Imperial America & the Bush Doctrine - What the hell were the neocons smoking?

[Little_Nemo]

{quote]It’s not that at all. It’s the recognition that America is special, and that we have a unique role to play, a unique destiny. We were the first modern liberal democratic republic. We were the first successful revolution in modern times against the idea of monarchy, and for the idea that there were certain universal rights, and that people could govern themselves. We were a rallying cry to the French revolutionaries, to the revolutions of 1848.

Now, did we always live up to that? Of course not. We’ve done a lot of terrible things, both at home and abroad, but that doesn’t change our responsibilities. Like John Winthrop said, we are “a city upon a hill”, and need to be committed to freedom both at home and abroad.
[/quote]

I agree with the idea that the United States is an exceptional country. But I think our exceptionalism is a standard that we need to live up to not a pass we can use to excuse our actions. We cannot claim that it’s okay for us to violate the rule of law and the standards of human decency because we’re the nation that symbolizes the rule of law and the standards of human decency.

[Odesio]

@Cisco

This is the kind of bullshit, delusional chest-pounding that puts extremist butts in airplane seats.

I thought it was the extremist actions of daring to have U.S. soldiers in the holy land was what put extremist butts into airplane seats.

Marc

[BrainGlutton]

@MGibson

I thought it was the extremist actions of daring to have U.S. soldiers in the holy land was what put extremist butts into airplane seats.

Marc

It ain’t no false equivalence, MGibson. Oh, I can’t see any think-tank neocons volunteering for murder-suicide missions (no more than bin Laden would); but I can see them inspiring plenty of dupes who would.

[BobLibDem]

@Captain Amazing

It’s not that at all. It’s the recognition that America is special, and that we have a unique role to play, a unique destiny. We were the first modern liberal democratic republic. We were the first successful revolution in modern times against the idea of monarchy, and for the idea that there were certain universal rights, and that people could govern themselves. We were a rallying cry to the French revolutionaries, to the revolutions of 1848.

Now, did we always live up to that? Of course not. We’ve done a lot of terrible things, both at home and abroad, but that doesn’t change our responsibilities. Like John Winthrop said, we are “a city upon a hill”, and need to be committed to freedom both at home and abroad.

I think it’s arrogant to assume that being the first to overthrow a monarchy gives the US the moral high ground in perpetuity. I think it’s also arrogant to assume that the US Constitution should be a blueprint for all nations to follow and that democracy is necessarily the best form of government for everybody. I also think it’s ridiculous to claim to be the shining city on the hill when you’re the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons and now hold citizens of other nations in custody without charges, without evidence against them, and without legal representation.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

[shrug] Same thing in principle. Kipling defended imperialism on the grounds the “white men” knew what was best for the “new-caught, sullen peoples / half devil and half child,” therefore had a duty to impose it on them by force; and all the while the whole idea was a hypocritical justification for economic exploitation. Same with the neocons. Exactly the same.

It’s not the same. The difference is that, in reality, there isn’t a difference between the races…whites aren’t better than blacks, for instance. But democracy is better than dictatorship, and freedom is better than slavery.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BobLibDem

I think it’s arrogant to assume that being the first to overthrow a monarchy gives the US the moral high ground in perpetuity. I think it’s also arrogant to assume that the US Constitution should be a blueprint for all nations to follow and that democracy is necessarily the best form of government for everybody. I also think it’s ridiculous to claim to be the shining city on the hill when you’re the only nation ever to use nuclear weapons and now hold citizens of other nations in custody without charges, without evidence against them, and without legal representation.

But that’s exactly the point. We shouldn’t “hold citizens of other nations in custody without charges, without evidence against them, and without legal representation” because America should be better than that. It seems like you and I actually agree that there is a certain standard of behavior, a certain responsibility that goes with being American.

And please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying the US always has the moral high ground…obviously, we haven’t always acted morally, and we’ve done some terrible things. But our founding ideals are themselves moral, and when we do bad things, it’s because we’re not living up to the ideals that formed and shaped our nation. When we do the bad stuff, we’re acting “un-American”.

[BobLibDem]

But the US is hardly alone in being a generally moral country of which we expect civilized behavior. What is special about the US that say Australia or New Zealand lack? I’m glad that you expect the US to behave better than what goes on in Gitmo. But I also expect the same from Canada, from Iceland, from the UK. So exactly what is so special about the US?

[John_Mace]

@BobLibDem

So exactly what is so special about the US?

Size. And size **does **matter.

BTW, I don’t agree with all this “America’s special” crap. We’re no more special than anyone else except that we have the economic and military clout to be the undisputed superpower. That’s just too tempting for most folks to not take advantage of.

[ralph124c]

The mindset that led to our Iraq debacle was the end result of a very strange worldview. My question: why wasn’t this idea vetted by some OTHER intellectuals who were NOT neocons? Like general Powell-he knew from the start that the whole thing stood a good chance of failure. That’s the whole problem with Bush: he can neither accept advice or rehtink his original ideas-actually, behaving much like Lyndon Johnson. Suppose Johnson had a cabinet meeting in 1966, and said something like: “Gentlemen, this thing is NOT working. We need to get out of this mess and fast” god knows HOW many lives would have been saved!

[miss_elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

There’s nothing wrong with having a strong military, acting unilaterally if it’s neccesary, or extending democracy, liberty, or security.

As Revenant Threshold has pointed out, there may or may not be something wrong with this idea. But I think there’s a broader point to be made that the NeoCons actually did none of these things. The actions of this group have weakened the military, not strengthened it. It is now well understood (and would have been understood earlier, if not for willful deception) that it was *not *neccesary to act unilaterally in Iraq. You could argue that we’ve brought democracy to the region; I would disagree, but elections were held, so I’ll concede that. But I think you’d have to be pretty thick to think we’ve done anything for the Iraqi’s liberty or security; they are, by any measure, much worse off on those scores.

So maybe the Bush doctrine has a couple comforting platitudes. It’s too bad Bush has absolutely no clue as to how to make them a reality, and I would say he had no real desire either.

[Odesio]

@BrainGlutton

It ain’t no false equivalence, MGibson. Oh, I can’t see any think-tank neocons volunteering for murder-suicide missions (no more than bin Laden would); but I can see them inspiring plenty of dupes who would.

I’m having some difficulty following the meaning of your double negative. If we’re guilty of inspiring plenty of dupes why is the same rarely said of the other side? Are they at all guilty for inspiring U.S. attitudes towards the middle-east?

Marc

[XT]

@BobLibDem

But the US is hardly alone in being a generally moral country of which we expect civilized behavior. What is special about the US that say Australia or New Zealand lack? I’m glad that you expect the US to behave better than what goes on in Gitmo. But I also expect the same from Canada, from Iceland, from the UK. So exactly what is so special about the US?

The answer to this should be fairly obvious. Whats special about the US as opposed to Australia or New Zealand? What do they lack that the US has? They aren’t superpowers and the US is. Canada, Iceland and the UK? The same…they aren’t world superpowers, while the US is. They don’t have the international responsibilities that the US does…in fact, every country you mentioned RELIES (to one degree or another) on the US BEING a superpower. Whether they like it or not (and at a guess, most don’t like it at all). Europe as a whole? WHile the EU is an economic superpower, taken as a whole, they too rely on the US’s military strength, since they have neglected their own defense for decades in preference for their entitlements and social programs.

The US IS special today…it is the only global hyperpower, being at once an economic superpower, a military superpower and even a cultural superpower. To deny what is evident is to deny reality Bob. The fact we are a superpower doesn’t make us more or less moral (one has but to look at past superpowers to see the truth of this)…it simply gives us the power to project our desires on an international stage.

Cheer up though…it won’t last. At some point the US will fall back to the status of first among equals (i.e. we will be just one more superpower among others of equal power and status)…and later on we will fall out of the top of the pack and sink down to…well, who knows. Maybe one day the US will be able to sit back and bitch at what the great and mighty are doing, at how they are fucking up royally on the world stage, and how WE could do a much better job. After all, Europe has let enough time pass under the bridge that they are now rehabilitated and able to do this with a straight face…we can too someday!

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

The answer to this should be fairly obvious. Whats special about the US as opposed to Australia or New Zealand? What do they lack that the US has? They aren’t superpowers and the US is. Canada, Iceland and the UK? The same…they aren’t world superpowers, while the US is. They don’t have the international responsibilities that the US does…in fact, every country you mentioned RELIES (to one degree or another) on the US BEING a superpower. Whether they like it or not (and at a guess, most don’t like it at all). Europe as a whole? WHile the EU is an economic superpower, taken as a whole, they too rely on the US’s military strength, since they have neglected their own defense for decades in preference for their entitlements and social programs.

:dubious: Somehow, I don’t think the collapse of U.S. military power would put any of those countries in serious danger of attack.

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

It’s not the same. The difference is that, in reality, there isn’t a difference between the races…whites aren’t better than blacks, for instance. But democracy is better than dictatorship, and freedom is better than slavery.

You are missing the point. The similarity is in the hypocrisy. Our motives for occupying Iraq are strategic and economic. We’re there to establish a “coaling station” for projection of military power in the MENA, to stabilize global oil prices for the benefit of the oil companies, and to give certain well-placed business interests a chance to make a lot more money. Democratic ideology (as distinct from free-market ideology) runs a very distant third.

[astorian]

Quick: name a single neoconservative who’s ever held a Cabinet position in the Bush White House.

I’m waiting…

There aren’t any now. There never were any. The leading neoconservatives had to stay at the Weekly Standard because they were all John McCain supporters.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

Somehow, I don’t think the collapse of U.S. military power would put any of those countries in serious danger of attack.

I don’t even know how to answer this one. I suppose it would depend on a few things to be true. First off, I suppose it would depend on what you mean exactly by ‘serious attack’…direct attack on any of those nations, or attack on their international interests, trade, etc. Secondly, I guess it would depend on if someone else on the list steps up to fill the void left by a collapse of US military power ( :dubious: ). The last thing would be how rapidly the US military collapsed.

And of course it would depend on if the world suddenly breaks out in peace and happyness with the fall of the evil US and its military. Maybe spontaneous feelings of good will toward all and peace on earth would accompany the fall of the US as a military power, and its only the US holding back this utopia from happening!

Or maybe the fall of the US would usher in more of what we got last century…but with more sophisticated weapons. I’m thinking of the two, this would be a tad more likely.

-XT

[BobLibDem]

@xtisme

They don’t have the international responsibilities that the US does…in fact, every country you mentioned RELIES (to one degree or another) on the US BEING a superpower. Whether they like it or not (and at a guess, most don’t like it at all). Europe as a whole? WHile the EU is an economic superpower, taken as a whole, they too rely on the US’s military strength, since they have neglected their own defense for decades in preference for their entitlements and social programs.

From what, exactly, does the EU rely on the US to defend it? There is no superpower bogeyman for the rest of the world to hide from behind Uncle Sam. There are some criminal activities (terrorism) going on, but being a superpower does not provide any protection from that. If anything, it makes for a better target. I say that the world does not need a superpower, and if the US would just refrain from trying to be the world cop we might see the rest of the world getting along just fine.

[Triskadecamus]

@Captain Amazing

So you believe. I’m not required to share your view, however.

But you are willing to use force to make other people share yours.

Now I’m not saying you aren’t infallible, and destined by God to bring order to the world, but . . . well, you’re not.

Tris

[XT]

@BobLibDem

From what, exactly, does the EU rely on the US to defend it? There is no superpower bogeyman for the rest of the world to hide from behind Uncle Sam. There are some criminal activities (terrorism) going on, but being a superpower does not provide any protection from that. If anything, it makes for a better target. I say that the world does not need a superpower, and if the US would just refrain from trying to be the world cop we might see the rest of the world getting along just fine.

The EU doesn’t have any international interests? They don’t have international trade? They don’t rely on products like, say oil, that comes in externally? I didn’t know this.

Of course, if we posit that terrorism is simply some minor criminal activity, and if we further posit that without the US military all other nations will act peacefully, lions sleeping with lambs and all that, then you are quite correct. The US provides no security to Europe and is simply in the way of utopian world peace.

-XT

[BobLibDem]

With all due respect, XT, who is the big bad wolf? There is no USSR for the EU to fear. No tanks are going to come rolling in from the eastern bloc. True, the Europeans rely on commodities such as oil coming from places where not everyone is singing kumbaya. But is terrorism something that you need a superpower to protect you from or is it a criminal activity that good intelligence and preventive activity can deal with? Let’s say you’re Spain and you want to keep that Arabian oil coming in. Why do they need the US to help them get it?