Should the U.S. take our ball and go home?

Great Debates
21

Sua, I think that you’ve hit an important point. For all the carping about how America is imposing its will around the world and stationing troops everywhere, the fact is that any other country in the world could do what we do…if they were willing to pay the price. The Europeans could station troops in the Middle East for stability. Why don’t they? They don’t want to get involved, and hey, the Americans will take care of it. The Japanese could station troops in South Korea. Except, oops, the Koreans wouldn’t stand for it, considering Japanese history.

The fact is that American troops are present because they are invited there. Other powers could guarantee peace, but they are not trusted, or refuse to do so. So America steps in, and there’s your American hegemony. If Europe doesn’t like it they could do something about it, except they don’t want to.

22

OK, we pull our military shield from the Far East.

China grabs Taiwan (which it will do eventaully, anyway), and Japan. China and Russia divy up the Koreas.

This will affect trade exactly how? We now trade with Beijing instead of Beijing, Taipei, Tokyo, and Seoul. I do not see a direct relationship between who’s butt in on the throne and what goods cost, or the terms under which they are traded.

So we buy oil from Saddam (at least until the pipeline through Afghanistann and (Pakistan?/Iran?) is completed). Who cares, really?

Then we can talk about the EU… (we REALLY need an evil smiley)

23

The US has a military presence in South Korea for precisely two reasons.

a) The South Korean government believes it is in their country’s interests.

b) The US government believes it is in their country’s interests.

I often get the feeling (not necessarily from this OP, but just from comments that have come out in this and all the other discussions on ‘taking the bat&ball and going home’) that a lot of people in the US don’t really acknowledge Factor B. The feeling is more “We’ve put ourselves out here PURELY to help these poor buggers and they’re *not even grateful * for it. We should just leave them to stew in their own juice THEN when they get invaded/go into meltdown/have a civil war that’ll teach them”

Well, apparently many people in the other countries involved aren’t ‘grateful’. And in fact, there’s no particular reason why they should be .They may choose to be, if they want. But there’s no moral imperative on them.

A person is supposed to be grateful when someone inconveniences themselves or puts aside their own interest in order to help them. That is not the case here. The question of whether things are better for South Korean people with the US troops there is entirely irrelevant to US foreign policy. It may indeed be a welcome side-effect of that foreign policy that things are better for South Korean people, but that has nothing to do with why the US is there.

Once you’ve firmly grasped this fact, you no longer have any reason to be annoyed with people who put up “No Americans” signs in their shops. Yes, these people obviously believe (contrary to their government’s belief) that it’s not in their interests to have US troops in their country. And they’ve chosen to try to change this situation by putting pressure on the American troops themselves. This may or may not be the most effective tactic - they’d probably be better served by pressuring their own government. But it’s a perfectly legitimate one.

Personally, I believe that it’s not a good thing in general for a country to have a long-term military presence in another country - I believe it has a tendency to infantilize and disempower the citizens of the host country, and create a paternalistic atmosphere in the troop-sending country. However, as long as both the US and South Korean governments continue to think that the current arrangement is a good thing, it should continue.

24

>> So why is it that the USA is the nation that guarantees German access to foreign trade?

Several reasons. Historical: The US won the war and Germany lost it. The US preferred to be the military power over Germany. Size: The USA is a huge economic power in comparison with any other country. But is the USA disappeared tomorrow, the Eu would have to scramble before the vacuum caused a lot of countries to start throwingtheir weight around. The fact is that US military power projected around the world keeps many areas quiet which would otherwise get hot very fast. When China started lobbing missiles at Taiwan, the US sent a carrier group into the area and things quieted down fast. But if things get hot in the South China Sea, that would have huge consequences for American and for world trade. Carrier groups do project power but army bases also serve that purpose.

25

I’m still looking for a connection between “Pax Americana” and trade - Taiwan has been Chinese (as has been almost all of the asian mainland, at one time or another), and was, until 1949.

Why should the US guarantee the security of that bunch of (characterzation deleted)? Do you really think that the Chinese would cut off out supply of cheap electronics? We already buy products of the Chinese prison system (read: slaves), so don’t give me any moralistic crap. Again, just why should we care whose pockets we line?

26

I don’t know that decisions about military alliances and troop stationing can all be boiled down to questions of “trade”. Military and political power also has something to do with it.

27

To comment on the reason the U.S. has troops in Korea: the U.S. is guaranteeing democratic trading partners for Japan, it’s major economic bulwark in the East. If Korea went communist, and China grabbed Taiwan, then Japan would find itself largely surrounded by communist countries, and would have to come to an accomodation with them over trade and military matters that would not be U.S. interests. Thus, American troops are stationed in South Korea, less for effectiveness (they represent less than 10% of the standing armed forces in South Korea) than for the symbolism: attack South Korea, and you attack the U.S. Likewise, American guarantees of Taiwan’s ability to defend its sovereignty.

28

How cheap would those electronics be if there was an effective Chinese monopoly on manufacturing in Southeast Asia? You’re right that it’s not moral reasons that keep the U.S. involved there. Where you’re wrong is in failing to see how it’s in the U.S.'s economic and military interests to maintain a presence.

29

The biggest cause of current South Korean ill-feeling to the US is Bush. Recently, the two Koreas were making good progress in dialogue and forming a relationship, however after a few particularly ill-chosen and self-defeating words from Bush, tensions between the two countries have significantly increased.

30

“Communist”? you think China is “Communist”? It is, was, and will be imperial - and, as demonstrated, will do whatever is required to keep the current butt-on-the-throne in place.

And, yep - we ain’t spending all that dough to “protect” trade (which occurred before the US existed, and will exist long after “Pax Americana” dies) - it is about power - simple, raw, power - the usual justification for power is that it can be turned into money (that’s what the GOP is about).

In the case of US projection of power in the post-Soviet era, that justification does not exist, so how come we still do the superpower thing?

31

Gee, I guess if China has a monopoly on economic activity in SE Asia, they would maybe raise prices as far as they could before money flowed into, oh, I don’t know - Latin America, Africa, Palestine, to set up manufacturing plants there to produce cheap (whatever the Chinese have a “monopoly” on). duh.

32

You don’t think China is now, or will be, a superpower? Not on the scale the U.S. currently is, but certainly it’s the dominant regional power, held in check in that region only because of U.S. support for friendly countries. Who gives a shit whether there’s any sincere Maoists left? The point remains that we currently have a bunch of friendly nations in the area who trade with the U.S., and were the U.S. not to support the status quo, it would hurt the U.S. economically.

Sure. I can just see Intel building chip fabs in Rwanda, the Gaza Strip, and Nicaragua, where there’s all that peace, stability, and a well educated population. As you pointed out, there’s already a booming electronics manufacturing industry in Southeast Asia. You think that throwing money at other countries will quickly replace what it took Southeast Asia decades to build?

Duh.

33

Actually, it might be easier to do the “miracle economy” trick in areas which were not devastated by warfare (Japan, Korea, Vietnam).

And money tends to flow wherever it can make a profit - politics notwithstanding.

The current world is so heavily inter-dependant that ideologies are irrelevant - whoever is in power will need to make the same deals - so why do we care?

And I really doubt that the stability of the banana supply has been worth the cost of propping up the various dictators in Central America, and the Chile thing has probably not been cost-effective either.

34

A while ago, a US armored vehicle ran over two 14 year old Korean girls and killed them. Very recently the drivers of this vehicle were aquitted of any wrong-doing. This was the immediate impetus for the recent backlash against the United States presence in South Korea.

This controversy arose among increased US/SK tensions regarding the status of North Korea. While the US has recently taken a “hard-line” approach to NK (spurred on by provocative admissions from Pyongyang), many South Koreans favor a kind of peninsular glasnost between the two states.

That said, many don’t; but they’re all pissed off at the US Army.

35

What a perfect way to describe the situation. As they say in france, you have come up with le mot just.

There is a pervasive theme that runs throughout all imperialist cultures, from Rome to the Ottomans to Britain, and of course, to the U.S. The theme has many variations, but mongol hordes about to sweep across the boundaries is as good as any. You also have the image of the lonely fort out in the wilderness beset on all sides by barbarians about to rush in.

Imperialist mythology is budened with the need to reverse the roles that exist in reality. So, while Rome was out conquering the world, they had tons of myths about how Rome was beset on all sides by the mongol hordes about to rush in and destroy them, how Rome was just fighting for a breathing space in a world of enemies bent on their destruction. While Britain was out conquering the world, they had tons of tales in about the lonely fort out in the wilderness defending itslef against faceless hordes of brown people who for some reason want to kill them. And so on.

In general, the mythology reverses the roles. It wasn’t Rome that was being beset upon, it was Rome who was conquering the world. It wasn’t Britian that was being attacked by Africans, but vice versa. Likewise, it wasn’t the American Indians who were kicking white people off their land, but vice versa. Yet, it was the Indians who were called savages.

In recent history this type of mythology has been taken to new heights. It permeates corporate culture, typified in the Rambo movies, or Out of Africa, etc. You had all these myths about American MIAs in Vietnam, etc., propagated by the corporate culture. In the Rambo movies, you had the Vietnamese dropping napalm on the Americans, and not vice versa. These, and countless other examples, show how the actual roles are reversed in the mythology.

So, while in reality it has been the U.S. that has been the expansionist, in the mythology it is reversed. You have tons of movies, books, etc. about the USSR invading the U.S. In reality, the U.S. has never been invaded by the USSR, but the U.S. has in fact invaded the USSR. And so on.

In this particular situation, again, the roles are reversed. While it is North Korea that lives on constant fear of being invaded by the U.S. and its proxies, in the mythology it is the U.S.'s allies that have to be worried about being invaded by the oh-so-apt “mongol hordes.”

36

Ah, the poor North Koreans. I guess I should have counted on Chumpsky to stick up for the country that most closely resembles the one described in 1984. I’m sure the workers and peasants of North Korea would salute you for your support. If only they weren’t, you know, starving to death under a fascist dictatorship.

37

Well, North Korea did invade the South, before the U.S./UN counter-invaded the North (and China counter-counter-invaded). And, yes, the USSR never invaded the U.S. (and the U.S. did intervene in Russia)–but the USSR did invade or establish empire over a number of countries, from Mongolia to Afghanistan.

Heh. As apt a description of the mythology of Soviet imperialism as of any other.

38

Isn’t this argument weakened somewhat by the fact that Roman expansion began only after Rome was sacked by the Gauls in 390 BCE and that as soon as the empire began to weaken they were sacked twice, in 410 by the Visigoths and in 455 by the Vandals?

Oh….and wasn’t Rome frequently attacked by “hordes” from beyond the border? Do I not remember correctly from The Meditations that Marcus Aurelius spent nearly his entire reign at war because the the Marcomanni and Quadi crossed the border, invaded Italy and laid seige to Aquileia?

Oh…and didn’t North Korea (and China) actually invade South Korea?

Oh…and didn’t Dingane and the Zulu actually attack the British at Port Natal, Ulundi and Estcourt?

Oh…and I’ve never heard that the Vietnamese used napalm against Americans (never saw Rambo). They did, of course, use napalm against Vietnamese civilians, but I thought that went largely unreported in the west, as opposed to being blown into some sort of myth.

Oh……and as for the American “invasion” of the Soviet Union, aren’t you engaging in a little myth-making yourself? Don’t the details of that particular episode suggest that “invasion” is a rather exaggerated way to describe a rather minor historical non-event?

39

Withdraw, and let them do their Korean thing in peace. If they don’t like us, then why should we help them?

40

Yes, but there were some, let’s see, 800 years in between there when it was Rome who was expanding and was the aggressor.

Yes, obviously. I do think there was some provocation, however.

In reality, though, it is the U.S. that is constantly threatening North Korea, placing the country on an “axis of evil,” lists of countries who sponsor terrorism, etc. In the mythology, the roles are reversed.

Yes…in Africa. Africans attacking the British in Africa.

Actually, an excellent example of this kind of mythology is the film Zulu. You have the brave British soldiers beset by a horde of nameless, faceless black people, who they slaughter mercilessly with their superior weaponry. One question which doesn’t arise, and indeed never arises, is why they would be attacking the British. The exact same theme runs throughout imperialist mythology, right to this day, in fact, in films like Blackhawk Down.

In reality, it was the British who invaded Africa and brutally took over the land. In reality, it was the U.S. who invaded Somalia in order to protect oil wealth. Yet, in the mythology, the roles are reversed. It is the British or the U.S. who are being overwhelmed by the dark hordes, just fighting for a breathing space, a complete reversal of reality.

It was the Americans who dumped napalm on Vietnam, not the other way around. But, in the Rambo movie, you see the Vietnamese dumping napalm on the Americans. You see, a reversal of reality.

A “rather minor historical non-event”? Five landings to fight with the White Russians is a non-event? Well, in the U.S. this event has been consigned to the memory hole, but in Russia it is considered an event, of sorts.