American Empire?

On Friday Robert Kaplan wrote a fascinating article in the Washington Post that I've been meaning to comment on. It's called, "Where's the American empire when we need it?" My problem with this article is that I agree with some of Kaplan's specific observations, yet disagree with his main underlying assumptions. First, there is no American empire unless you distort the meaning of the word empire. A network of alliances based primarily on mutual interest is not the equivalent of a system based on conquered terroritories linked together and maintained by force.

During the Cold War, the world was divided between the Soviet and U.S. imperial systems. The Soviet imperium - heir to Kievan Rus, medieval Muscovy and the Romanov dynasty - covered Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia and propped up regimes in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. The American imperium - heir to maritime Venice and Great Britain - also propped up allies, particularly in Western Europe and East Asia. True to the garrison tradition of imperial Rome, Washington kept bases in West Germany, Turkey, South Korea and Japan, virtually surrounding the Soviet Union.

This is a terrible analogy that only makes sense if you look at the surface. Was the U.S. relationship to its western European allies similar to that of the Soviet Union toward Eastern Europe? I don't recall U.S. troops suppressing dissenting political movements in Britain, France or West Germany the way Soviet forces put down Czechoslovakia and Hungary. 

Kaplan is correct when he points out that the collapse of the Soviet Union gave rise to much chaos, and that problems developed which might not have if Soviet control had still been in force. But should we long for a return to the days of the Soviet Union? Although Kaplan doesn't say we should, his argument seems to call for that question. He appears to conveniently ignore the many crises and threats of war that took place during the Cold War -- not to mention the ever present threat of World War 3 and nuclear war.

Then there is the whole matter of supposed American decline. This is another fundamental assumption that I strongly disagree with. The collapse of the Soviet Union increased American power. Like many people, Kaplan mistakes a lack of U.S. will to use its power with absolute decline. And one of his specific examples is severely flawed.

The U.S. Navy has gone from nearly 600 warships in the Reagan era to fewer than 300 today, while the navies of China and India grow apace. Such trends will accelerate with the defense cuts that are surely coming in order to rescue America from its fiscal crisis. The United States still dominates the seas and the air and will do so for years ahead, but the distance between it and other nations is narrowing.

The reason the U.S. fleet has shrunk from the days of Reagan is precisely because we no longer face the threat of the huge Soviet navy. U.S. naval supremacy, with less ships, is now greater than it ever was during the Cold War.

But the headlines of our era are written in a specific context - that of one deceased empire that used to be the world's preeminent land power and of another, the world's preeminent sea power, that finds itself less able to affect events than ever before, even as it is less sure than ever of the cause toward which it struggles.

Is the U.S. really less able to affect events than before? I think that's a false assertion.

there is simply no doubt that the post-imperial order we inhabit allows for greater disruptions than the Cold War ever permitted.

Really? I don't think so. Again, Kaplan seems to have forgotten world history and become fixated on present events. The Korean War, Vietnam, Cambodia, multiple wars in the Middle East, the Cuban missile crisis, interventions in Latin America, the Algerian war, India-Pakistan wars, numerous conflicts in Africa, etc, etc. All of these things took place during the time when Kaplan seems to think the U.S. and the Soviet Union kept a lid on things.

I could continue to go through Kaplan's article point by point, as there are also points of agreement. But overall, I think he is operating based on a couple of major false assumptions which undermine his argument that the U.S. needs to maintain its leading role as world policeman. Here's his conclusion. 

Americans rightly lack an imperial mentality. But lessening our engagement with the world would have devastating consequences for humanity. The disruptions we witness today are but a taste of what is to come should our country flinch from its international responsibilities.

The other problem with this argument, aside from the bad assumptions I already pointed out, is that American interventionism itself is also a source of "disruptions." It is always possible that in an attempt to maintain order, the U.S. can instead create greater problems. Many make that argument with regard to our actions in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Kaplan is always a good read, and the article is certainly provocative. But ultimately it rests on a bad foundation.

No HOT5 Today

It will return tomorrow.

Popular Pundits with Republican Activists

A site called Conservative Home did a survey that got some attention. They asked 1,152 Republican activists to "name their top three commentators," and then released the results as a top ten list. Here's the breakdown of the top ten: 

Rush Limbaugh: 41%
Glenn Beck: 33%
Charles Krauthammer: 29%
Bill O'Reilly: 24%
Sean Hannity: 21%
Newt Gingrich: 16%
Michelle Malkin: 16%
Mike Huckabee: 13%
Ann Coulter: 13%
George Will: 13%

When I saw this list I immediately thought that this is another example of how out of step I am with the Republican base. Krauthammer is a pretty solid opinion journalist and he's the only one on that list I might even think about naming. I also wonder about the question itself. Although I don't watch political tv shows anymore, I'm probably in at least the top 1% of the population in terms of reading a massive amount of political coverage. But I'd be hard-pressed to name my three favorite commentators. I wonder if these results were skewed by people just coming up with the most visible names

HOT5 Daily 12/4/2010

1. "Five Ways to Keep the Poor in Poverty" All of which are in effect.

Representative Sample: Deduct 15.3% from the very first dollar earned for Social Security and Medicare, and then stop the SS “contribution” when a worker’s salary reaches $107,000. How regressive can a tax get? Also, employ terms like “trust fund” and “lockbox” to disguise the fact that these programs are often a direct transfer of income from the working poor to retirees, many of whom are very well-off.

2. "The Cloud is Tethered to the Ground" An excellent point that enemies of that cyber-enemies of the U.S. would do well to consider.

Representative Sample: All the talk of cyber-warfare, however important it is to master on its own terms and in its own "terrain," always seems to neglect that the internet is built on physical infrastructure and people who can be physically attacked.

3. "Ten Reasons Why Atheism Can't Win" An excellent 10 point analysis of why atheists will remain a minority for the foreseeable future.

Representative Sample: Atheism can’t win because it offers no eternal hope. It offers no hope to live forever in a blissful heaven with a loving all-powerful eternal God, which ultimately means that our life has no eternal significance. It offers no hope to ever see dead loved ones.

4. "Israel's Missile Defense: The New Strategic Factor in the Middle East" And one that helps make containment of Iran, as opposed to preventative war, a reasonable option even for Israel.

Representative Sample: A factor up until now neglected in the Middle East strategic picture is Israel’s development of a strong, multi-level missile defense system aimed both against short-range rockets fired by Hamas and Hizballah as well as to guard against a future Iranian nuclear long-range threat.

5. "CALM Act Passed, will quiet loud TV commercials within a year" Government regulation that almost everyone -- except certain advertisers -- can support.

Representative Sample: Rep. Anna Eshoo's (D-CA) bill will require commercials to be at the same decibel levels as programs during which they play. Once signed, the CALM Act will give the FCC a mandate to regulate and enforce volume limits on commercials, ensuring that their maximum loudness does not exceed the average maximum loudness of the program they're accompanying.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

No HOT5 Today

It will return tomorrow.

A Critical Look at the Arguments in Favor of START

There's a joint op-ed in today's Washington Post by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell called, "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Leaving aside the fact that at least one of these men, Colin Powell, is a shill for the Obama administration and a true Republican In Name Only, let's look at their reasons for supporting the treaty.  

The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons.

It's not a good idea to start off an argument with a baseless assertion. There's no evidence at all that the various arms control agreements have made the world one bit safer. We are safer from the threat of a massive nuclear war because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. But of course even that collapse has given rise to other potential nuclear threats. 

[The New START Treaty] is a modest and appropriate continuation of the START I treaty that expired almost a year ago.

So what? We should continue it just to continue it?

It reduces the number of nuclear weapons that each side deploys while enabling the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and preserving the flexibility to deploy those forces as we see fit.

You know what else preserves our flexibility? Not signing treaties that might hinder our options.

The commander of our nuclear forces has testified that the 1,550 warheads allowed under this treaty are sufficient for all our missions - and seven former nuclear commanders agree.

So by that logic, if 1,550 are sufficient, wouldn't it be better to have more?

The defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the Missile Defense Agency - all originally appointed by a Republican president - argue that New START is essential for our national defense.

What an utterly ridiculous assertion. This treaty has nothing to do with strengthening our national defense. It's a purely diplomatic maneuver that at best won't harm our national defense.

The most important thing is to have bipartisan support for the treaty, as previous nuclear arms treaties did.

If you want bipartisan support, then don't try to get a treaty through a lame-duck session of Congress.

Second, New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses. The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans.

Really? How about reading what you write next?

Although the treaty prohibits the conversion of existing launchers for intercontinental and submarine-based ballistic missiles, our military leaders say they do not want to do that because it is more expensive and less effective than building new ones for defense purposes.

So actually the treaty does in fact limit missile defense plans, just not the ones we happen to favor at the current time. But missile defense is a work in progress. We don't need to impose artificial limitations without good reason.

Finally, the Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal.

Well that's just great. But we could and should do that anyway. It has nothing to do with needing to sign a new treaty with Russia.

some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship.

Ok, that's a reasonable argument. But now let's ruin it by following it with this:

It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.

Oh come on. Does any of those men actually believe the nonsense they are spouting? I seriously doubt it. Russia has its own interests in securing loose nukes. Russia isn't going to be the slightest bit of help in Afghanistan or North Korea, and it's part of the problem with Iran. 

Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits.

That's not at all obvious. If you consider the treaty on just its merits, it makes little sense. You then have to ask, why are we imposing limitations on our defense capabilities for little return? 

But we have here an agreement that is clearly in our national interest, and we should consider the ramifications of not ratifying it.

If it was clearly in our national interest there wouldn't be any debate about it. My prior position on this treaty was that it was essentially harmless. But after reading such bad arguments in favor of it, I'm beginning to question that notion. The main reasons to sign this treaty are to stay on decent terms with Russia, avoid any sort of new nuclear arms race, and to have access to good intelligence on Russia's nuclear arsenal. These arguments are mentioned in the editorial, but are buried under the unfounded assertions, wishful thinking and hyperbolic nonsense about how supposedly important this treaty is to U.S. national security. If I'm a Republican lawmaker reading this editorial, it's going to make me take a harder look at the new START treaty. It certainly wouldn't push me toward speeding it into passage.

HOT5 Daily 12/2/2010

1. "The Uncertainty Principle in practice: Obama on Medicare, taxes, and drilling" The Obama effect damaging the economy. 

Representative Sample: The entirety of the Obama Administration can be summed under a single phrase: The Uncertainty Principle in Practice. This is why – and solely why – the economy is stagnant. When risk grows, being the embodiment of uncertainty, investment plans are shelved until risk can be mitigated or transferred.

2. "Seven Years of Bad Policy: Government Maintains Offshore Drilling Ban" More economic damage to please environmentalists.

Representative Sample: Offshore oil and gas drilling would create jobs and increase energy supplies without cost to the taxpayer. In fact, it would create revenues for financially strapped state governments and increase revenues for federal governments. But the United States won’t fully realize those benefits.

3. "Islamist Turkey vs. Secular Iran?" Are the two countries moving in opposite directsions?  

Representative Sample: As the secular Turkey founded by Atatürk threatens to disappear under a wave of Islamism, the Islamist Iranian state founded by Khomeini apparently teeters, on the brink of secularism. Turks wish to live like Iranians, ironically, and Iranians like Turks.

4. "Our Lost Competitiveness In Energy Construction" A bleak picture. 

Representative Sample: China is learning lessons about large scale construction and operation of brand new designs while we are trying to extend the lives of our existing, ancient reactors and delivering hot air of plans that won’t materialize, such as the aborted plan to jump start construction in the US

5. "Africa can feed itself in a generation: Study" I'll believe it when I see it. It could be feeding itself right now, but it isn't.

Representative Sample: “The plan would combine the use of modern science and technology, infrastructure expansion, improved technical education, and stimulation of business development. By focusing on women and rural prosperity, Africa would create a more inclusive agricultural revolution.”

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.