1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World View

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
John
Posts: 11479
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World View

Post by John »

1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World View

Policeman of the World versus Leading from Behind

** 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World View
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e140101




Contents:
Russia takes the lead in world foreign policy
The Truman Doctrine versus Leading from Behind
France in 1940: Leading from behind
Things to watch for in 2014


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Russia, Nato, Libya, Vladimir Putin,
United Nations, Security Council, Syria,
Harry Truman, Truman Doctrine, John P. Hussman

Trevor
Posts: 1209
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:43 am

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by Trevor »

There is one other thing that should be said on this. However tempting it would be to blame Obama for all of this (and being an Obama-hater, I wish I could) he really can't do anything else even if he wanted to. His disengagement from the world is the most popular policy he has. Americans do not want another war under any circumstances whatsoever.

Nobody wants to assist Iraq; close to 80 percent of Americans were against even a symbolic strike in Syria, even most military personnel. After the War on Terror and combined with the fact that our economy is still weak, we want nothing to do with any kind of military intervention, even if it would suit our interests to do so. The military is on the chopping block for that very reason, a decision we will sorely regret when the time comes.

No influence left in the Middle East? So what? Let them fight it out among themselves.

Japan and China on the brink of war with tensions growing every single day? None of our business!

China threatening to annex the South and East China seas, including territory belonging to their neighbors. Not our problem!

The military turning the hollow force it was in the late 1970's? Big deal; let's focus on matters here at home!

anon

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by anon »

How could Obama or any other president take a different attitude towards Syria, given the situation in 2011? The citizens of the US would have revolted at yet another MidEast war, Congress would have refused to fund it. Those facts would have varied only slightly if the president was a Republican - in which case Democrats would have joined with the Tea Party to oppose more war deficits. Moreover, there was, and is no natural ally for the US in Syria, certainly the rebels will gladly take US weapons, but the power brokers in every MidEast fight are the Islamists, and it hardly behooves the US to encourage Islamists. Simply opposing Iran and Russia is not reason enough to arm Islamists, at least I don't think so.

Call it leading from behind or whatever you wish, when there is no place to lead that isn't a disaster, then there's no place to go.

The war in Iraq created this mess indirectly, by creating a Shia led government power bloc in Iraq that has encouraged Iran to be a lot bolder about their aims in the MidEast. The Iran/Iraq/Shia power bloc did not and could not exist before the fall of Saddam, and now this power bloc wants to add Syria as a supporter - and it looks highly likely they will.

Guest

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by Guest »

Trevor wrote:There is one other thing that should be said on this. However tempting it would be to blame Obama for all of this (and being an Obama-hater, I wish I could) he really can't do anything else even if he wanted to. His disengagement from the world is the most popular policy he has. Americans do not want another war under any circumstances whatsoever.

Nobody wants to assist Iraq; close to 80 percent of Americans were against even a symbolic strike in Syria, even most military personnel. After the War on Terror and combined with the fact that our economy is still weak, we want nothing to do with any kind of military intervention, even if it would suit our interests to do so. The military is on the chopping block for that very reason, a decision we will sorely regret when the time comes.

No influence left in the Middle East? So what? Let them fight it out among themselves.

Japan and China on the brink of war with tensions growing every single day? None of our business!

China threatening to annex the South and East China seas, including territory belonging to their neighbors. Not our problem!

The military turning the hollow force it was in the late 1970's? Big deal; let's focus on matters here at home!
I think this sums up the general feeling well. A war weary and bankrupt (financially, morally, and spiritually) nation retreats.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by Reality Check »

anon wrote:
...
Moreover, there was, and is no natural ally for the US in Syria,
Actually there are many natural allies of the U.S. in Syria.

But they are all fighting for their lives on the side of the dictator Assad.

The Non-Arabs ( Assyrians and Kurds and Turks and other non-Arab historic ethnic groups of Syria ), the Arab-Christians, the Arab-Druze and even the Alawites ( Arab and non-Arab alike ) have far more in common with the United States and the West than they do with Iran or Saudi Arabia.

In Syria our Natural Allies are the same as Russia's natural allies.

The only exception to this is the tiny minority that shares the same Religion as the government of Iran. They are not natural U.S. allies, and they may, or may not, be Russia's natural allies.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by Reality Check »

Trevor wrote:
There is one other thing that should be said on this. However tempting it would be to blame Obama for all of this (and being an Obama-hater, I wish I could) he really can't do anything else even if he wanted to. His disengagement from the world is the most popular policy he has. Americans do not want another war under any circumstances whatsoever.
The situation in Iraq would have been very different if Obama had done the right thing after the election where the non-religious coalition won the majority, and the U.S. did not support them at a time the government could not stand without U.S. intelligence and logistic support for their military.

If the U.S. had thrown their support behind the democratic coalition, then there would have been a status of forces agreement, and U.S. forces would have remained in Iraq as a counter balance to the Shia extremists and the Sunni Extremists, instead we have the mess Obama made by supporting the Shia government's defacto coup using the Iraqi military that the U.S. was supporting, and to some degree, still leading at the time of the coup.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by Reality Check »

But I agree with you that the American people want the debt fixed before we start another war.

At the rate the debt is being fixed, we will never have another war until someone Nukes us.

Deeper Context

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by Deeper Context »

In your analysis of France, you forgot to mention that were among the most enthusiastic and prolific nazis during WWII, building almost 30 concentration camps and forming their own SS (called the Milice). Compared to other countries under fascist occupation, a higher percentage of French became members of the nazi party than in any other country.

All this was allowed to be swept under the rug, where it remains until today, as it was too cumbersome for the Allies at the time to also occupy another country. But the surrender was much more based on the fact that a good part of the French population was happy to join Hitler in what was then viewed a new empire that they wanted to be part of. And that would solve the problems of economic depressions while playing into the antisemitic sentiments that where widely held in France at that time.

Reality Check
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by Reality Check »

Deeper Context wrote:
... But the surrender was much more based on the fact that a good part of the French population was happy to join Hitler in what was then viewed a new empire that they wanted to be part of ....
One has to wonder why any one in France, or anywhere in the world for that matter, would think of Germany as an empire, prior to France surrendering to Germany.

Hitler had not defeated any major country up until that time and had only managed to occupy half of Poland.

We now know that where Germany stopped in Poland was a part of the deal between the Soviet Union, and Germany, but at the time it looked like a country with airplanes and tanks, invaded a neighboring country with infantry and horse drawn wagons, had failed to even occupy the entire country, or had been stopped by Russia without Russia having to even threaten to join the war.

Germany had been defeated by France and Great Britain just over 20 years before, and had lost it's empire with that defeat.

Czechoslovakia and Austria were given to Germany, Germany had not taken them by force, and the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Austria and parts of Poland did not make Germany an empire.

Germany was viewed as a second rate Great Power, at best, before they had taken over Western Europe by force and Occupied the European portion of the Soviet Union.

So it would appear a little bit revisionist to say the French wanted to join the German empire, so they surrendered, when in fact no German empire existed at the time France surrendered.

anon

Re: 1-Jan-14 World View -- The Year Ahead - the 2014 World V

Post by anon »

Reality Check wrote:
Trevor wrote:
There is one other thing that should be said on this. However tempting it would be to blame Obama for all of this (and being an Obama-hater, I wish I could) he really can't do anything else even if he wanted to. His disengagement from the world is the most popular policy he has. Americans do not want another war under any circumstances whatsoever.
The situation in Iraq would have been very different if Obama had done the right thing after the election where the non-religious coalition won the majority, and the U.S. did not support them at a time the government could not stand without U.S. intelligence and logistic support for their military.

If the U.S. had thrown their support behind the democratic coalition, then there would have been a status of forces agreement, and U.S. forces would have remained in Iraq as a counter balance to the Shia extremists and the Sunni Extremists, instead we have the mess Obama made by supporting the Shia government's defacto coup using the Iraqi military that the U.S. was supporting, and to some degree, still leading at the time of the coup.
As it happens, I was actually in Tikrit base (US) when the Iraqi Army "surrounded" the opposition political headquarters. If, that is, you call three days of shelling "surrounding". I got very jumpy at all the explosions, as did everyone else. And no, you won't find that in any US news reports, at least none that I saw. (For that matter, I was also in Kirkuk when the Iraqi VP (Halabani?) was hiding after being accused of running death squads. The car bombs were pretty loud that day, I remember a double explosion quite well, word I got was that a judge had his car blow up, and when his family tried to follow him to the hospital their car blew up.

To expect the US govt to go to war against the Iraqi govt they set up a few years before would have been a bit much, and "support" doesn't mean anything when the shelling started a day or two after the election.

The SOFA was signed in 2007 under Bush, expecting Obama to overthrow the Iraqi govt and get the new govt to sign a different SOFA is really unrealistic. And that's what it would have taken. Maliki stated repeatedly "I support the Bush plan" - another little item the US papers didn't report.

And yes, I got around Iraq a LOT in those days. There's not many cities I haven't been in, one way or another. Frankly, the only part of Iraq worth a tinker's damn is in the North, past Kirkuk. Arbil is a very nice place, and probably worth twice what everything else I've seen in Iraq lumped together is worth.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 42 guests