American Hegemony
Rat
Join Date: 2002-12-24 Member: 11486Members
Join Date: 2002-12-24 Member: 11486Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">by an American</div> Let's be very clear about something from the outset of this thread: <i>I am an American, I love my country, but I try to hold somewhat of an objective few of our past dealings with other nations</i>. That being said, let's look to a definition here:
\He*gem`o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. ? guide, leader, fr. ? to go before.] Leadership; <b>preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates. --Lieber.</b>
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Hegemony, when applied to the political arena, generally follows along the path of one overwhelmingly dominant power in a region or worldwide. This is not an instance of first among equals, but rather a first above the others who are equal with each other to an extent. Now, with the "War on Terrorism," US actions in Iraq, the surfacing of some documents detailing a theoretical incursion to quell the quarrelsome Middle Eastern Arab regimes by American defense officials, George W. Bush's advocacy of more spending on the war effort, and the lack of any significant amount of WMDs, more and more discussion worldwide is falling on the subject of attempted American hegemony both in the Middle East and worldwide.
Quite honestly, the surprising part of the hegemony discussion for me is that so many people are just now speaking of American hegemony and hegemony-building as if it were a new concept. To give a little history concerning the major world powers (generally European), look back to the 17th century to mid-20th century where roughly five major powers were equal in power and influence over the years (England, France, Austria-Hungary, Prussia/Germany, Russia, sometimes the Japanese or Italians replacing one of the others). Anytime one of the five powers became significantly more powerful than the others, the other nations banded together to restore the balance (ie, Napoleon's defeat and exile in the early 19th century). This pattern held all the way through the end of World War I with America's entrance into that conflict, paving its way into World War II and beyond through its alliances and ties with Western Europe.
Looking towards US history itself, from the mid-19th century onward, you see a different type of empire-building than that practiced by England, France or Spain. You see empire-building in the form of establishing close ties with numerous smaller states in the hemisphere without directly ruling them. This form of empire seems to allow self-rule, yet many states in the hemisphere of American influence were very 'receptive' to American opinions concerning internal policy and more importantly, leadership choices. Conditions along these lines went through the Spanish-American war into the 20th century, with the US expanding its influence in Latin America while avoiding deep ties with Europe. This changes with the outcome of World War II. Along with the death of the Third Reich, the death of the old Balance of Power system in the old world comes too. Emerging from this World War, there is born the Cold War. With the Soviets and the US staring each down for forty years, there is nothing left for the largest devloped nations to do but pick a side. As the Iron Curtain falls over the East Bloc/Warsaw Pact countries, NATO aligns itself in Western Europe and the Mediterranean.
At this point in recent history, it is no longer questioned that the previous BoP is dead, with two new "superpowers" guiding regional and worldwide political progression. In the early 1960s, a counter-revolution is attempted by Cuban expatriates and American intelligence agents (Bay of Pigs). Here, with Operation Just Cause, the United States follows through on its threats the Panamanians and removes Manuel Noriega from power (sound a little arrogant?) in much the same way as the removal of Hussein went (though markedly lacking a major mobilization of non-special-forces/airborne troops as was seen here). Along the lines of Panama lie the deployment of the 101st Airborne to the Dominican Republic and US action in Haiti. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the soviet "republics" in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, there remains only a single "superpower" remaining in the world. In the following decade, NATO expands to previously unseen size, the Warsaw Pact countries develop, some applying for entrance into NATO, and the European Union kicks off its existence with a solid impact on world markets. The EU is an almost direct response to NAFTA signed into existence by President Clinton, slackening trade restrictions in North America as well as across Europe. The US has become the world's foremost police agency--outstripping even the UN in its troop deployment numbers, its interdiction efforts in various nations, and its commitment to allies--and has spread its influence into significant portions of every major region with the exception of China and the Middle East.
My question then, to the rest of the world, is how has any of this has come as a surprise? Have the last 60 years really flown by without anyone paying attention to what has gone on? Or is it that with the death of the Soviet Union that direct action against foreign powers (without popular consensus of the NATO nations) is now distasteful? Why was there no major international outcry at the removal of Noriega, who was markedly <i>less</i> horrific than Saddam Hussein and his sons? Why is it that now, after an unpopular international incident, that the US building its hegemony and extending its direct influence is so terrible? (I'm not saying anything we did was right at any point, just asking how it was surprising or unforeseen)
\He*gem`o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. ? guide, leader, fr. ? to go before.] Leadership; <b>preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates. --Lieber.</b>
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Hegemony, when applied to the political arena, generally follows along the path of one overwhelmingly dominant power in a region or worldwide. This is not an instance of first among equals, but rather a first above the others who are equal with each other to an extent. Now, with the "War on Terrorism," US actions in Iraq, the surfacing of some documents detailing a theoretical incursion to quell the quarrelsome Middle Eastern Arab regimes by American defense officials, George W. Bush's advocacy of more spending on the war effort, and the lack of any significant amount of WMDs, more and more discussion worldwide is falling on the subject of attempted American hegemony both in the Middle East and worldwide.
Quite honestly, the surprising part of the hegemony discussion for me is that so many people are just now speaking of American hegemony and hegemony-building as if it were a new concept. To give a little history concerning the major world powers (generally European), look back to the 17th century to mid-20th century where roughly five major powers were equal in power and influence over the years (England, France, Austria-Hungary, Prussia/Germany, Russia, sometimes the Japanese or Italians replacing one of the others). Anytime one of the five powers became significantly more powerful than the others, the other nations banded together to restore the balance (ie, Napoleon's defeat and exile in the early 19th century). This pattern held all the way through the end of World War I with America's entrance into that conflict, paving its way into World War II and beyond through its alliances and ties with Western Europe.
Looking towards US history itself, from the mid-19th century onward, you see a different type of empire-building than that practiced by England, France or Spain. You see empire-building in the form of establishing close ties with numerous smaller states in the hemisphere without directly ruling them. This form of empire seems to allow self-rule, yet many states in the hemisphere of American influence were very 'receptive' to American opinions concerning internal policy and more importantly, leadership choices. Conditions along these lines went through the Spanish-American war into the 20th century, with the US expanding its influence in Latin America while avoiding deep ties with Europe. This changes with the outcome of World War II. Along with the death of the Third Reich, the death of the old Balance of Power system in the old world comes too. Emerging from this World War, there is born the Cold War. With the Soviets and the US staring each down for forty years, there is nothing left for the largest devloped nations to do but pick a side. As the Iron Curtain falls over the East Bloc/Warsaw Pact countries, NATO aligns itself in Western Europe and the Mediterranean.
At this point in recent history, it is no longer questioned that the previous BoP is dead, with two new "superpowers" guiding regional and worldwide political progression. In the early 1960s, a counter-revolution is attempted by Cuban expatriates and American intelligence agents (Bay of Pigs). Here, with Operation Just Cause, the United States follows through on its threats the Panamanians and removes Manuel Noriega from power (sound a little arrogant?) in much the same way as the removal of Hussein went (though markedly lacking a major mobilization of non-special-forces/airborne troops as was seen here). Along the lines of Panama lie the deployment of the 101st Airborne to the Dominican Republic and US action in Haiti. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the soviet "republics" in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, there remains only a single "superpower" remaining in the world. In the following decade, NATO expands to previously unseen size, the Warsaw Pact countries develop, some applying for entrance into NATO, and the European Union kicks off its existence with a solid impact on world markets. The EU is an almost direct response to NAFTA signed into existence by President Clinton, slackening trade restrictions in North America as well as across Europe. The US has become the world's foremost police agency--outstripping even the UN in its troop deployment numbers, its interdiction efforts in various nations, and its commitment to allies--and has spread its influence into significant portions of every major region with the exception of China and the Middle East.
My question then, to the rest of the world, is how has any of this has come as a surprise? Have the last 60 years really flown by without anyone paying attention to what has gone on? Or is it that with the death of the Soviet Union that direct action against foreign powers (without popular consensus of the NATO nations) is now distasteful? Why was there no major international outcry at the removal of Noriega, who was markedly <i>less</i> horrific than Saddam Hussein and his sons? Why is it that now, after an unpopular international incident, that the US building its hegemony and extending its direct influence is so terrible? (I'm not saying anything we did was right at any point, just asking how it was surprising or unforeseen)
Comments
With general civilian population however, the myth of "we can all get along just fine without war" is incredibly prevalent. Thousands of years of war between mankind and suddenly this generation has decided that it can do without it, little realising that without war they probably wouldnt be living in a safe and peaceful country.
So at an international level, everyone is jealous of American power, and wants to see it taken down a bit. At a civilian level, the mass delusion of "peace is the answer" still reigns.
So I dont think anyone is surprised, its just America is throwing its weight around on a larger scale now, going against the UN security counsel and ingoring the blatant attempts of the EU (France and Germany) to try and distance themselves from NATO and the US.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't say it's a matter of jelousy, I'd say it's a desire for balance.
As the original poster noted, when one of the nations of Europe got too strong (pre-WWI), other nations banded together to oppose them. The reasoning was that having one nation that was too powerful was a bad thing; balance was better. At the start of the Cold War this remained true: Western Europe banded together with America to oppose the growing power of the USSR, Eastern Europe was forced into joining with the USSR. Now that the USSR is gone and only one global superpower remains, nations are worried. One nation with the power of the US has no system of checks or balances to keep it in line. The one thing that did exist, the UN, is now essentially gone, destroyed by the US.
It's all very well for the US to say "we're policing the world" but who watches the watchers? Who keeps the power of the US in check? As it stands, the US will continue to extend it's technological and militaritic lead over the rest of the world. A challange may rise from China or a newly re-energised Russia, but for the forseeable future America is unchallanged on the world stage. This leads to a very dangerous state of affairs where the US has been given virtual free reign to do whatever it feels like doing. The opinions of the rest of the world now don't matter to the US, which is now undertaking actions which it sees are in it's best national interest.
The idea of a "hyper-power" is not new; England, France and Spain all at various stages earned such a title. But what always happened was that other nations would unify to oppose such a force. We see the start of this in European refusals to endorse the Iraq war and refusals by the UN to commit peacekeeping forces. The world's nations prefer balance to inbalance. What remains to be seen is whether a unified force to oppose the US can be set up before the US extends it's power to levels where it will never be challanged again.
Balance is a good think ultimately, but getting their is bad. It usually involves war - and as long as the US stays on top, I can only see good things for my country.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly, they don't really care what the cause is or where it is fought. They simply seek to try and balance the power of the US. Even the terrorist acts that are becoming more frequent are signs of attempts to keep the US in check. It may be that France really wanted Saddam gone, but they don't like the idea of the US now having free reign over a large portion of the world's total oil reserves. Achieveing balance I agree is a hard road, but I believe it is better than one dominant superpower. Remember, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly. How long before the US starts it's next invasion in the name of justice, liberation and the fight against terrorism? Where, if ever, will it end?
War may bring about change, but so does Macdonalds. You were doing fine with the colonel with the secret sauce. We aren't so keen on all these colonels looking for secret WMDs.
These people are beyond help, but that doesnt bother the West. Their are heaps of screwed countries out there, but not heaps of screwed countries with oil. We want their oil. Now we can buy it off them, but they will either squander the money or spend it against us. So we crush them, take what we want and leave. And thats exactly what the West has been doing for years. Destroy the opposition, rape the resources, leave. Not always with the military, but always the same results.
So, a lot of people are never going to accept democracy, the militant arabs being uppermost in my mind. And the West isnt going to wait around for them to get democracy, because they will be waiting forever.
I know the Americans trying to bring democracy to Iraq is madness. I know doing it at the point of a gun is insane. Thought that's what I was saying...
Well I'll elaborate. Not everyone is going to end up with capitalist democratic societies. It's not for everyone. If it is going to spread though, I believe that it is best spread through peaceful means. Does that mean it won't spread to some places? Yes. Thats not a bad thing. Every society and culture choses how it lives and governs itself. The capitalist democratic way isn't for everyone.
Let them rot? Harsh but yeah, basically true. If they want to live that way and govern themselves that way, let them. It's not our job to go in and say "you are wrong. Here's a Big Mac and a pamphlet on Why Democracy Works".
We both agree that democratic traditions arn't going to catch on everywhere. We agree that forcing it on people won't work. What exactly are we argueing about? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yeah we are on the same side, except that I think its great that we crushed the Iraqi's. They did have it coming, and I honestly dont really care what happens to them. They will be on the trash-heap of nations whether the US bombs them or not. So I'm all for the Iraq war, but not for the Peace and Democracy rubbish. The Americans should now put in a puppet dictator, come down harshly on any Iraqi attempts at rebellion, and then flood them with American culture. The rest of the world finds it impossible to resist, so I think it would just be a matter of time before militant Islam surrenders to Hollywood.
Look what happened to the Japanese when the Americans took over?
I admire Bush for trying to give em democracy, but I cast doubts upon his intelligence in doing so.
Balance is a good think ultimately, but getting their is bad. It usually involves war - and as long as the US stays on top, I can only see good things for my country. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No....not many people do that, for example, I detest what our country has become, then again I never did like nazis
Then the balance of the universe is restored, I one again loathe the fact that you continue to breath air.
Under Saddam, the Iraqi's had no chance. Under the US, they have at least the OPTION. They arent going to take it, no way never, but they are being given the option.
That is why I have absolutely no sympathy for their destruction. Whenever they are given the option, they never take it. They can make good come out of this, and simply for the reason of begetting more hate, they refuse that.
I dont sit at home chuckling with glee at the children and women being killed, but neither can I feel sorry for them.
Ignorance may be bliss, but I'm not a very happy person
<b>Why, after a century and a half of historical examples of the same, is this action by the US either: a) a surprise, b) regarded as distasteful or c) both by the world community in general and Western Europeans specifically?</b>
Any other off-topic rants and I'll be deleting this thread and reposting it to start clean.
This is only different in my opinion because it IS about the oil...
Instead of spending Billions upon billions on a resource that will be all gone in a few years why don't we say...FEED OUR CHILDREN....or DEVELOP A RENEWABLE RESOURCE....This is different than say world war two, because the Iraqi regime didn't make an attack on US land, etc.
on a slightly off topic subject, dont you americans out there find it worrying that <i>most of the world</i> is now starting to feel genuinly worried about the intent of the american government, i mean, if people in the UK are getting worried, what do you think the new generations of islamic fundamentalists are going to make of all this :/
<b>Why, after a century and a half of historical examples of the same, is this action by the US either: a) a surprise, b) regarded as distasteful or c) both by the world community in general and Western Europeans specifically?</b>
Any other off-topic rants and I'll be deleting this thread and reposting it to start clean. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well your question is relative, and depends on how far you want to take the argument.
I don't think any semi-intelligent person can argue that America is building up it's own power and is already a head above other nations.
That really shouldn't be the core of the argument, but the argument should be how far will America go in its efforts.
The less extreme idea would that America would simply continue to battle Terrorism around the globe and protect it's borders.
The more extreme ideas, this one in particular, have been around since shortly after 9-11, and it consist of the belief that America consciously took steps to provoke and guarantee an act of war to be carried out against it. America would then use the war on terrorism as a guise to mobilze and fund an attack force against China, and ultimately take over China's trade capabilities, accordingly control both Western and Eastern exporting and importing.
I guess your stance just depends on how fooked up you think America is.
Posting one line answers to everything is a good way to get ignored : P
And if you think a country would actually use its nuclear arsenal as anything but a barganing chip you don't know much about real politics. MAD is a buzzword from the Cold War era, and if you don't believe me look at the Cuban missile crisis that was nuclear weapons in the hands of a hardline dictator and borderline nutcase.
I sincerly doubt China would rather destroy the world than give up direct control of its goverment.
PS I guess you haven't heard that the US has been working feverntly to get a National Anti-ballistic missle shield up and running?
The United Nations is a joke. It's like trying to vote that griefer off the server, he gets a vote as to wheather he stays or goes. Typically, countries like China simply vote against anything the americans back. Look at the great track record the UN has. Bosnia was a resounding success. And IIRC "UN Troops" are almost always predominately American. Bashing America is now as fashionable as bashing CS. It's not a surprise that people find American actions distasteful. They always are, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Had a plane been crashed into a Hong Kong building or Big Ben, and the US refrained from getting involved, the same thing would be happening. Except, when the UN decided to do something all those American troops would have blue arm bands, and a very small smattering of troops from other countries would be there as a token representation. It's easy to scream about the US actions when you weren't attacked. Like not retaliating was really an option. Turning the other cheek to terrorism only gets you a bruise on both sides of your face.
It just got derailed that way, see my post for what this thread was actually about.
And if you have a horrible urge to derail a topic just create a new thread, the fact is there are about 4 up and running about Iraq and the War on Terrorism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bashing America is now as fashionable as bashing CS. It's not a surprise that people find American actions distasteful. They always are, damned if you do, damned if you don't. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the second time you claimed a post of mine was off topic, I doubt you even read the whole thing.
As far as I've seen in the last decade or so, the US has left an era where active-empire-building along politically polarized lines and moved into an era where many world nations would like to blur borders and distinctions in an effort towards globilization rather than political segregation. The EU and the expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact countries are excellent examples of this globalization. Direct confrontations on large scales are preferrably avoided, regardless of the causes. It seems as if many nations would even avoid a staring contest in an effort to avoid another Cold-War-like peace based on the threat of extensive violence. Casual foreign-born political revolutions seem to make many national leaders shudder or waver. No longer can one nation casually overthrow another smaller or weaker nation without the world examining the causes and effects closely. I think that Bush, and many of his advisors (all from the Cold War era if not Cold War administrations), fail to realize the pacifist and phlegmatic turn that international politics took between his father and Reagan's administrations and the present and are still living (or even reliving) the Evil Empire days while the world has put that in the past and has attempted to move forward rather than regress to what once was.