I am baffled why countries like Japan in WWII, Iraq during the Gulf War, and more recently China and the Taliban think of the US as a paper tiger. In other words, we look mean and tough but can be scared away easily.
Was there a time in our history where we were attacked or directly threatened and did not respond with overwhelming military force?
Did we not continue to fight in Vietnam years after it was apparent the war was ‘unwinnable’? That’s pretty tenacious if you ask me.
I think those countries have a point.
The U.S. maybe is a de facto politically weak country because we have to consider our many diplomatic relations with other nations – especially oil producers. We aren’t “allowed” to just trample over militarily-weaker nations in this day and age – that makes us essentially toothless. It seems that a rogue nation has more license to wreak military havoc than a USA does.
After 9/11, I wonder if the U.S. isn’t in danger of turning into an Al-Qaida vassal state.
OK, that’s hyperbole. And we haven’t given an inch concerning what Osama Bin Laden wants from the U.S. We’re keeping our bases in Saudi Arabia, and we are not withdrawing support from Israel, for example.
But still – a tiger with teeth might have clamped down on terrorism earlier in the game. Say after the 1993 WTC bombing. I can see where other nations come from when they point at us and say “toothless tiger”.
It’s sad, really. If 9/11 had happened in Peking or Moscow, would China & Russia be treading as carefully as the U.S. is now? I wonder.
Heavily centralized militaristic cultures – the types that are most prone to extending control via coercion and violence – find it hard to believe that a massive plurality of people mostly accustomed to doing whatever the bloody hell we want, with very little “obedience” drilled into us, could possibly be effective in war. We “lack the discipline”. We “aren’t willing to make the sacrifices”. We “aren’t willing to make a commitment of a long, drawn-out war”.
History has shown them wrong every time.
In another thread I used the analogy of a big Mack diesel rig. It takes us awhile to get off the block, and for quite some time it doesn’t look like much is happening when the US decides to gear up for war, but in the same way that a big diesel keeps accelerating at an inplacable relentless rate, we keep getting more and more efficient as a war-producing system, and when we get in full motion, stand back world!
They would do nothing. China can barely project military power into Taiwan and Russia is having a hard time just paying their soldiers.
I’m sure many of these jerkwater nations see us as weak They have no problem using their weapons on their own people while even in war we take special care not to obliterate civilians indescriminately.
The analogy I make is that the US is like one of those trained tigers Sigfried and Roy use. Watching one of them jump through hoops and otherwise following the ‘rules’, it’s easy to forget that if you do something to really piss it off, it has no qualms about ripping your head of.
That’s the price we pay for being one of the Good Guys.
Um, we are the Good Guys, right?
we also have the luxury to fight wars without getting our hands dirty. i truly believe that the iraqis had no idea we could send a smart bomb through window (bomb with pinpoint precision). old sadam sure never told em’ we could do that, and i bet they didn’t get a chance to catch it on CNN. anyone who was on the business end of one of these laser-guided babys ain’t around anymore to attest to thier accuracy. i really don’t think these folks have a clue what they are up against. they look at us, with nice clean uniforms and shiny planes and assume that because we don’t have to resort to suicide bombing missions, like they do, that we are a bunch of posuers with no will to fight.
thats what i think at least. just plain ignorance of our capabilities.
There is still some question of our modern resolve when American soldiers start dying on CNN.
The “paper tiger” advocates will point to our withdrawal from Vietnam, Lebanon or Somalia when American soldiers died on the evening news.
That is the “historical precedence” of our toothless status.
My counter-argument would be that American soldiers were dying and we didn’t know why they were there in the first place. As long as we keep our goals in focus, I don’t think we will see the same wavering.
200 Marines killed in Lebanon. We pull out.
Every time we send troops somewhere Americans wonder “Is this another Viet-Nam?”
In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed and we didn’t do anything about it.
The USS Cole was bombed and our response was weak.
A few soldiers are killed in Somolia and we pull out.
It doesn’t surprise me that a lot of nations believe that we’re nothing more then a paper tiger. Based on a lot of our actions since Viet-Nam it doesn’t appear as though we’re willing to get down to the business of risking our people. I’m not saying the United States doesn’t have the guts to do what needs to be done. I’m just saying I can understand why some nations don’t think we do.
Marc
Japan didn’t consider the US a paper tiger; quite the contrary. They expected the US to enter WWII and felt that a surprise attack was the best way to defeat the US in the Pacific. That judgment was reasonable IMHO. The Battle of Midway could easily have gone the other way.
It’s hard to know just what Saddam was thinking. If he was hoping the US wouldn’t intervene, then he almost got his wish. The Congressional vote authorizing action was touch and go. Things might have been different under some other President, but I won’t mention any names. Note that Saddam wound up still controlling Iraq, so he really wasn’t punished for his action.
OBL has been killing Americans for the last 8 years without any real retaliation. Still, I wouldn’t assert that a more serious response would have deterred him. By my standards, he’s insane.
Is it better to be “strong” or “good”? They seem mututally exclusive in this case.
keeper0 is quite right. It is called the Mogadishu Factor in diplomatic and political circles. It is the perception that Americans cannot stomach dead boys being sent home in bodybags having died for causes which do not directly affect America. Questions were raised by the US public as to why the incursion into Somalia was changed in scope, from peace-keeping to capturing General Aideed (which was a total failure - he is still a prominent warlord in Mogadishu), which resulted in a gunfight in the centre of Mogadishu, with 20 odd US Army Rangers killed, and the terrible images of Somali gangsters dragging the mutilated body of the Army Ranger pilot behind a jeep.
(The Taleban incidentally know this, and have promised the same fate to any American soldiers captured in Afghanistan.)
It is also the reason why Bosnia and Kosovo were each fought by NATO as an air war, and why US troops do not participate in UN peace-keeping missions anymore. Other countries send their troops despite the risk, but the US government is too sensitive to public outcry over casualties.
The perception is that the US is chicken. It is quite glad to use its air advantage - to bomb from up high, where crews can’t be harmed, but it is very unwilling to insert ground forces into a combat situation. This seems borne out by the current conflict - no casualties, one (botched) ground mission which nearly ended in disaster and not one since, the only Americans in combat zones are there to guide air force bombing runs.
While the Mogadishu Factor remains the deciding and overwhelming consideration in US military offensives, the US is a paper tiger, as its military strategy in any theatre is crippled. America’s opponents think - know - that if there are US casualties, the US will withdraw.
Do you have something recent on China calling the US a paper tiger? I believe it was Mao that first coined this term regarding the US in the early 1950’s. I certainly haven’t seen it in the Chinese press regarding 9/11 or even the Hainan plane incident.
In any group situation that runs by consent of the governed, like the international community, the leader is in fact greatly constricted in the things they can do. The lonely rebels don’t care whether they bring everyone or anyone else along. One of the reasons the Bush Administration was doing so poorly until 9/11 was that they ignored their obligations as leaders, and they were going to lose the leadership role the United States has (a deliberate policy on the part of the corporate elites who would benefit by less centralized regulation from the US and EU). Had the 9/11 attack not been so catastrophic, our traditional allies would not have rallied to us so quickly. (Saudi Arabia took quite a while.) They all see the danger to themselves here.
No nation with rational leadership believes that the U.S. is in any respect a “paper tiger”. Some irrational leaders look on the China spy plane incident as showing too much restraint. But even China, despite all their posturing, didn’t mistake the huge mistake of starting a war over it. Except in terms of the number of men under arms, the U.S. has more military power and training at its disposal in any significant category than any other nation in history. I suspect that we spend more money on our military than all other nations combined.
I think mssmith537’s assumption is unfounded. Yes, there are despots and misfits in positions of power who denounce the US as decadent, inferior or whatever. Mahathir in Malaysia, say. Extreme clerics in mosques in the Middle East. Gaddhafi, Saddam, etc. But do they actually mean it? It’s just for effect. Goes down well. It’s a sign of their own insecurity.
Well, there was not much to do, it was a poorly concieved intervention.
Oddly I recall a trial for those involved.
Well, we did not blindly lash out. Yes, if that is weak, then the response is weak, but what targets were available?
Bad policy in a peripheral area. Throwing good money after bad makes not a bit of sense. After the Aideed idiocy there was no way for American troops to do what they were there for, their street cred was gone.
(BTW as an aside, the original Aideed was killed by Somalis a few years ago, the current Aideed is his son.)
I frankly do not think there is that much of a paper tiger perception at the state level. But there is certainly a recognition that America is very quick to pull out of peripheral issues if there is the tinies bit of American blood shed.
I agree with the general tenor of this thread that US responses to Beirut, Somalia, USS Cole, etc. has created the opportunity to propagate the perception that the US has no stomach.
I’d also add that the perception has been underscored by how the US now fights its wars. The Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo and now Afghanistan have all seen the adoption of air-orientated campaigns with ground troops only committed, if at all, at the end. Eminently sensible and tactically sound from our POV but all grist to the mill if you want to characterise the enemy as cowardly – as does the Taliban to its old school ‘warrior’ type troops.
The following was written about domestic policy, though many seem to find in it your answer. However they often miss the tricky bit at the end. (emphasis mine)
And, alas, what does the Prince do when he IS just plain hated to begin with…?
First, thank you for the cite. Nothing is more irritating than the people who quote the Prince and forget about the deep context of his comments (as in another thread I’m about to reply to). Great service you’ve done!
However, our “Prince” – the USA is not just plain hated. Some people just plain hate the US, some somewhat fear it. Some somewhat like it. Some of course love the USA. Machiavelli is rightly recognizing the complexity of political relations in a situation where the main actor can not ensure an equitable social contract (or may have no interest in the same).
Endeavoring to be respected, a bit of fear, a bit of love but certainly minimizing hate is the proper objective of US policy in the region and is achievable, of that I am convinced.
You’re quite welcome.
But yes, I was rather referring to what happens in “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” cases – where they’re just looking for an excuse. (Nick’s answer: then do what Reasoned Consideration dictates you do, and never mind reproach.)
As you point out the spectrum of actual responses to the USA is quite broad. And YES, the objective must be to be RESPECTED. Real, serious governments DO respect, if grudgingly at times, what the US is and what we can do. Public Opinion is a whole 'nother deal.
As to the various incidents described, well… it just points out to a recurring theme: the USA will wipe the floor with you even at the cost of our blood if-and-only-if we feel our (physical/economic) survival is threatened, but if it’s just “for the principle of the thing” we’d rather not incur mass casualties. Pretty natural response, I say…
Also there is something to what Hemlock mentioned – agit-prop to make the populace feel “superior” and distract their attention from the failures of their own leaders’ policies or ideological theories. When you read the media from some peripheral (and some not-so-peripheral) countries, you sometimes see the USA projected as some sort of über-Empire who on any given morning could, it we wanted, “beam out” a hundred-thousand-strong force of CIA spooks to destabilize some other country’s government, “Jewish bankers” to destabilize their economy, and Pets of the Month[sup]TM[/sup] to erode the morals of their youth, while attacking with all 12 carriers and the whole Marine Corps. And when that doesn’t happen, why, * “it’s gotta be because of weak character.” *
I think it needs to be defined as to what is being labelled a Paper Tiger.
Certainly the US has shown little stomach for seeing its own sent back in body bags for issues that are remote to the American public and American interests (although how remote such interests are is always open to debate). That the US pulls out of these situations may indicate a lack of will but it may indicate other things. There are political realities the US has to be aware of. The US has to be careful of appearing imperialistic…something we are already accused of. It would be exaccerbated if the US started throwing its weight around more than it already does and might cause those opposed to the US to unite in common cause against us.
As a result the US has to be slow and cautious. Such caution stems from many things of which lack of will is only one small part. Unfortunately such caution may encourage an enemy.
However, to call the US military a Paper Tiger is downright stupid. It is without doubt the most powerful military in the world by a long shot and it is not only because of our planes.
[ul]
[li] Ask the British facing John Paul Jones at sea during the Revolutionary War.[/li][li] The Mexicans saw it at the Alamo.[/li][li] Marines and Army marched through staunch Japanese defenders on island after island.[/li][li] The Germans saw it at the Battle of the Bulge (I think the general defending Bastogne when it was totally surrounded and offered a surrender by the Germans responded, “Aw nuts”).[/li][li] The Chinese felt it in Korea and took hideous losses compared to the US just to fight to a standstill (admittedly after both sides getting bounced around a bit).[/li][li] The Somalis may have embarrassed the US by kiiling some 18 Rangers and wounding 50 or so more but many people forget that those same Rangers killed or wounded over 1,000 Somalis in the same action.[/li][/ul]
The list above is by no means complete and it is anecdotal. I’m sure there are times our soldiers have broken and ran. Still, on the whole, there are few militaries in the world I would trade for a bunch of Marines.
We may win, we may lose but by no means is our military a Paper Tiger…from the hottest fighter jock or nuclear sub all the way down to the lowliest grunt. You do NOT want these guys pissed off and camped on your doorstep. They have shown over and over again the willingness and ability to fight even through the grimmest of circumstances.