Hegemon's Divorce? The US, Europe & Rest of the World

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
**
Imperialism and colonialism are not broader concepts than I paint them. Rather, people who want to whinge have exapropriated these words to give a revolutionary cachet to whatever petty grievance they may have.
**

Look, the fact that your knowledge of colonialism is limited to the most belligerent extremes doesn’t change world history in your favor. Again, I suggest familiarizing yourself with actual colonial history -a specific example would be portuguese influence on the spice trade.

**
Consider, for example, French charges that Americans are “cultural imperialists.” In a nutshell, American producers make movies that French people want to watch. French producers make movies that French people do not want to watch. The French government (which subsidizes most French films) concludes that this is American “cultural imperialism.” Sorry, but in my book, this hardly compares with carving up Africa like a Christmas turkey.
**

No, it compares with another example of your lack of knowledge of what is happening out there. No, it’s not ‘in a nutshell, American producers make movies the French people want to watch’. It’s ‘American movie distributors force other countries to buy crappy US films if they want to be able to show the good ones.’ Movies are sold in packages, sometimes huge packages, and the only way to get a blockbuster is to buy a dozen trash movies along with it.

Considering how many blockbusters were created by European producers or directors in the US, your statements are pretty ridiculous anyway.

**
If modern-day “imperialism” amounts to nothing more than being influential, than I guess America would admit to being “imperialist” and proud of it.

**

You obviously know neither what beef other nations have with the US nor how the US is actually acting on an international level.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
**
In Afghanistan itself, things are also playing out quite well. You may recall the dire predictions about fierce Taliban resistance turning Afghanistan into another Vietnam. That, obviously, didn’t happen. On the contrary, America has managed the entire operation with only a few thousand troops.

The current prevalence of warlordism in Afghanistan is well-suited to American interests. During the Taliban era, Afghanistan was an American no-go zone where the U.S. had no influence or decent intelligence at all. There may not be any WMD labs in Iraq but there sure were in Afghanistan. The current fluid situation, warlords and all, is far better for the U.S. than was the Taliban era. **

Ah, I see. So free-for-all butchery is only bad when it actually is controlled by a central entity, and the Al Qaeda being free to operate is only a bad thing when it is not happening straight under the nose of the US.

**
America is also playing its hand with an exquisite appreciation of the art of the possible. The Soviets attempted to unify the country by overwhelming force, thereby provoking nationwide resistance… America, however is using a much lighter touch. The American presence in Afghanistan is sufficient to make it clear to all parties who the big dog on the block is but not so heavy-handed as to make the various warlords view America as a common enemy. America exerts influence on the warlords in ways that slowly nudge them towards cooperation with the center but that are, in and of themselves, unobjectionable enough so that no individual warlord is willing to risk a direct confrontation with the U.S… It’s the salami tactic approach to nation building. Do you think Karzai prevailed in the recent confrontation with the warlords solely by virtue of his forceful personality?
**

No, I believe you are seriously kidding yourself on the status quo in Afghanistan.

**
We’ve already discussed the implications of warlordism for U.S. policy. As for the return of the rule of the Taliban, that just isn’t in the cards. If nothing else, the U.S. will be able to keep the pot boiling by supporting factions opposed to the Taliban. As black eyes go, the failure to capture specific individuals hardly makes the U.S. a laughingstock. It would have been nice to capture Mullah Omar and bin Laden. But uprooting their organizations has always been much more important. Anyway, do you think American prestige and influence would have been better served by letting them continue to operate unmolested?
**

No, but by a bit more humility, instead of dick-swinging. If you make bold claims about what you want to do that you can’t keep later, you reveal yourself to be nothing but a schoolyard bully who merely slaps the easy targets.

**
That’s why the Taliban couldn’t collapse fast enough once the U.S. took a hand in the civil war and why on the order of 2 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since their demise. **

No, that’s not why. These refugees returned because they were paid to do so. At the same time, countless others have left Afghanistan.

**
In conclusion, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan has paid big dividends and is playing out as well — or better — than could be expected. Despite continuing chicken littleism, none of the predicted parade of horribles has materialized or is likely to in the medium term. So, yes, Afghanistan was and is a huge success for U.S. policy. **

Given your clairvoyance, what will be saturday’s lottery numbers? It is funny to see someone live in blissful ignorance of key factors in Afghanistan and still claim to be an authority on whether the operation was a success or failure.

**
Perhaps this is a typo. I suggested that France attempted to play the “China card” as indeed they did. Nor is it the first time as the French have been nattering at the Chinese about creating a “multipolar world” for a few years now. This is one of the reasons for U.S. policy makers’ extreme annoyance with France. French foreign policy isn’t structured around influencing American policy, it’s structured around undermining U.S. influence. With friends like these. . . **

Funny. It’s always the others that have to cater to the US, right? Never vice versa? The US is free to act as it pleases and can rightfully expect everyone else to neglect any and all other obligations, be it to constitutions, mandates by the people, or international law. There are no obligations for the US, only rights. Speaking of with friends like these…

[adaher]

The good news is that unlike every other imperial power in history, you can disagree with the US and not get invaded. France and Germany would have been vassal states, and often were, back when there were REAL imperialistic states around.

You can dislike American foreign policy if you like, but “imperialism” is a useless slur that minimizes what real imperialist nations did to the world. Since the US became the principle world power in 1992, democracy has spread more than at any point in history.