdraw it's ground forces, it will by no means be isolationist - in the sense it doesn't give a damn what happens in the world.

I've been thinking the same thing, though I don't think we will ever completely 'withdraw' from all our many obligations. There's hope, however, for at least reducing overseas deployments, and commitments. Germany, (surely already on the platter) Saudi Arabia, ( what an alliance!) and Korea (where the South now wants us to remain, so as to tie us down) are good starting places. NATO is now more political than military, and the UN is in the process of proving its true worth. If Americans were asked to choose between improved public services (or lowered taxes) and our role as the 'world's policeman', I know what my choice would be.

The proper description of the new American military stance isn't "Fortress America."

It is America _Unconstrained_.

Remember, American space based missile defenses will lead to space based kinetic energy weapons.

American 'isolationists' i.e. non-interventionists, should not assume that even a perfect 'missile-shield' is the answer.

While America/the 'West' continues to intervene politically or pseudo-militarily i.e support for NATO/Israel then opposition will remain and so will the potential need for substanstial overseas military action.

Ian

One reason I am for now in favour of ground and air based systems... I'd rather not go global and I don't think you will find many who will support it on other than as a launch on demand system.

Even so, I don't think we will see the space based systems any time soon. There is no credible threat in the foreseable futuret which would justify the expense. We'll likely see the first laser gunboat duels in interplanetary space first.

The threat scenarios are small numbers of short/medium range missiles from terrorists or a few IRBM/ICBM's from rogue states. Either is most cost effectively dealt with by the actual systems now under development.

These people have actually thought these issues through, and I come to the same conclusions about future weapons systems requirements I believe they came to.

A postscript: I do not think there are going to be any particularly well armed or organized rogue states left in ten years.

Trent,

"Remember, American space based missile defenses will lead to space based kinetic energy weapons."

You mean that astronauts will get to carry guns before airline pilots?

Space will be militarized. Where ever humans go, we bring conflict with us.

Liberty Belle: Those are indeed good questions. I'm pretty sure the Aussies are going our way; the UK still hangs in the balance and could swing either way. Canada only needs a slight shift of government since its' rather nearby and automatically shares some of the same interests as their southern neighbor.

It will also be interesting to watch the "Hispanosphere" as America is arguably becoming more and more a part of it as well. The actions of Spain bode well; Brazil is a very good country as well and we should pay more attention to them; Mexico seems to be slowly crossing the threshold from comedy farce government to modern capitalist state and ultimately also shares many interests with the US. Not the least of which is that at the current rate a majority of each country will have relatives in the other in a generation or two.

And of course, Japan is certainly becoming close. I don't know about you, but I see a great deal of cultural intermingling as well. It's not just Japanese kids picking up American culture. It is going the other way as well.

It may well be that a secondary effect of this decade will be a completion of America's shift from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Much hinges on which way Tony Blair falls and secondarily on how the internal politics of the EU fall out after the Eastern european nations join in and water down the French attempts at European hegemony.

It is going to be a fascinating couple of decades.

Dale,

Who decides what a 'rogue state' is?

North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel?

Ian

The technological gap in military power between the US and the rest of the world is widening.

As long as we don't continue allowing China to buy/steal our military technology.

Ian: Any state which supports terrorist organizations in the acquisition of NBC and soon NBCN weapons for a starter. I don't much give a damn about any other definition.

I'd also say that extreme cases of state murder like Cambodia should call for outside intervention. We can perhaps ignore states which only murder thousands of their citizens. I don't think we can make a moral case for ignoring ones which murder hundreds of thousands or millions.

Nice analysis, Dale. I hope you're right.

However, here's another aspect to the Iraqi situation which I have yet to see discussed. An additional reason for America's desire for "regime change" in Iraq may be to return Iraq's oil sales to the dollar denomination (they went Euro in 2000), and to deter OPEC from following Iraq's lead.

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/07/arpubwc020703.htm

It's an excellent analysis, well-referenced, and insightful. Its basic premise is that since WW2, all Mid-East oil sales have been dollar-denominated. This created and sustained for half a century a massive global demand for US Dollars, as that was the only currency with which a nation could buy oil. That demand combined with America's economic strength made the dollar the strongest currency in the world, which in turn allows the US to run massive govt. budget deficits and trade deficits. Any other nation with our sustained level of debt would have gone bankrupt long ago.

The Euro now represents the first true challenger to the dollar, and the only other currency which could be used for oil sale denomination. By 2004 the EU will have aggregate GDP of $9.6 trillion and 450 million people, versus the US's $10.5 trillion GDP and 280 million people. In Nov. 2000, Saddam Hussein re-denominated Iraqi oil sales to the Euro, taking a financial bath in the process. However, in recent months, Iraq made out like a bandit due to the Dollar's fall against the Euro. Additionally, OPEC representatives have publicly voiced that OPEC may consider redenominating their oil sales to the Euro.

If that happened, global demand for the dollar would fall, demand for the Euro would rise, and America's ability to run huge budget deficits to finance military spending, among other things, would be seriously set back, as the EC becomes the new financial center of the world.

That's a brief synopsis, but there's much more to the actual article. I hope you all read it, and I'd be interested to hear your opinions of it. Personally, if this is truly a battle with socialist, statist France and Germany for control of the world financial system, then I prefer America to win.

The borders of Islam are, and always have been, bloody. The very nature of Islam makes it aggressive. The U.S. presence in post-war Iraq is to try to moderate that aggression and bring some hope of democratization to the region.

I believe the real goal of the U.S is to try to curb the spread of virulent Islam through small, progressive actions including war if necessary. If not then Europe is on the border of radical Islam, and they have huge muslim communities themselves. And these smaller preemptive conflicts now are much preferable than a continent wide religious war on Europe.

Make no mistake we are in WWIV; a new cold war between Islam and the rest of the world. Islamic doctrine is for worldwide conversion, radical or moderate, and moderate Islam is pretty damn radical compared to western culture. America learned this lesson on 9/11. Most of Europe seems completely oblivious to the situation. Absolutely amazing.

Dale,

Even your list is going to be quite tricky to define ...

For example, the UK has biowar facilities. Does the UK count? If only for 'defensive purposes'? well they all say that don't they?

As for numbers etc? Well, should we have intervened in Rwanda? Far more people were murdered there than say Bosnia.

So why did we send troops to Bosnia and not Rwanda?

Ian

Wow. Well done, Dale.

Exactly what I have been thinking in fragmented manner, but much more concise and descriptive. And I think it is dead on. I'm keeping this and sending it on.

One thing I have been saying to those who march in the streets or sympathize with same.....

"Are you ready to win?" Meaning, you want a less powerful (or at least less engaged, imperialist, ivolved, US). Are you ready for that? Are YOU ready to step up to the plate, financially AND militarily? Ready to pay yet MORE taxes, but not for fuzzy wuzzy social programs? Ready to send that son (or daughter) of yours off to create, not just keep, the peace, since America has now taken you at your word and given you what you want? ARE YOU READY FOR THAT (lefty marchers)?!?!?

Better be. Because that future is bearing down on you like a freight train. And for a great number of you looking for help and sympthathy at that time from a disengaged and isolationist US.... tell ya what. Maybe we'll be nice...maybe... and NOT try to undermine you at every opportunity as we sit on the sidelines and sanctimoniously bloviate. Frankly, I wish many of you would offer the same courtesy.

There is a reason the saying "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it" is the most ancient of wisdom.

I responded to the posting above, now this is tp the comments.

The US will always stand with the UK and Australia, (and Canada wether they like it or not). The Anglosphere is an important reason, but something hugely significant was Tony Blair's earlier statement that the UK would pay a "blood price" for the US-UK alliance.

Blesss his ever loving soul for that, and you can be damn sure that the Jacksonian Bush knows exactly what he was saying and why. That's one reason Bush is going the extra mile at the UN for his literal blood-brother. Any future President will remember this just as much as they will remember French perfidy. Same thing for John Howard and the Aussies.

And BTW Ian reason we went to Bosnia and not Rwanda was entirely strategic and not moral. That may be unfortunate, but, as the interests of the US and Europe were much closer then than now, (apparently), the fact is that rampant instability in southern Europe was far more dangerous across the board to the US and Europe than the exact same situation in Africa.

Shocked. Shocked I am to find cynicism in international policy.

Hep Cat,

In history, Islam was - for many years - an enlightened religion. In medieval times, while science was being persecuted in the christian world, astronomy, chemistry, mathemetics etc. was far more advanced in Islamic countries.

A great deal of scientific knowledge was saved from Greek/Roman times precisely because Muslims saved such works when they were being burned/destroyed by ignorant Christians.

The vast majority of Muslims are decent, honest people who are totally disgusted by terrorism etc.

Ian

In my early stages of study about the Middle East - so far - takfir indicates a fundamental division among the peaceful Muslims and the extremists.

You're correct, of course. We will soon discover that Chirac is being paid under the table to speed things along.

Of course, Ian--the vast majority of the human race is decent. However, the majority of muslims are also cowed into submission by theocracies and fed streams of incendiary propaganda by official media outlets and wahabbi elites. That kind of thing takes its toll.

I've always thought the long term idea was to secure safety for America and its allies without having large numbers of troops abroad. That said, we can't be 'Fortress America'--threats should be dealt with pro-actively instead of relying on a pie-in-the-sky missile defense program. I'm convinced that a rogue state that wanted to get a nuclear bomb into the United States could do so by means more creative than an ICBM. We can't simply turn a blind eye, else 9/11 will be a pale shadow of the blow a committed enemy, left alone, could deal us.

>Even so, I don't think we will see the space based
>systems any time soon. There is no credible
>threat in the foreseable futuret which would
>justify the expense. We'll likely see the first laser
>gunboat duels in interplanetary space first.

Nope.

9/11/2001 taught America that the bad guys will come after us no matter what we do. So we might as well be very well armed and pro-active about threat elimination.

Space based missile defense dove tails nicely with a sea & air power based military strategies. It preempts nuclear strategies such as that which North Korea has successfully pursued. It also makes Chinese threats to nuke L.A. unbelievable.

Besides, the only way America can use its aircraft carriers safely in the mid-to-late 21st century is under the cover of American military space forces.

>As long as we don't continue allowing China to
>buy/steal our military technology.

The Chinese military procurement system is more corrupt than that of the USA. As sluggish as America's military procurement system is, it is orders of magnitude faster than China's.

China cannot steal and assimilate American military technology fast enough to be a "peer threat."

The Chinese military procurement system makes the best T-55s and Mig-19s in a world of F22s and M1A2 Abrams.

Russia's sale of Su-27s and T-72s mean that 30 years from now the Chinese will be building the best SU-27s and T-72s in an era of American military robotics, space planes and orbital kinetic energy weapons.

>Who decides what a 'rogue state' is?

Ian,

The answer to that is the President of the United States of America and no one else.

Such is the consequence of Europe's abandonment of military power in favor of E.U. diplomats.

To Ian Geldard,

I am very much with you on the scientific contributions of early medieval Islam and the opposition to terrosism among most Muslims today.

But while science (and education, see "Market Education: The Unknown History") flourished from the 8th to the 11th centuries in the Islamic world, the militarily expansionist Caliphates running that world still had bloody borders a great deal of the time. Expanding the faith by force was an integral part of Muslim leadership.

During the 11th century, state-funded, state-controlled schooling was introduced in Baghdad, and gradually spread throughout Muslim-ruled lands. Contemporaneously, and not coincidentally, scientific inquiry was stifled. The desire to expand the faith by force remained among Muslim leaders (though their success diminished), and the borders of their lands remained bloody.

Saddam Hussein, in both word and deed, expresses his desire to become the heir to the Caliphs of old--bloodying his borders every chance he gets.

Entirely apart from the WMD rational that motivates the Bush administration, getting rid of Saddam could do much to hamper that part of the Muslim population that still openly or privately yearns for a return to military advancement of the faith. For the masses who do not share that aggressive missionary vision, it would provide a better chance of establishing an Arab/Muslim constitutional republic than has ever before existed. For both of these reasons it is a worthy goal.

--Andrew Coulson

Prior to 9/11 Bush may have been an isolationist as you say (doubtful), but a small group of powerful and influential technocrats within his administration (Wolfowitz, Cambone, Cohen, Zakheim, and Libby, et al.), the former members of Project for the New American Century, had other ideas. Their 2000 report reads like a blueprint for the current Bush Administration policy.

In their call for a new "Pax Americana" they called for a 3.8% increase in defense spending (which, surprise, suprise, is what we've got, up from $281 billion in 2000 to our current outlay of $378 billion), and for a realignment of the U.S. military into a permanent Constabulary force that will enforce this Pax Americana after we topple the troublesome regimes that have become Bush's "Axis of Evil." Their report stated that we will increase our number of bases and forces overseas, eventually expanding this constabulary duty in countries and regions in the future we have not had much of, or ever had, a sizable military presence previously (Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia). We will, in fact, become the new police force in the Third World.

This document was written well before 9/11 and only proves that 9/11 was merely the fortuitous springboard for a plan these hawks have been devising since 1992.

So I disagree with you that our military presence overseas will shrink ever again, especially after we topple the regimes in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and wherever else the Bushies have decided to employ their "liberation theology."

Occupying Army, constabulary force, global police duty…whatever you call it, it will cost money and require us to have more, not fewer, forces serving overseas. And, mind you, not just in the short term, but possibly forever--at least for our lifetimes and those of our children and grandchildren.

Meanwhile the EC, Japan, China, Russia, and other nations will prosper more because they will not be spending nearly as much on defense as we will.

So is it worth it? Maybe yes, maybe no. We shall soon find out.

Russia's sale of Su-27s and T-72s mean that 30 years from now the Chinese will be building the best SU-27s and T-72s in an era of American military robotics, space planes and orbital kinetic energy weapons.

That's a comforting thought, but I'd rather not rely on the assumption that China will never sufficiently improve its military procurement system, or that America's will never lose any efficiency. That rings of the complacency of empire, the first step in empire's decline and fall. The Chinese may currently be inept, but they are also hungry. I wouldn't write them off just yet...

A couple of comments before I go to bed (tuned in late and haven't read all the comments, sorry if I repeat)

While, I think this analysis is very good, it doesn't answer one question. How does becoming a sea power win the war on terror? Perhaps that's not part of the scope of Dale's analysis. Maybe it's assumed that the troops in Iraq will, while there, possibly fight a few more places and reshape the middle east into something resembling a modern tolerant society that's not a hotbed of terrorism.

Also, while we may wish to withdraw from the Korean penninsula, how does that solve the North Korean problem? We still have to worry about their weapons ending up in terrorist hands. Regime change has to be the goal there as well (how? No frickin clue).

These are just questions. I largely agree with Dale's read on things, but I am a little fuzzy on what happens in the interim (again, maybe that's not part of the scope here).

One other point that I've been meaning to note on several boards. I really don't think the U.N. is going away. It has a tremendous pull on at least a large part of American society (particularly those that vote Democrat). It has an even bigger psychological pull on Western Europe. It's too useful to China and Russia and most other nations in the world. Should it go away? Probably. But, I just don't see it yet.

So, just throwing that out there. The U.N. will be given more chances than Saddam Hussein to change. And that includes the Bushies. I just don't see it going away. Perhaps Bush will continue his amazing boldness and sweeping proposals for yet another world order. But, I just don't see it. It'll need to fail gloriously a time or two more before it goes away. Just a thought. Goodnight!

I should have said that hours ago. It's 0420 over here. But you are right, I was not looking at the short term issues here, only the broad sweep. After Iraq is dealt with most of the rest of the War on Terrorism will be fought with small teams. I suspect NK will quiet down as soon as they see we aren't occupied elsewhere. And I think they are going to be very surprised to see the US pull back troops and become only a ready reserve for South Korea.

North Korea is in a cul-de-sac. It is surrounded by countries with far more wealth and capability than it has; all are stable. It has very limited choices. Basically, unless they do something very, very stupid and very,very soon we may well be able to disengage and let South Korea deal with it. I've already discussed this at length in an article some weeks ago so I'll not repeat the issues here.

And now, from deepest Northern Ireland... good night Chet.

Article on the return of US to role as sea power was written by William Richard Smyser for the Financial Times (UK).

I keep thinking about "Crowbar" in was a blue sky speculation about dropping kinetic weapons, "crowbars", from orbit onto ground targets, armor, ships, bunkers etc. It would be much more feasabile now.

Also, I wouldn't consign all of the Med counries to a French-German axis. The US has ties of blood to Italy and Spain has some issues of it's own with France.

I find it somewhat interesting that so many people say that Bush43 was an "isolationist" prior to 9/11. According to what definition? By his saying "Kyoto is dead"? You remember, that ridiculous bureaucratic monstrosity that not even the most Liberal members of the U.S. Senate would vote "aye" for? By Bush saying "no way" to the International Criminal Court? Another piece of crap international boondoggle?

Just because Mr. Bush dares to call a spade "a spade" does not mean he wants to pack everything up and ship it back home while telling the rest of the world to go jump in the lake. The U.S. may pull our troops out of South Korea but the primary reason will be because of the lousy way they are treated by South Koreans. They don't want us there? Fine, we'll leave. The South Koreans currently think that GWB is more of a threat than the "misunderstood" tyrant of the North. I am sure that in consideration of what else is going on in the world today, GWB just might pull the troops out and let the South Koreans come face to face with their own rhetoric.

That is what is the key to GWB and his foreign policy team, not isolationism, not realpolitic, but REALITY. They are calling all of those bluffs out there. Get 'em on the record at the U.N., then go into Iraq and play "show and tell" with all of the WMD and the sales receipts from Germany and France. They will redeploy military assets out of Germany and into Eastern Europe where they are wanted. NATO will most likely be redrawn sans France. The "theatre of the absurd", i.e. the U.N., will be allowed to die on the vine while a new international organization will be started up with the U.S., U.K., Australia, and who knows who else? You better believe that it will be a Democratic Members Only club this time. A real peace plan for the Middle East will be put forward, except this time the Muslim governments who use the Israel/Palestinian issue as a safety valve for discontent against their own corrupt regimes will be exposed and forced to confront what they have been doing behind the scenes.

If we become isolationist, and begin to remove our military presence from around the world, doesn't that nudge open the door for some new zealot to begin empire-building dreams of his own? We interfere quite a bit with other countries, but isn't free society as whole safer that way? The only way I think American isolationism can allow the preservation of international democracies is if we greatly expand our intelligence network. As long as we can constantly monitor what other nations are doing, we do not need actual bases and troops in their vicinities, especially if the Navy becomes our primary military emphasis.

I think that though our international military bases encourage relatively small groups of extremists to hate us, they actually help to deter the vast majority of people from taking the idea of becomming our military rival very seriously.

I don't think we can just get rid of our allies either. It cannot be denied that without our bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, ousting Saddam would be much tougher. Hell, we offered 15 billion to Turkey to deploy there. What do we do if in the future we find out some Hitler wannabe is creating a chem-bio war machine? Send in Chief Inspector Hans Clouseau again? I hope not. Let "them" take care of it? I hope them isn't France.

I have not said that conquest of Iraq permits us to disengage. What I said was that Iraq would become our main military outpost in the region. It's true that it would permit us to pull out of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and a lot of other places, but I expect us to keep a military force of between 50,000 and 100,000 men in Iraq for the forseeable future -- 2-4 decades, in fact, just as we did in Germany and Japan after we (helped) conquer them.

Dale: If your scenario plays out (personally, I don't think of our future as isolationist, but the "fortress america" concept while keeping a watchful eye on the world, is believable), does that mean that Pat Buchanan earns the title of a "Blind Pig"? Disengagement and the watchful eye on the world with an absence of international obligations is something he has been speaking about for several years now - earning him much derision in the internationalist media.

KC - Dale did not suggest that the US would become isolationist. Rather, he projects that the US will withdraw, in so far as is possible and not all at once, from active engagement in countries where its vital interests are not served by having a military presence. In the new world order that develops after the war on Iraq, this will be just about everywhere. What point is there in having a military presence in S Korea when the S Koreans are more than able to pay for their own defence? What point Europe? For 50 years the continent of Europe has had a free welfare ride on the coattails of the American taxpayer and America's commitment to protect the weak. It is time they paid their way, and we must thank Messrs Chirac and Schroeder and whoever the prime minister of Belgium is for demonstrating this with such welcome clarity.

The United States will continue to be engaged in the world, but, barring emergencies, will use its taxpayers' money for the benefit of the US. They will be right to do so.

Dale, when I said (first posting) that the N European nations would cleave to the Anglosphere and France and Germany would drift south and eventually form some sort of league with N Africa, I asked what would happen to robust, right thinking Spain. I stupidly forgot, as you politely pointed out, that Spain has enormous influence, in history, blood ties and trade in Central and South America. So Spain will be in the loose alliance of the Anglosphere/Americas axis.

I don't agree with the commentator who said the UN wouldn't go away just yet. It is already receding, even as we type, clanking away down the dank corridors of corruption and history. This current farce has exposed it unequivocally for what it is - a thugocracy peopled with gangsters, chancers and grifters. We will form a new organisation of free-thinking and independent states. We will also cut off aid to corrupt countries and leave it to the citizenry of those countries to sort their dictators out.

This is the most exciting blog on the net right now - as is evidenced that so many people stayed up so late thinking about it and contributing. The initial analysis was sharp and brilliant and everyone who has contributed thoughts has had something highly intelligent to say.

I would be interested to read commentators' thoughts on how America will interract in the international trade arena after she withdraws from active military participation (save emergencies) in most of the rest of the world. For example, they have the most dynamic economy on earth and they're the largest market. Do they need, or want, the rest of us?

Some semi-random thoughts:

1) LB -- don't forget that the Vilnius 10 also includes a number of Central and Eastern European former members of the Warsaw Pact and Titoist (i.e., Communist in everything except PR) Yugoslavia -- a number of them remnants of the Habsburg Empire -- i.e., REALLY Old Europe...our appeal may be broader than you think...

2) Byron (Do I call you Lord?) -- WADR, I think the Sierra Times piece is drivel. Just another bugf**k conspiracy theorist, and one who leaves even more gaping holes in his argument chain than most.

Example: "...the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the Euro since late 2001 ..."

To be precise, that would be since September 11, 2001. Anything spring to mind that might have driven the dollar's value down, especially for those overseas who have always viewed it as the global safehaven for investors?

Guess what: One good bioterror hit in Europe and the Zero...er, Euro...is back down the toilet where it belongs. The Frogs, Boxheads, et. al., have priced themselves out of their own labor markets...their economies are DIRE...a negative number added to another negative number only gives you a BIGGER negative number...if we hadn't given the Eurotrash so much intel help with impending al-Qaeda attacks (ricin, etc.), the Euro would ALREADY be down the tubes.

3) Dale A.: Some rockin' analysis, bro. I might quibble about the true nature of future threats -- in the absence of credible symmetrical foes, the threats MUST be asym in nature, thus the test tube smuggled over the porous border becomes much more of a worry than even the DPRK's Rodong threat -- but it's only a quibble. The UN will be back where it belongs -- Geneva -- within 10 years, and DTE (Deader Than Elvis) within 20.

Ian

I agree that in everything there is some good. But you said it yourself "Islam was" this is profound because it is past tense. Islam's enlightenment is in the past. I doubt they will have another enlightenment, like the west had, unless it is foisted upon them by force. As of now Islam and enlightenment are diametrically opposed. It does not fit into either political ambitions of the Islamists nor the schemes of tyrants and monarchs.

Yes Islam has many decent, honest people. But the Islasmist believe themselves to be decent, honest people doing God's work. And I believe that if push comes to shove, a great deal of today's moderate muslims, faced with a choice between sha'ria or the decadent secular west, will fight to impose dhimmitude. There is no tolerance on the food chain. Even today their silence speaks volumes.

Ian Geldard,

Rogue states are ones that are insufficiently moral. It's not about what weapons the states have, but about what they want to do. The UK and Israel do not want to hurt the US -- no matter what weapons they possess, they are no threat to the US. Note especially, that rogue status cannot be judged mechanically.

Dale Amon,

I think it's notable how convergent the results of your thesis are with the result of the thesis "Bush and US policy both, are very moral".

I'd like to echo what others have said and add my congratulations to Dale on an excellent, insightful analysis. I also believe that the US has begun a process of rethinking its global commitments and strategies from the ground up. IMO, this is long overdue; the splits and disaffection that are apparent in our existing alliance structures didn't occur overnight. The signs have been becoming more and more apparent for several years, although they were masked to a large extent by the economic good feelings of the 90's and the feckless indolence of the Clinton administration.

I agree that the UN is a spent force--if one can even use the word "force" in relation to that body. It cannot be reformed. It is time to recognize that in an age of asymmetic warfare and proliferation of WMD, the UN is simply not up to the job. It will either wither away or transform itself into a purely humanitarian agency.

I think that, with some imagination and creative statesmanship, a new Alliance of Democratic States could assume the "colective security" function of the UN. Potential members of this Alliance would have to meet fairly precise criteria before being admitted. How, exactly, it could prevent the sort of duplicitous behavior exhibited by France, Germany, and Belgium in the current crisis is the question. Not that France should be invited to join.

By comparison, the reform of NATO would be fairly straightforward. Step one: get rid of France. Since they unilaterally withdrew from the military part of the alliance in the 1960s, I see no reason why they should be able to influence alliance policy in any way. Step two: stipulate that the US is not required to participate in, or provide any US assets for, any military action undertaken under EU auspices outside of the new NATO perimeter. The US should make it brutally clear to the EU states that any US participation in such adventures will be at the sole discretion of the US. Some EU politicians have made statements in the past indicating that the US should be required to "loan" its assets to the EU in support of the latter's "Common Defense Policy". They need to be disabused of this notion immediately and in no uncertain terms.

Third, as regards US force structure, there is no longer any need IMO for the US to maintain any sizable military presence in Europe, "Old" or "New". They can look out (and pay) for their own security. I would retain air bases in Eastern Europe for purposes of refueling/airlift/staging of forces in potential trouble spots in the ME or elsewhere. But under normal circumstances, these should not be manned beyond minimum requirements. I see no reason for the current 70,000 troops (and their dependents) to be based in Europe; I would try to get the total down to no more than 15-20,000--fewer, if possible. The US should pledge to assist our allies in Europe in the event they are attacked, BUT only on condition that as a group they agree to spend what we regard as a minimum percentage of their GDP to maintain the credibility of their own defense capability. If they will not agree, or, having made the commitment, fail to carry it out, we should formally withdraw our security guarantee, and simply negotiate basing rights with individual European countries. The Europeans are obviously wealthy enough to take care of themselves, and if they won't, that's their problem.

Overall, the US force structure needs to be radically reformed. While it will be necessary to retain some large ground formations, the emphasis should be on small, specialized, highly trained and motivated units that can be deployed singly or easily combined into larger groupings. Tactics should stress mobility, together with operational flexibility. The US should improve its capability for rapid deployment in distant theaters. We will require additional airlift and sealift assets as a matter of priority.

I agree with other posters who have argued that the US will not become isolationist, but we will use new technology to deploy space and missle defenses to protect our homeland. Beyond that, I also agree with Secretary Rumsfeld that the US should begin to reconfigure its defenses to reduce our troop deployments around the world. Under normal circumstances, we should project power primarily through a combination sea/air/space assets. We should develop the means to degrade any potential opponent's capabilities to the point that the insertion of only a modest number of ground forces will mop up any remaining resistance.

Love of war, praise for "america unconstrained", happiness over governmental orbiting space weapons, a desire to destroy "rogue nations" (which surely includes any libertarian nation, where arms would be unregulated, money laundering the norm, and speech, including rabid terroristic speech, protected), foreign intervention by government troops "for their own good"... You call yourselves libertarians?

Julian Morrison: I agree. All that talk about 'insufficiently moral' states, oh dear, and other collective and/or collectivist notions... although admittedly defence is the one area I am prepared to accept the state's existence.

Color me skeptical. "Intervention to end all intervention" has a familiar ring to it.

Paul: I didn't say that. It is a possible outcome but not the most likely one. I think "less interventionist" is a better one. We make ourselves a target by sitting in some of these places and past administrations have been neither stupid enough to cut and run or brave enough to remove the cause.

There are no certain outcomes, only tendencies. If say, Hillary Clinton were elected in 2008, the outcome could be very different. We'd have a rapid turn around to global entanglements in the name of transnationalism.

The important point for libertarians is the leverage which exists at times of change. In times of relative stability, changes in geopolitical strategy are nearly impossible. Status Quo forces are just too powerful to be overcome.

But when times really are a changin', there are possibilities for great leverage. One can influence events in a way that leads more in the direction of a society one envisions.

It's all well and good to fantasize, as a few seem to, a world that is not and complain about the taking of actions which would be out of the question if that world existed... it is quite another to live with the reality of this world and the historical momentum of 6 billion souls.

Show me a man or woman whose "hands are completely clean", and I'll show you someone who hasn't actually done the real work of changing the world.

Finally got through the comments and as usual the Samizdataheads don't dissappoint. Lots of stuff to respond to.

Mat said "Meanwhile the EC, Japan, China, Russia, and other nations will prosper more because they will not be spending nearly as much on defense as we will."

Sorry pal, but that argument is so old and so not very true. Over the last two decades the U.S. has dramatically increased military spending while Europe & Russia have dramatically decreased theirs. The U.S. did do some spending cuts in the early 90s but it was more redistribution of resources (less troops more high tech hardware) than a true cut. China has been spending hand over fist on defense for awhile, particularly since their economy took off in the last decade in a half or so.

In fact, BECAUSE of our dynamic economy we are able to spend tons of money on defense. It's not a one size fits all pie where defense takes away from other things. Our military as a percent of GDP is actually a percentage point or 2 lower than it was in 80s. And we have a military that is WAY more powerful than anyone elses now or anytime in the forseeable future.

Low defense spending hasn't done squat to improve the prosperity of Europe or Japan. That should be obvious. And given Japan's incredible inability to fix it's severe structural economic problems, that won't change anytime soon. Which sucks, because they are probably going to need to become a nuclear power in the near future.

Europe's current economic course is simply doomed for any number reasons everyone here could state. Low defense spending isn't going to change that.

One general notation of where this debate is. This is not a simple discussion. There is a lot of nuance (I know, I hate that expression too). So, LuminaT don't believe that we are going to just sit behind our anti-ballistic missle defense and say "We're covered." I don't think that is what Dale was saying. Missle defense is simply part of the overall defense plan. It really is the best defense against North Korea while Iraq, Iran and other potential nuclear rougue states deserve different solutions. And it is NOT pie-in-the-sky It is very real technology and it is very close to being reality.

Paul

This is not intervention to end all intervention. These will be 'battles' within a larger new cold war. Just as the Soviet's war in Afghanistan and the Viet Nam war were 'battles' in the last cold war.
They will be fought to contain radical Islam and choke off it's terror weapon. If Islamism takes hold in Europe it will be hell on earth. Secular Europe will be engulfed in a struggle of biblical proportions; with maybe as many as 200 million Islamists citizen soldiers slobbering at the opportunity to kill the European infidel or die for the glory of Allah. They are not the Germans. They will not surrender. It would be an horrific slaughter. This is the intervention that the U.S. does not want to fight. And some European nations may have muslim majority populations within 20 years.

Just an observation, post-democratic and post-Christian Europe seems to have forsaken the enlightenment. When the Church had a stranglehold on Europe (through terror) it controlled peoples' lives right down to their thoughts. The E.U. is controlling peoples' lives right down to their thoughts. Europeans will become serfs again, giving up their freedom for the security of the state guaranteed income. It' pre-reformation, only now, the Church is the state.

Responding to Julian Morrison:

"Love of war..."

In reviewing the commentary here, I am unable to find someone who actually relishes war. Having served in the US Navy, I certainly don't. Although I do think it's quintessentially libertarian to prefer a less-than-ideologically pure war to a wretched and contemptible peace under tyrants.

"... praise for "america unconstrained"..."

I *believe* Mr. Telenko was describing the situation he foresees, not writing panegyric. And as others have pointed out, the phrase is not especially accurate; America will have constraints, both internal and external.

"...happiness over governmental orbiting space weapons..."

In a world where very small anti-liberty factions can potentially steal, and wield, missiles of appaling destructive capacity, I don't see why anyone WOULDN'T wish to see the day when those missiles can be made less threatening. And spaceborn kinetic and energy systems are likely to be more efficient, when mature, than ground-to-near-space weapons.

".... a desire to destroy "rogue nations" (which surely includes any libertarian nation, where arms would be unregulated, money laundering the norm, and speech, including rabid terroristic speech, protected)..."

Inaccurate at best, and overheated doctrinnaire rhetoric to boot. With the *possible* exception of the arms issue: if a so called "libertarian nation" becomes an arms merchant to people who despise liberty (Islamicists, for example), then I for one shall not waste any tears at it's fate.

"....foreign intervention by government troops "for their own good"... "

*mildly* Sometimes you get to do good by doing well. It is well that a free people take steps to keep their cities safe from tyrants who would cheerfully provide NBC weapons to terror-mongers who would level those free cities. If, at the same time, the *disarmed* people suffering under that tyrant's yoke is freed, please tell me why that is a bad thing.

"...You call yourselves libertarians?"

Well, I rather think I'm a skeptical Jacksonian, for the most part. Perhaps because, at least in the US, people who identify themselves primarily as libertarians have a distressing tendency to speak in dogmas.

I leave others to identify their own political positions.

Not that it should *matter*, though. Ad hominem attacks -- or their close cousin, "Bulverisms" -- do nothing to speak to the strengths of the *logic* of the various participants above.

Liberty Belle said: "...how America will interract in the international trade arena after she withdraws from active military participation (save emergencies) in most of the rest of the world. For example, they have the most dynamic economy on earth and they're the largest market. Do they need, or want, the rest of us?"

First, I don't think America will withdraw from active military participation. I think what Rumsfeld wants is to change the way our forces are based (sea and at home vs. in other countries). Like den Beste, I also forsee our troops in Iraq for a very long time a la Germany. I don't see a full withdrawel from Europe either. I think a repositioning and reduction of troops to Eastern Europe is in the offing. And to have a naval power, you still need naval bases, so I think we'll still have bases throughout the Pacific. A withdrawel from South Korea is certainly possible though.

As for the trade arena, again, this is not a debate regarding a truly isolationist America vs. what we currently have. I think what Dale (and Rumsfeld) are talking about is a less "in your face" American military presense. But that military presense will still be pervasive and global in terms of reach.

So, I think using the term isolationists is probably incorrect. I think Bush's goal is a global military power largely based at sea and one that utilizes bilateral relationships versus international organizations. Yes, it is a somewhat withdrawn America. But not one, with apologies to an earliear commenter, that will be the vision of Pat Buchanon. Buchanon is a hard core isolationists who believes in withdrawing completely, closing the border, nullifying trade agreements and using tarriffs to finance the government. That's not what we're talking about here.

In fact, as for trade, we'll be even bigger proponents of free trade. After all, America's history as a sea power had everything to do with ensuring a free flow of goods, free of piracy. Free markets is at the core of America's economic goals (steel tariff decision notwithstanding).

You asked does America need or want the rest of us? Our economy is dynamic BECAUSE of trade. We need trade to maintain that dynamism. We run massive trade deficits because U.S. citizens are wealthy enough to buy loads of stuff from overseas. But, that does not mean we do not do our fair share of exports. U.S. exports have skyrocketed over the last 15 years, regardless of trade deficit figures.

The specialization that comes from freer (sp?) markets have made international trade vital to the U.S. standard of living. We do some things better and at a better price than other nations. However, some things can be made cheaper and at a good quality elsewhere. That's the normal workings of the free market. THe beauty of America's relatively free private sector is that it takes full advantage of every market.

So, yes, we both need and want the rest of you. At least we want your goods and services. As long as you will be a good chap and buy some of our goods and services. THe most important thing to remember about trade is that it wouldn't happen unless it was mutually beneficial.

This repositioning of U.S. forces and our change in worldview is not going to create an isolationist country. It's simply going to create an America that is more akin to it's roots: Live and let live and don't make trouble.

First off, to Bill Ernoehazy, I wish I had written that.

OK, again, I want to dissent from the conventional wisdom of the blogosphere and all the neo-con commentators. I think, 10 years from now, the U.N. will largely be in tact, based in New York, with the Security Council still "acting" as the primary guarantor of world peace. Might India or Japan be permanent members? Possibly. But I don't see much change from now. Here's why.

- George Bush and Collin Powell. I actually think that the reason they are subjecting themselves to this charade of the U.N. is because they genuinely believe it's the right thing to do. Plus it has the added benefit of possibly helping out Tony Blair. Make no mistake, Bush is very loyal to his friends and he'll do all that he can to help Blair.

But more than that, it's important to remember that GWB is the son of GHWB. His dad, just to review, was a former ambassador to the U.N. He executed the first Gulf War entirely through the U.N. And he did it willingly. Bush senior wanted it to be a U.N. project from the get go. You have to believe there are idealogical reasons for that and that they might have had an impact on his son. Ditto Collin Powell. Powell has always been a big proponent of multilateral exercises. I really believe Bush & Powell WANT the U.N. to work. So, even, after Iraq, I think their will be a push to reform or change the U.N. but I'd be shocked to see an alternative to the U.N. be offered. Again, it would require a more glorious failure to get to that point.

Hell, we still sought the U.N.'s blessing in Afghanistan, which was a textbook case of self-defense.

- The U.S. State Department - the diplomats at the state department have a Wilsonian worldview and have for decades. Likewise, they are human and think diplomacy is the best way to solve problems. Since the U.N. is the motherload of diplomacy, I believe it is an institutional cuture at State to use the U.N. as the chief vehicle at conflict resolution. Given that the State Department is the main avenue of foreign policy careers, this will have a huge influence on any policy review process.

- The media. This is pretty much self evident. The media love the U.N. They, more than anyone else save academia, perpetuate the myth that the U.N. is the moral voice of the "world." An Iraqi victory without U.N. approval won't change that. Kosovo and that failure to respond in Rawanda didn't change the media's perception, so this won't either I think. In fact, the media will largely buy into the idea that the U.N. will be the best hope of constraining American aggression.

- Academia: Like or not, the nutjobs in the university and in the public schools treat as fact that the U.N. knows best. They indoctrinate this into the students. I live in perhaps the most Republican county in the Southeastern U.S. and I still was indoctrinated with the idea of the U.N. as the moral global society. I even participated in the model U.N. in New York (yes, I'm a geek).

- The American public: if you look at the polls there is still a massive minority of the U.S. public that believes we need U.N. support. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, there is a huge set of the American populace that believes having friends in the U.N. is more important than having fewer enemies.

- The Democrats: as nice as it would be if they never again won the presidency, that's not reality. The overwhelming majority of Democratic voters believe the U.S. is overly agressive and doesn't hug enough foreign puppies. They love the idea of the U.N. because it's like a great big listening circle (I mean, look at the shape of the table at the Security council). They see the U.N. as giving the world a giant "teach-in." Sadly, this is the pervailing attitude in the Democratic party. It does not mean all Democrats feel this way, but it does mean the ones with POWER feel this way. And that's the problem.

This may be off topic a bit, but it's common meme now that the U.N. is going the way of the dodo. And my analysis may be America-centric, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the U.N.'s long-term viability completely hinges on America's attitude towards it. The most influential American politician in the last 40 years is Ronald Reagan and he hated the U.N. Yet, it's still there. So, again, I think the idea that the U.N. is going away is a case where much of the blogosphere has gotten caught up in wishful thinking. Hey, I'm with you.

But, sad to say, if I were a betting man (whom I kidding, I AM a betting man), I'd wager that the U.N. will be alive and well ten years hence. Sorry, that's how I see it.

The patience President George W. Bush has displayed regarding Iraq has convinced me he and Secretary of State Colin Powell have a larger goal, a “grand vision,” if you will, for the future authority of the Security Council.

The administration had all the U.N. "paperwork" it needed to go to war without submitting to this process, and such a move would have cut out the Security Council far more effectively than this tortuous diplomatic process we have seen over the past six months.

Instead, I believe Bush and Powell have been seeking a new precedent, using Security Council sanction, for dealing with international pariahs. This would not bind the U.S. with "Gordian knots," since the U.S. political system is really the only legitimate and effective constraint on the use of force. Rather, this new paradigm is meant to draw the post-Cold War powers into a united framework for dealing with rogue states and security problems - the knots are meant to bind China and Russia, and in the long run, India.

This, I believe, is an extension of Bush 41's vision of a "new world order" (minus the conspiratorial connotations), setting a positive precedent for Security Council responsibility, and ultimately, action regarding international security problems.

Whether such a system would work or would be advantageous to long-term U.S. interests, is certainly arguable. But I believe the evidence demonstrates Bush has just such a goal.

(My thoughts, in depth, are found at the web site of my alma mater’s newspaper, the BG News - http://www.bgnews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/06/3e66d72c439f9).

RE: Dale Amon's comments March 9th on withdrawing U.S. troops. This article would lead to a different conclusion than Fortress America. Esquire March 2003. The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P. M. Barnett

Lets make this obvious.

Freedom and coercive-control are antithetical.

Freedom is the negation of control. Control is is the negation of freedom.

If you seek one, you seek to destroy the other.

If you try to seek both, you tie yourself in dithering rhetorical knots, trip over the contradiction and fall flat on your face, on one side or the other by circumstantial default.

You cannot be both an authoritarian, and a libertarian.

Choose.

To Andrew Coulson et al.

I'm glad you enjoyed my references to early medieval Islam etc.

Of course it's true that the Calihates subverted and oppressed these early liberal ideas - but that's just a problem of how statists subvert religion and put it to their own ends - rather than about religion per se.

In fact quite a few Islamic 'fundamentalists' (but not the ones who usually feature in the western media) make this point clear - that the state is the enemy of true religion. There are also some Islamic libertarians who make the same point.

See the Minaret of Freedom at:
http://www.minaret.org/

Sure Islam was spread by the sword - just as Christianity was. Pauline Christianity first subverted/infected the Roman Empire and later openly used warfare and/or imperialism for expansion - the Crusades, Teutonic Knights, Conquistadores etc.

Even as late as the 19th century, British Imperialism was driven, in part, by a Christian zeal to civilise pagan savages in Africa etc.

Both Bush and Blair are committed Christians who seem to be embracing war with a similar zealous desire to bring civilisation - by force - to unfortunate natives.

Ian

I see two problems.

1. Islam is still being spread by the sword. And even today if you don't convert to Islam you are enslaved and subjected to shar'ia.

2. I don't believe Christianity is the reason Bush and Blair are targeting Iraq. By muslim standards the Iraqi people are fairly well educated and civilized. The German people were civilized in the 1930s and 40s also. Hell they even had indoor plumbing. No, the reason Bush and Blair are going after Iraq is just like Germany of the 30s and 40s they have a certified whack-job in charge with lots of incredibly dangerous weapons. Hell, Hitler didn't even murder members of his own family and he was a bloodthirsty savage.

Hep Cat:

Where is Islam being spread by the sword? Some countries which were origianlly oppressed by Christian imperialism e.g. in Central Asia by Czarism and continued by Soviet imperialism have become independent states, true. Others, such as Chechnya or Turkmenistan have yet to do so

Maybe you mean Israel? Well, as far as many Muslims are concerned this isnt a matter of the 'spread' of Islam but simply the return of a territory which was taken from them.

No, I don't think Christianity is the sole reason why the BB brothers are gearing up for war - but it could be a background factor that helps explain the mindset of them both and why they are so similar.

Lunatics in charge of nasty weapons? Well where shall we draw the line? Stalin was left alone and we even ended up allied to him. Mao Tsu-tung - another mass murderer and dictator against who we took no action. Both these two killed far more people and had nastier weapons than Saddam.

Oh, and Adolph Schicklegruber a.k.a Adolf Hitler almost certainly DID murder a member of his own family, supposedly because of her knowledge of his rather unusual sexual interests ...

Ian

Julian wrote:
"You cannot be both an authoritarian, and a libertarian."
I'm a libertarian until someone represents sufficient threat to override that.

In regards to China:
I've spent a fair amount of time in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone. I've got a number of friends there.

I'm a long-haired caucasian in a leather jacket. There's little doubt as to my origin. In my walks through Shekou, nearly individual or small group greeted me with a smile and/or a nod. The younger generations want to be friends with America and Americans.

The biggest differences are that socially they're a bit more communal (ie dormitory living) and politically their government is unelected. A large portion of the population wants to eventually change the political structure. As for their communal (NOT communist) living arrangements, I think we might be able to learn something from them. It would make sense here (in some cases) if we hadn't had such a bad experience with corporate housing in the past.

Despite Mao's best efforts, they retain a 'center culture' (like the US), drawing in the best from other cultures. They seem to have little interest in 'defending Chinese culture from impurity', unlike the French.

Give them 10-20 years. About the time they fix their military procurement problems they should be ready to be our steadfast friends.

Very fresh thinking analysis. I still think, though, that before the US withdraws like this, it intends to ensure that there is no country in the world without some kind of functional, workable democracy, or at least something that's "on the mend" to becoming such.

We may possibly be in for a return to the almost militant, progressive liberalism of the 18th/19th centuries - the idea that the liberal, democratic revolution should be spread.

Relating this to the UK: those in his party who stick with Blair, are likely to uphold even more strongly the general drift of New Labour back towards this kind of classical liberalism.

If all goes well in Iraq (and let's all hope it does), then Blair will, in some ways, be in an even stronger position, and the British left will split. Those who were so against him will look foolish and the crank nature of socialism will be highlighted in such a way that will be difficult even for the ordinary person in the street to avoid noticing the bankruptcy of the left.

I agree about China. They are far down a one way road towards becoming liberal and wealthy. The Chinese are intelligent and industrious people; there are a lot of them and they will very probably be the global economic power by the end of this century.

The good news is, Chinese remember that Americans *volunteered* to fight beside them in WWII against the monstrous depredations of the Imperial Japanese Army. The people to people ties go far, far back. If you watch WWII era movies, the Chinese are almost always shown as admirable people and very often a Chinese woman rides off into the sunset with the hero. Interesting for the times because it said even then, when some of our own people were treated as second class citizens, the chinese were thought of as "our kind of people".

80 or 100 years from now I think we will be very glad we did.

Ian: "Pauline Christianity first subverted/infected the Roman Empire and later openly used warfare and/or imperialism for expansion - the Crusades, Teutonic Knights, Conquistadores etc."

Huh? How about the Roman Empire, in the person of the sun-worshipping Constantine (who was never a Christian in anything other than a PR sense) subverted and infected Pauline Christianity?

Constantine's "spiritual" successors to the ancient Roman title of Pontifex Maximus later openly used warfare and/or imperialism for expansion - the Crusades, Teutonic Knights, Conquistadores etc.

Exactly how many people do you think Martin Luther had burned at the stake for heresy? Which Protestant group forced Galileo to recant sound science in the name of dogma? In short, what the hell are you talking about?

To substitute the Roman Catholic church for "Christianity" is not only to beg endless questions -- it is to display a profound ignorance of history.

Hmm...

"I have seen many good ideas put forth about why taking on Iraq is a good strategy, and how different approaches to the other members of the "axis of evil" are appropriate. I think there is something more profound happening in the Bush administration, a policy change whose outlines are now appearing and whose scope is breathtaking in its sweep. "

True, there are a number of things happening in the Bush administration, most of which are at least confused and incoherent, and at best wildly out of touch with public opinion (which, come election time, matters). First off, the administration does indeed have a good reason for ousting Sadam -- he's a bad dude and he needs to go like so many other oldschool dictators (perhaps the royal family of Saudi Arabia would like to bow out, or the president of Egypt, or maybe Prevez Musharraf, or any one of a number of throwbacks. Anyone check on the fun and hijinks in Tajikistan or Uzbekistan recently? Mugabe?). His people seem to have no problem saying that they don't like the guy. Heck, we'd probably be able to find members of his family that'd secretly like to see him take a dirt nap. The problem is that at the moment, there's a certain degree of stability in the region because of his presence. Not necessarily good stability, but stability none the less. Remove that from the equation and you've got a potentially very messy situation on your hands. I won't recount all the possible scenarios (such as; renewed interest in militant Islam, Kurdish revolt against Turkey, etc.) As an example, Afghanistan is still a ball in play -- who knows how that may end up in 10 years. I wouldn't be a bit suprised if American troops are still there, fighting the same forces that wore down the Soviets 10 years ago. The point is that we're going to be dug in for a very long time in the region, no matter what happens. Breathtaking it is to think of several hundred thousand troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan for the unforseeable future. Moving on:

"Prior to 9/11, Bush was considered an isolationist. There were worries about America disengaging from the rest of the world. Folks, that is exactly where the endgame of the current global strategy is leading. President Bush and his advisors are cutting the Gordian knots which tie the US into permanent global deployment."

Isolationism is a traditional conservative value, and in certain instances its not that bad of an idea. However, there is no way in hades that the current administration policy will untie the Gordan knot. It will open Pandora's Box. Instead of disengagement from the rest of the world, we'll be overdeployed trying to clean up the messes left over after our unilateral Democracy binge sweeps away all the world's bad guys. I do mean overextended, by the way. Most of these scenarios fail to take into account that the U.S. posesses a finite amount of military and financial resources. In two years we blew a 5 trillion dollar budget surplus to end up with 300 billion in debt -- the world can change just that fast. In the case of military power, we're already dipping into the Reserves and who knows how much we'll need in men and material to sustain just the Iraq part of the plan -- imagine what would happen if we threw North Korea into the mix. Add to this the general task of keeping southeast Asia from going militant and you've got some headaches and sleepless nights trying to decide if you should reinstate the draft.

"We've got large numbers of troops pinned down in the Middle East. Steven den Beste has already shown how the conquest of Iraq removes the reason for basing large numbers of forces in the Middle East. Troops can be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Turkey and god knows where else. Remove Saddam and there is suddenly no need for it. True, it will take some years to get Iraq Inc up and running the way we got Japan Inc going 50 years ago, but it will happen."

A quick search on Mr. Den Beste's name gives me a blog, which tends to repeat a number of stock arguments parroted around the web by countless robopundits. Here's a new argument for you -- Kurdish terrorists. A generation of young Kurds has grown up in the relatively free northern Iraq. What will happen if, for instance, the U.S. imposes a government in Iraq that doesn't include the Kurds? What about a scenario where the U.S. is forced to fight against the Kurds because they're trying to form their own state? In both instances, there will be lots of disaffection among Kurdish youth with the powers that be, and this in turn will be excellent breeding ground for terrorists. The dynamic is there, the repressed population is there, and the hazardous international situation has only to be created by the instability of a war in the region. Again, this scenario does not lead to a decrease in the requirement for U.S. military presence in the region. After all, there's still the Israel problem...

"With Iran moving towards liberalization; with Iraq a capitalist democracy and with the Russians building a huge new oil terminal in Murmansk for sales to America, we not only get cheap oil... we undermine the very tool which allows Saudi's to support billion dollar terrorist movements."

If Pax Americana wasn't so good at selling itself as the democracy brand of choice, there'd be no need for billion dollar terrorist organizations. Look, discontent with the world is so widespread and has so many different root causes that it's impossible to militate them all out of existence. Imagine what would happen if the USG actually got _serious_ about combating militant "patriot" movements in the United States? This movement is as much a part of the legitimate military in the U.S. as the Taliban is part of the Pakistani ISS. For instance, Wackenhut has one of the largest private security forces in the world, much of which is comprised of people who move between the militas and the military with alarming frequency. If anyone poses a threat to democracy in the U.S., it's these guys -- we used to call the mercenaries back before the CIA stopped doing its own dirty work and started farming it out to private organizations. These movements in turn have links to the international black market for arms and guns, which has links to terrorists, which have links to drug dealers, which have links to organized crime, and so on and so forth. No one has the corner on terrorism and paramilitary activity, there's plenty of support around for anyone to get ahold of arms independent of Saudi Arabia.

"And then there are the Cold War leftovers in Europe... Another commentator I've read recently - where I unfortuneately do not recall - has suggested Rumsfeld wants to return the US to its' classical military stance: a sea power. Maritime powers do not need large numbers of troops permanently based around the world. They only need ports for repair and refueling."

"Where else are we pinned down? Korea... 37,000 Americans in harms way on that hellish armistice line. It is a no-man's land of a half century old war that has never ended. Rumsfeld's latest move in Korea is telling. US troops are to be pulled back. They will no longer be the Korean's border canary."

The first argument places too much faith in floating airstrips and bases. It reminds me of the debate in the 70's over whether or not certain versions of the F-4 should have a traditional cannon. The anti-cannon guys won out, thinking that with all the advanced weaponry available that the U.S. would never actually face enemy aircraft in dogfights. After a number of these F-4's were shot down in dogfights, the anti-cannon types relented and a pylon-mounted cannon was provided for retrofitting on the cannonless aircraft. There's alot to be said about having solid ground around, not to mention that landing an aircraft on a carrier requires quite a bit of skill and burns out pilots. Note that I've spoken in terms of how this would affect airpower. If anyone thinks there's a future for U.S. military power without aircraft, they've sorely misread the last 60 years of combat history.

If we promised Kim Jong Il that we wouldn't attack North Korea _and_ we withdrew our troops, that just might work. Although the deployment of bombers in Guam doesn't bode well for that happening. Maybe we'll withdraw our troops and then attack? Indeed, we'd see a united Korean peninsula under the auspices of Kim Jong. Wouldn't that be nice.

"SecDef Rumsfeld has stated in a number of recent public appearances South Korea has an economic capacity over thirty times that of North Korea and should be able to defend itself. He has suggestd it would be better for our soldiers and their families if they were based at home rather than in long overseas rotations."

Defending onesself becomes somewhat of a moot point after a large chunk of your population is obliterated in a nuclear attack. See above. Now, lastly:

"In each area where there are large permanent American troop deployments, we see disengagement. It might take a war in at least one case to get us extricated. We are getting extricated nonetheless.

There is even a bonus prize. The UN is about to self-destruct. Put it all together and project ten years into the future. We see an America with a powerful naval and air force; with relatively few soldiers based outside the nation. An America looking out for its' own interests and finally rid of most of the "entangling alliances" brought about by World War II and its' aftermath.

We're at the start not of Empire, but of the return to Fortress America... with a global reach via naval and air capacity to handle anyone who comes to our shores looking for trouble.

I think I could live with that."

The U.N. may be the organization that saves the U.S. from its own megalomania. Except for the certified whackos like Perle (who considers Seymour Hersh a terrorist, apparently), the rest of the Bush administration, including President Bush himself, is trying desperately to win U.N. approval for its war in Iraq. There is no attempt here to discredit the U.N. as a world body, only an effort to show that a "minority" of U.N. states oppose a war with Iraq. If it were indeed irrelevant, no one would care what the U.N. said or did. Everyone would conduct diplomacy outside its purview and it would die a slow death. Now, what might happen if the U.N. did die? What would we receive as our "bonus prize"? First off, there'd almost immediately be a war between Turkey and Greece as the blue helmets that patrol the green line in Cypress disappear. International mail systems would undergo a crisis of leadership as the organization which assures that your mail makes it from country a to country b is run by the U.N. The refugee camps in Palestine would turn into hotbeds of discontent unlike anything anyone has ever seen, leading probably to a full-scale war between Israel and Palestine. Now, without the blue helmets on the border between Israel and Egypt, where they've been stationed for the last 50 years, the chances of that war spreading to the whole Middle East and northern Africa would increase greatly and we'd really see something that looked like Armageddon. The peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would suddenly need a new mediator and a new peacekeeping force to take over the process there, with another multi-state war a distinct possibility. These are just a handful of the globe-wide bad things that would happen if the U.N. ceased to exist. No one could live with that.

-Andrew-

Oh, and if I may add this one final point: all of this "grand scheme" assumes that Bush and his comrades can win the next 5 or so elections. Bush definitely won't win the next one.

-Andrew-

Andrew: Since it is rather obvious we quite disagree, and since you actually make coherent arguments, I have made a note in my diary to come back to your missive at the end of the year. We'll see who is looking closer to the mark after events have started playing out.

Andrew:

" ... True, there are a number of things happening in the Bush administration, most of which are at least confused and incoherent, and at best wildly out of touch with public opinion (which, come election time, matters)."

You will no doubt be able to show the polls which suggest this wild discordance between the Bush administration goals and the views of the electorate.

Or perhaps not.

"....First off, the administration does indeed have a good reason for ousting Sadam -- he's a bad dude and he needs to go like so many other oldschool dictators (perhaps the royal family of Saudi Arabia would like to bow out, or the president of Egypt, or maybe Prevez Musharraf, or any one of a number of throwbacks. Anyone check on the fun and hijinks in Tajikistan or Uzbekistan recently? Mugabe?). His people seem to have no problem saying that they don't like the guy. Heck, we'd probably be able to find members of his family that'd secretly like to see him take a dirt nap. The problem is that at the moment, there's a certain degree of stability in the region because of his presence. Not necessarily good stability, but stability none the less. "

The stability of the grave, the orderliness o