Even before the Great Recession, Americans were unwilling to pay any price and bear any burden to ensure a global Pax Americana. That may explain why, outside of the neoconservative circles, criticism of the Obama Doctrine have been so limited. The American people are tired of foreign wars and ready for nation-building at home.

This.

Interesting read. Thank you.

So basically, we're keeping the empire, just focusing on the east this time.

Great. So nothing really changed.

make me some tea: Even before the Great Recession, Americans were unwilling to pay any price and bear any burden to ensure a global Pax Americana. That may explain why, outside of the neoconservative circles, criticism of the Obama Doctrine have been so limited. The American people are tired of foreign wars and ready for nation-building at home.

This.

I found myself thinking "this!" several times during the article, actually.

make me some tea: Even before the Great Recession, Americans were unwilling to pay any price and bear any burden to ensure a global Pax Americana. That may explain why, outside of the neoconservative circles, criticism of the Obama Doctrine have been so limited. The American people are tired of foreign wars and ready for nation-building at home.

This.

There's an interesting bit in a book I'm reading right now on the Cold War. Since WWII, there have been only two brief periods where a majority of Americans thought taxes were NOT too high: early Korean War and early in the Kennedy administration from around the Bay of Pigs to post-Missile Crisis.

What number is the drug war?

violentsalvation: What number is the drug war?

420

James!: violentsalvation: What number is the drug war?

420

Beat me

kingoomieiii: James!: violentsalvation: What number is the drug war?

420

Beat me

Because you got high.

GAT_00: There's an interesting bit in a book I'm reading right now on the Cold War. Since WWII, there have been only two brief periods where a majority of Americans thought taxes were NOT too high: early Korean War and early in the Kennedy administration from around the Bay of Pigs to post-Missile Crisis.

Huh, wow.

violentsalvation: What number is the drug war?

Wasn't that the first actual domestic "war"?

"War" is a subjective term. We have the war on Iraq, terror, Iraq again, Afghanistan, drugs, illiteracie, poverty, crime, homelessness ....but Viet Nam was still just a police action.

Mugato: "War" is a subjective term. We have the war on Iraq, terror, Iraq again, Afghanistan, drugs, illiteracie, poverty, crime, homelessness ....but Viet Nam was still just a police action.

I don't know ... the Government might be sending mixed messages (new window).

The relative swiftness with which the public turned against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the fatalities were far lower than those in Korea and Vietnam that ultimately undermined public support for those earlier wars, proved that the American people never bought the "World War IV' scenario

Well, the about-face was kinda sped along when we all realized we'd been lied to in order to invade Iraq.

brigid_fitch: The relative swiftness with which the public turned against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the fatalities were far lower than those in Korea and Vietnam that ultimately undermined public support for those earlier wars, proved that the American people never bought the "World War IV' scenario

Well, the about-face was kinda sped along when we all realized we'd been lied to in order to invade Iraq.

I remember being tepidly against going into Iraq in 2002 just based on the fact that I thought that the cost/benefits for us didn't add up, but then our seemingly swift success in rolling into Baghdad, and then the capture of Saddam Hussein in a hole in the ground changed my mind for awhile. At the time I figured "Well okay maybe this was a good idea and I was wrong."

But yeah, sometime around 2004 when it was fairly well obvious that we'd all been had, and the sectarian violence ramped up, that was it for me. I will scrutinize the hell out of any claim by a President that we need to go to war preemptively (and especially unilaterally) with a country again. I was all for the Libya operation, too--mostly because it was not unilateral and it was only to even the playing field with the rebels so that they could have a shot at victory over Ghaddafi's forces.

We'll be sitting ducks when the Augments show up.

make me some tea: GAT_00: There's an interesting bit in a book I'm reading right now on the Cold War. Since WWII, there have been only two brief periods where a majority of Americans thought taxes were NOT too high: early Korean War and early in the Kennedy administration from around the Bay of Pigs to post-Missile Crisis.

Huh, wow.

Yeah, and that's with far nastier budgets than we have today. He does a conversion for modern costs which I think is just adding inflation and an equivalent GDP adjustment, which helps for perspective since GDP is 28 times higher today than it was then. That translates the military spending of the day to about $2T on military today.

According to the new vision of American defense, the U.S. will reorient itself from fighting wars of nation-building and counterinsurgency in the Muslim world to focusing on balancing the power of rising states in East Asia (read China). This reflects the classic logic of realpolitik, not neoconservative hegemonism or neoliberal Wilsonianism. The shift in emphasis from quasi-colonial nation-building, which requires many American boots on the ground, to strategies that rely more on local allies, special forces and the (morally and legally problematic, it should be said) use of drones represents another break with the strategy of the Bush/Cheney years.

And this right here, is why I'm voting for Obama. Any student of history, any student of world events, can see that this is the direction this nation needs to take.

I understand that there are isolationists on the left. Unfortunately, the world does not work that way, and isolationism is not totally possible. The oceans can not longer keep us out of the business of Asia. Europe is finished as a world power. I'm not afraid of China invading with guns and tanks, because they have already invaded with cheap goods and economic disruption.

I understand there are neo-cons on the right. fark them, they got people I know killed.

Seth'n'Spectrum: So where's our East Empire Company based? Have they moved/cloned Ebonheart again?

Houston.

Aarontology: So basically, we're keeping the empire, just focusing on the east this time.

Did you think we would stop being a major power? Honestly?

I mean, did you really think we would close up shop and all the troops would come from Germany and South Korea and the Philippines and Iceland and Guam and Japan and Spain and Israel and the Netherlands etc etc?

Did you really?

what_now: And this right here, is why I'm voting for Obama. Any student of history, any student of world events, can see that this is the direction this nation needs to take.

And it's also why cutting defense is politically damn near impossible, and why we continue to choose guns over butter.

what_now: According to the new vision of American defense, the U.S. will reorient itself from fighting wars of nation-building and counterinsurgency in the Muslim world to focusing on balancing the power of rising states in East Asia (read China). This reflects the classic logic of realpolitik, not neoconservative hegemonism or neoliberal Wilsonianism. The shift in emphasis from quasi-colonial nation-building, which requires many American boots on the ground, to strategies that rely more on local allies, special forces and the (morally and legally problematic, it should be said) use of drones represents another break with the strategy of the Bush/Cheney years.

And this right here, is why I'm voting for Obama. Any student of history, any student of world events, can see that this is the direction this nation needs to take.

I understand that there are isolationists on the left. Unfortunately, the world does not work that way, and isolationism is not totally possible. The oceans can not longer keep us out of the business of Asia. Europe is finished as a world power. I'm not afraid of China invading with guns and tanks, because they have already invaded with cheap goods and economic disruption.

I understand there are neo-cons on the right. fark them, they got people I know killed.

Agreed. I see globalism as crucial for maintaining world peace. Even when they have differences, trading partners with strong interdependencies don't tend go to war with each other, and they also tend to assist each other financially when one falters (example: China buying trillions in U.S. bonds, basically funding our government and maintaining our currency).

what_now: Did you think we would stop being a major power? Honestly?

Not at all. I'm just not going to praise Obama for essentially keeping the same strategy as we've had for decades. The only real difference is the focus is now on Asian instead of Europe. That's it.

And drones. Fleets of drones.

Aarontology: . I'm just not going to praise Obama for essentially keeping the same strategy as we've had for decades

Jesus Christ, did you even read the article?

Do you think we're dropping drones in China? Hint We're not. It is MASSIVELY cheaper in both blood and treasure to prevent war by diplomacy and trading connections. The drones take out terror cells. Fine, let them do that.

Terror cells can only undermine this country if we allow them to- which we've been doing for 10 years. A trade war can destroy our economy.

FTFA: Obama is an Eisenhower Democrat, owing more to an older generation of moderate Eisenhower or Rockefeller Republicans than to New Deal Democrats than to New Dealers like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

Good point. Its out of necessity though at home. The USA bankrupted the Soviets, who defaulted on their debts (new window) after the Cold War and Chechnya. But all of that Reagan debt is still there and with anti-recession measures now equals our economic output. (new window). No country can sustain a global military empire (much less increase it, Mittens) with this kind of neoliberal militarism. The debt hammer fell on the Soviets--how could the USA avoid it? There is no 'American Exceptionalism' to the rules of budgeting.

what_now: Aarontology: . I'm just not going to praise Obama for essentially keeping the same strategy as we've had for decades

Jesus Christ, did you even read the article?

Do you think we're dropping drones in China? Hint We're not. It is MASSIVELY cheaper in both blood and treasure to prevent war by diplomacy and trading connections. The drones take out terror cells. Fine, let them do that.

Terror cells can only undermine this country if we allow them to- which we've been doing for 10 years. A trade war can destroy our economy.

Diplomatic and trade based containment is still containment. Like virtually everything foreign policy related under Obama, its the same old stuff only done smarter and more efficiently without the idiotic neocon trappings.

Somacandra: There is no 'American Exceptionalism' to the rules of budgeting.

This statement without last 5 words seem to apply to most things, anymore.

miss diminutive: I thought the Indian wars were the first domestic "wars".

Picky picky!

what_now: A trade war can destroy our economy.

We're in a trade war, and we're losing. China should be forced to play by the rules.

GAT_00: what_now: A trade war can destroy our economy.

We're in a trade war, and we're losing. China should be forced to play by the rules.

To do that, we need to buck the corporations desire to embrace them. And not easy thing to do. America is one of the few countries that could become self sustaining.

I seem to recall circa the lead up to the Iraq War that lots of republicans were going on about The War on terror being WW4. I haven't really heard of this before then, nor have I heard it since. What a weird talking point that was.

what_now: I understand that there are isolationists on the left.

Would like a word:


/who on the left is isolationist anyway? Serious question, not trolling.

Darth_Lukecash: GAT_00: what_now: A trade war can destroy our economy.

We're in a trade war, and we're losing. China should be forced to play by the rules.

To do that, we need to buck the corporations desire to embrace them. And not easy thing to do. America is one of the few countries that could become self sustaining.

I don't think you realize what a self sustaining America would look like.

Napoleon was World War One.

Wilhelm was World War Two.

Nazi was World War Three.

War on Terror was World War Four.

/dnrtfa
//fark your shell game with history