Is there some reason the US must remain aggressive in various foreign policy ventures, in order to maintain its own infrastructure and so continue to exist?
Or is it possible for the US to chill out and lay off a little, and still have its infrastructure, and still continue to exist as a coherent and democratic nation?
Totally vague question, I know. Fill in whatever blanks you find in the prompt in whatever way you wish.
-FrL-
Hey, somebody has to pick up the imperialist slack.
I guess I’m not seeing how aggression (assuming for a moment that the US IS aggressive of course) has much to do with infrastructure. At least not as I understand the term. So, lets set that aside, unless you want to define what exactly you mean by infrastructure (I’m assuming perhaps you mean something to do with international trade…something like that).
So, does the US need to be aggressive with its foreign policy, a la Iraq? IS the US aggressive, showing a tendency to aggressive behavior in its history…or even more recently under the dreaded GW? I guess its all in what exactly you mean by aggressive here.
The US is certainly a world superpower…perhaps the ONLY world superpower right now. So, its actions are bound to strike some (many) as aggressive…at least in some contexts. We certainly like to get our way, and if aggression is defined by that yardstick we are aggressive. As one of the 5 perminent members of the UNSC we are as aggressive as any of them in browbeating the non-UNSC members and getting our way.
But are we aggressive in other, more warlike ways? I’m not sure I buy that. Certainly the Iraqi war was an act of aggression on our part. But this is one example…and to some extent it was provoked by an attack on the US (yes yes…I KNOW Iraq had nothing to do with it), which precipitated a response we may (probably would) not otherwise have taken. What are some other examples of US warlike aggression? Afghanistan I don’t think could be defined that way, except by the rabidly anti-war/anti-US crowd. Bosnia? That was European aggression if anything…the US just tagged along. Grenada and Panama? I suppose these could be (pretty weak) examples of short term aggression. Vietnam? I don’t believe so…I’m sure other would disagree, but nominally we were responding to an act of aggression against one of our allies (and BY one of our allies…I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out which ally was the aggressor 
). Korea? Again, I don’t think so. WWII? WWI? These were European aggression (with Japan thrown in in the former) that we basically allowed ourselves to get dragged into. War of 1812? I suppose a case could be made for this one, as it was our intent to invade Canada…but we were also provoked (again). Revolutionary war? Naw.
I’d say over all in our history we’ve been no more aggressive than any other major power…and a hell of a lot less than most. If we use other major powers as a yardstick…which I think is fair. In comparison to, say, the British Empire, or the French Empire we have been about as far from aggressive as you could get…and still be a major world power.
All that (BS) said, I will say that the US doesn’t have to be aggressive a la Iraq at all…its actually detrimental to our nation. We DO need to be assertive in our foreign policy, we need to be a leader…and to some this will seem aggressive. But we don’t need foreign adventures like Iraq to maintain our standing in the world, no…they actually hurt much more than they help.
-XT
What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA…
“With great power comes great responsibility…”
Did you ever think to yourself, “Gee, you know Spiderman, Superman, and all those fellows should just shut the heck up, do their work at the newspaper, and leave everyone else alone to fend for themselves!”
I am not sure if the word “aggression” defines USA’s behaviour in handling foreing politics and relationships.
I believe that being aggressive can be an healthy personality trait when aiming for a certain goal. Of course, in order for the aggresion to be healthy, one has to respect to his surroundings, rules and regulations. Otherwise, aggression becomes violent.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
“With great power comes great responsibility…”
Did you ever think to yourself, “Gee, you know Spiderman, Superman, and all those fellows should just shut the heck up, do their work at the newspaper, and leave everyone else alone to fend for themselves!”
[/QUOTE]
Except America is acting more like Dr Doom than Superman.
No, we don’t need to be so aggressive.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Except America is acting more like Dr Doom than Superman.
[/QUOTE]
Well, even Dr Doom thinks that he’s doing what’s for the best I assume. 
I think that the real question is: ‘Does the USA benefit from being aggressive ?’
Personally I don’t think so, lecturing other countries on the benefits of ‘democracy’ is rather insulting
China is pulling itself into the 21st century and needs technocrats running the show, not the representatives of a horde of peasants who are living in the equivalent of pre-industrialized USA
Russia is trying to remedy the chaos that followed abandoning ‘communism’
everybody knows that it is going to be very rich, but the trickle down effect will take time.
Countries at different stages of development require different styles of government, the most dangerous form of government is one that feels insecure.
The USA could rub along with the most horrific States if it gently suggested that its television viewers would not take kindly to mutually advantageous ‘deals’ if they saw too many unpleasant pictures on their screens.
For example Cuba is regarded as a pariah, but it is rather good at medical research, few USA citizens would object to shipping the latest MRI scanners to Havana in return for an exchange of research information.
It would make that old ogre Castro look good, it would go down well with the US electorate.
Iran was thoroughly confused by the totally genuine reaction to the Bam earthquake, and something similar happened in Pakistan.
Personally I would abolish ‘aid’, but go strong on mutually beneficial ‘deals’
We British used to be quite good at that sort of thing, we used to take in hordes of foreign students and educate them (something went wrong in the late 1970’s).
One example that might get peoples’ hackles up is that Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar
Personally I reckon that the USA would be a lot better off if it trashed its soapbox, reserved its arms for defence, and spent a lot of effort trying to understand the other guy’s point of view.
If the USA were quick to make a friend, and quick to defend a friend, then the World would be a lot stabler place - and stability breeds tolerance and televisually acceptable behaviour.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
Totally vague question, I know. Fill in whatever blanks you find in the prompt in whatever way you wish.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should craft your argument in the form of an actual debate or put it in MPSIMS.
Aggressive at what? Militarilly? Probably not in Iraq but definitely in Afghanistan.
Should we be aggressive in trying to broker a resolution to the Israel/Lebanon conflict? Probably.
How aggressive should we be in regards to Rwanda or Darfur?
What about economically? Should we not be aggressive to marketing our goods and services around the world?
It’s not that we are too aggressice. We need to be just and consistent in our handling of issues that require an aggressive response if we want to build trust.
The short answer, Frylock, is that an agressive foreign policy is not necessary to our safety, nor is it a good thing economically for our people, but it is a good thing for our ruling elite. They get to pick up a lot of opportunities to make themselves even richer.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The short answer, Frylock, is that an agressive foreign policy is not necessary to our safety, nor is it a good thing economically for our people, but it is a good thing for our ruling elite. They get to pick up a lot of opportunities to make themselves even richer.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
“With great power comes great responsibility…”
Did you ever think to yourself, “Gee, you know Spiderman, Superman, and all those fellows should just shut the heck up, do their work at the newspaper, and leave everyone else alone to fend for themselves!”
[/QUOTE]
“But just because you can beat him up doesn’t give you the right to. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility.”
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I think that the real question is: ‘Does the USA benefit from being aggressive ?’
Personally I don’t think so, lecturing other countries on the benefits of ‘democracy’ is rather insulting
China is pulling itself into the 21st century and needs technocrats running the show, not the representatives of a horde of peasants who are living in the equivalent of pre-industrialized USA
Russia is trying to remedy the chaos that followed abandoning ‘communism’
everybody knows that it is going to be very rich, but the trickle down effect will take time.
Countries at different stages of development require different styles of government, the most dangerous form of government is one that feels insecure.
The USA could rub along with the most horrific States if it gently suggested that its television viewers would not take kindly to mutually advantageous ‘deals’ if they saw too many unpleasant pictures on their screens.
For example Cuba is regarded as a pariah, but it is rather good at medical research, few USA citizens would object to shipping the latest MRI scanners to Havana in return for an exchange of research information.
It would make that old ogre Castro look good, it would go down well with the US electorate.
Iran was thoroughly confused by the totally genuine reaction to the Bam earthquake, and something similar happened in Pakistan.
Personally I would abolish ‘aid’, but go strong on mutually beneficial ‘deals’
We British used to be quite good at that sort of thing, we used to take in hordes of foreign students and educate them (something went wrong in the late 1970’s).
One example that might get peoples’ hackles up is that Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar
Personally I reckon that the USA would be a lot better off if it trashed its soapbox, reserved its arms for defence, and spent a lot of effort trying to understand the other guy’s point of view.
If the USA were quick to make a friend, and quick to defend a friend, then the World would be a lot stabler place - and stability breeds tolerance and televisually acceptable behaviour.
[/QUOTE]
The U.S. has definately benifited from aggression. Much of the Southwestern United States was Mexican territory b4 we ‘liberated’ it. We took over Hawaii the Phillipines. We have military bases around the world to protect our interests. Yes the United States is an empire, under GW we are becoming an Evil Empire.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
Did you ever think to yourself, “Gee, you know Spiderman, Superman, and all those fellows should just shut the heck up, do their work at the newspaper, and leave everyone else alone to fend for themselves!”
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. In real life, a “superhero,” horning in on police work and fighting crime freelance with no government oversight, would be just as dangerous to the general public as any other kind of vigilante – only more so, because of the superpowers.
The fundamental fact is that if you have an enormous standing military, then the government will need to start wars in order to justify the existence of that military. If a long stretch, goes by without the military doing anything, then the citizens start to get restless and wonder why so much of their money is being spent on an organization that doesn’t produce results.
One sees this pattern clearly in American history. At the beginning, we had only a militia, and consequently we fought only defensive wars because those were the only ones the people would stand for. We defended in the War of 1812 and fought the Barbary Wars to defend our shipping rights.
But the standing army was established in the 1840’s and expanded greatly in the 1860’s in response to the Civil War. Once we have such an army, we need something for it to do. All of a sudden, we get the Mexican War. However, what makes the pattern most clear is the wars against various Native American tribes. We see very few such wars in the early years of the 19th century. After the Civil War, we suddenly need an excuse to use our army, and conflicts multiply.
Then, at the end of the nineteenth century, we’ve more or less run out of hostile tribes to wage war against. We need some other outlet for the army. Presto, we decide to liberate Cuba and the Philippines from Spain in 1898. And we’ve been liberating other countries from that day to this.
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
But the standing army was established in the 1840’s and expanded greatly in the 1860’s in response to the Civil War. Once we have such an army, we need something for it to do. All of a sudden, we get the Mexican War. However, what makes the pattern most clear is the wars against various Native American tribes. We see very few such wars in the early years of the 19th century. After the Civil War, we suddenly need an excuse to use our army, and conflicts multiply.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that that’s really true. Here’s excerpts from the US Army’s Center of Military History’s "American Military History:
You can find the complete work here:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH/amh-toc.htm
So, we had a regular army of 10,000 in 1815, 13,000 in 1850, and 27,442 in 1876. In comparison, the Census says that US population was 7.2 million in 1810, and 38.5 million in 1870. The land area of the US grew from 1.7 million square miles in 1810, to 3.6 million square miles in 1870. So, while the army was about 3 times as big, the population they were defending was over 5 times as big, and they were defending a land area just over twice as big.
In fact, what you see consistantly throughout the 19th century is a small standing army, with mobilization in time of war, and then rapid demobilization once the war is over. This happens at the beginning of the 20th century too. Congress authorized a standing 100,000 man army in 1902, which, throughout peacetime never gets filled, then during WWI, there’s a large conscripted army, and then after the war, in 1922, the size is reduced to 125,000 men.
And I think a key point is…every time we went to fight one of those wars where we essentially had to mobilize from scratch it was a bloody shambles for out troops initially while we re-learned all the shit we had gone out of our way to forget. Oh, and of course, using conscripts (if you are going to mobilize rapidly this is pretty much the only way to do it) exacerbated this (a small, poorly trained ‘regular’ force, hopelessly outdated attempting to spin up a bunch of civilians REALLY fast and toss them into the fire of combat). Eventually of course we would learn the lessons (paid in the blood of our young boys), and by the end we’d be pretty good…and then we’d immediately disband our army and forget the lessons learned. Until the next time.
Sorry, but I’m not seeing this as an ideal model to base things around.
-XT
Methinks xtisme hasn’t been following the news about how big of a clusterf*ck our current Iraq adventure has been.
And to address the OP, US foreign policy is currently so “aggressive” because that is a cornerstone of the neoconservative mindset – “We’re the world’s sole superpower, so we can do whatever the hell we want, and anyone who doesn’t like it will get their assess kicked.” :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=xtisme]
And I think a key point is…every time we went to fight one of those wars where we essentially had to mobilize from scratch it was a bloody shambles for out troops initially while we re-learned all the shit we had gone out of our way to forget. Oh, and of course, using conscripts (if you are going to mobilize rapidly this is pretty much the only way to do it) exacerbated this (a small, poorly trained ‘regular’ force, hopelessly outdated attempting to spin up a bunch of civilians REALLY fast and toss them into the fire of combat). Eventually of course we would learn the lessons (paid in the blood of our young boys), and by the end we’d be pretty good…and then we’d immediately disband our army and forget the lessons learned. Until the next time.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rjung]
Methinks xtisme hasn’t been following the news about how big of a clusterf*ck our current Iraq adventure has been.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Methinking either rjung A) Can’t read, B) Lives in his own fantasy world, where reguardless of whats written it all REALLY says ‘Iraq’ or ‘Bush’, C) a combination of those two or D) is driving the fishing boat nice and slow with his lines out in the hopes someone (like me) will bite…
Take your pick.
-XT