5 ms·

What about the contrarian view that the Pax Americana has brought the greatest era of peace, wealth and standard of living to the world? Our forefathers paid a

What about the contrarian view that the Pax Americana has brought the greatest era of peace, wealth and standard of living to the world? Our forefathers paid a higher price. Security and liberty are not without costs.

mikeash 8y ago
That only works if the massive resources spent on Afghanistan and Iraq helped with the Pax Americana. I see no reason to think it did, and a multitude of reasons to think the opposite. How many millions have now died because we knocked over Iraq without anything resembling a real plan for handling the aftermath?
- CWuestefeld 8y ago
  because we knocked over Iraq without anything resembling a real plan for handling the aftermath And Libya and Syria...
  - 09bjb 8y ago
    And Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan again back in the 80s...the interventionist policy has always been about U.S. corporate interests abroad, not about democracy or peace. https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/Overthrow--America-s-Century-of-Regime-Change-from-Hawaii-to-Iraq-9780805082401 https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/Overthrow--A... ^^ Not completely without bias, but probably contains a lot of inarguable historical facts that you weren't even close to being taught in high school or even college.
    - stevenwoo 8y ago
      Lies My Teacher Told Me is another pretty good, depressing read that covers some of this and prior American history with analysis.
  - lamarpye 8y ago
    Maybe this is another lie my teacher told me, but is the US now responsible for Syrian Civil War?
    - CWuestefeld 8y ago
      Not entirely - it was already happening before we stuck our noses in. But there's little doubt that we made it worse. From my perspective, it seems that GWB created the seed that would grow into ISIS. Then it was Obama that gave it the fertile soil to grow.
      - lamarpye 8y ago
        Not following your logic, Obama gave ISIS fertile soil to grow by removing American troops from Iraq, which seems the opposite of a Pax America policy. I also don't understand how fighting ISIS made it worse.
        CWuestefeld 8y ago
        Obama's attacks on Syria and especially Libya created a power vacuum - the incumbent leadership was bad, but in its absence there was a void that anything could move into. If Kaddafi were still running Libya, ISIS wouldn't have been. This is also true in Syria, but perhaps to a lesser degree than Libya, since the vacuum was less hard.
ynniv 8y ago
What pax has that money bought? Peace in Iraq? Afghanistan? De-militarization of Saudi Arabia? Iran? Israel? Correlation is not causation.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Generally speaking the "cause" of the pax Americana is safe (and mostly tax-free) international sea shipping. That's what made the huge difference. Keep in mind that yes, that required shooting up a few countries.
  - Analemma_ 8y ago
    How exactly did invading Iraq and Afghanistan, countries with 58 and 0 kilometers of coastline respectively, help keep international sea shipping safe?
    - zip1234 8y ago
      Perhaps increasing the US presence in key shipping areas such as the Arabian Gulf and the Horn of Africa?
      - pintxo 8y ago
        Which does not require to occupy countries without a costline? Especially if you own the largest fleat of aircraft carriers in the world.
        candiodari 8y ago
        Afghanistan was a base of operations for terrorists. Now you can define that a lot of ways, and countries and police forces do define it however is convenient at the time. What matters for this however, is that it was a state sponsor and safe haven for people who'd go random places and blow economic interests up (from planes to tourist locations), located in a place where they actually had a shot at making stuff happen (ie. could have easy access to a lot of places). So Afghanistan had to go, both for it itself having to go, and to serve as a warning to other states what happens if you don't cooperate in the war on terror. The war on terror, of course, being the war to keep congress' economic interests safe.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
towelr34dy 8y ago
Or you could argue that the current climate of world peace was brought on by multiple currents including: 1- An acceleration of technology development that changed the sharing of resources to go from zero sum to a positive sum situation. 2- That nuclear weapons and other WMD have created a MAD situation, guaranteeing only minor skirmishes by super powers. 3- A variety of other factors including the integration of global supply chains, women's voting rights, etc. But please, don't let these factors get in the way of your narrative of American exceptionalism.
cyphar 8y ago
Given that America has constantly been at some sort of state of war since WW2, the concept of Pax Americana (which apparently started after WW2, while the Americans were in a cold war with the Russians -- and various new conflicts each decade) is simply a rewrite of history based on modern imperialistic pro-American propaganda. Arguing that "security and liberty" (of Americans I assume, not the rest of the world) is worth "bringing peace" (read: starting wars and overthrowing democratically elected leaders) to other countries is just silly. Many millions of people were killed in the middle east (and many of them were innocent civilians). How would you act if a foreign power (acting as though they were the bringers of civilisation to a group of savages) decide to kill millions of Americans? I doubt you would think that those invaders were particularly deserving of the moral high-ground.
cmurf 8y ago
Slavery brought about a substantial percent of that wealth and standard of living. Did the forefathers pay a higher price than slaves? To what degree is that cost, disproportionately shouldered, responsible for today's security and liberty? And to what degree is it an on-going contribution? That's a contrarian view. The standard view? Pax Americana is unquestioned by American political leadership regardless of political spectrum. Of course it brought peace, wealth, and improved the world, and continues to do so, and should continue to do so. Of course American interventionism is, on average, a moral obligation and achieves moral good. And Pax Americana achieved, is still impermanent, and must constantly be renewed. And further, it cannot be questioned by international law. That is the pre-9/11 position of the vast majority of Reagnite and Bush 2 foreign policy officials, as stated in the position paper "Rebuilding America’s Defense" (2000) by the Project for a New American Century think tank, 10 out of 12 founders of which were Bush 2 administration officials. And one of those officials who is also in the current administration, John Bolton, just said yesterday, the United States will not be held accountable by the International Criminal Court. Period. While there are data points suggesting this is more of a right wing ideology, you won't see the left wing aghast at these plainly spoken positions. They merely present a less verbally assertive version of it. It is not at all controversial to say, American political thought is still today, insisting Pax Americana is believed in, cannot or should not be questioned, is morally good and proper, and any international institution that disagrees, is instantly discredited. I would expect a Clinton administration would be quite a lot more diplomatic about it, but the policy would be effectively the same. Clinton did vote, at the time, in favor of interventionist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And "Rebuilding America's Defense" is often cited as pretext for these wars, as it spells out Pax Americana is under threat without another Pearl Harbor-like event to motivate the American public to the cause. And then soon after 9/11 happened.
notfromhere 8y ago
last time we fought a war to secure and maintain pax americana was 1945
- lamarpye 8y ago
  How does the Korean War fit in? Was the United States too aggressive to the peaceful North Koreans?
flexie 8y ago
Which of the wars following September 11 were necessary for Pax Americana? Could it be that these wars exposed how primitive guerrilla forces can bleed the mighty American military dry? It's not like the world has seen a very convincing show of force. I for one worry that the bluff has been called and that every dictator in the world now knows that apart from the threat of nuclear war, the American military's capabilities are far more limited than some perhaps had thought. When relatively poor and simple battlegrounds such as Iraq or Afghanistan cause trouble one or two decades on, then what could America do against more advanced enemies or against more enemies? This is to me the biggest worry: occupying two such relatively simple countries is a challenge. The Russians, the Chinese, Iran, heck even the tiny Syrian government, can now see that America had lots of trouble with what is currently nation No 54 and nation No 111 measured by GDP. Yes, I know that GDP does not equal military strength and that the US was officially not fighting the Afghan government. But in reality, the US was fighting primitive guerrilla forces in a primitive country. And the US didn't really come out impressing anyone with their strength.
- bmiller2 8y ago
  > every dictator in the world now knows that apart from the threat of nuclear war, the American military's capabilities are far more limited than some perhaps had thought Every dictator in the world fears an American military attack, because they will undoubtedly be overrun and dethroned. Look at how Ghadafi and Saddam tried to bend over backwards to show that they had no WMDs. American military prowess is second to none by a wide, huge margin. A small occupying force like those allocated to Iraq/Afghanistan after the initial invasions simply can not defeat guerrilla warfare. The lack of post-invasion plans doomed these conflicts, but the initial dictators/governments had no chance of survival.
  - RobertoG 8y ago
    >>"but the initial dictators/governments had no chance of survival. " That's the reason they all now want nuclear weapons.
    - 8y ago
mikestew 8y ago
What about the contrarian view that the Pax Americana has brought the greatest era of peace, wealth and standard of living to the world? That's going to come with a big side order of "citation needed". To Americans? Yeah, arguably. "To the world"? Eh, there are a lot of non-Americans that might take issue. We can start with polls in Central America and the Middle East.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  Then do polls in South Korea.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    And then if you figure since you're in the neighborhood, why not poll older folks in Vietnam? After a while, one might see where I'm going with this. And if you need a hint: on balance, I'm not convinced of the claim.
    - lamarpye 8y ago
      Polls of older people in Vietnam might reflect some survivor bias. The communists weren't very gentle to regime opponents. Apparently they weren't gentle to ethnic Chinese either, I have met many that were forced to flee in boats to avoid pogroms.

mikeash 8y ago

That only works if the massive resources spent on Afghanistan and Iraq helped with the Pax Americana. I see no reason to think it did, and a multitude of reasons to think the opposite. How many millions have now died because we knocked over Iraq without anything resembling a real plan for handling the aftermath?

CWuestefeld 8y ago
because we knocked over Iraq without anything resembling a real plan for handling the aftermath And Libya and Syria...
- 09bjb 8y ago
  And Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, and Afghanistan again back in the 80s...the interventionist policy has always been about U.S. corporate interests abroad, not about democracy or peace. https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/Overthrow--America-s-Century-of-Regime-Change-from-Hawaii-to-Iraq-9780805082401 https://www.betterworldbooks.com/product/detail/Overthrow--A... ^^ Not completely without bias, but probably contains a lot of inarguable historical facts that you weren't even close to being taught in high school or even college.
  - stevenwoo 8y ago
    Lies My Teacher Told Me is another pretty good, depressing read that covers some of this and prior American history with analysis.
- lamarpye 8y ago
  Maybe this is another lie my teacher told me, but is the US now responsible for Syrian Civil War?
  - CWuestefeld 8y ago
    Not entirely - it was already happening before we stuck our noses in. But there's little doubt that we made it worse. From my perspective, it seems that GWB created the seed that would grow into ISIS. Then it was Obama that gave it the fertile soil to grow.
    - lamarpye 8y ago
      Not following your logic, Obama gave ISIS fertile soil to grow by removing American troops from Iraq, which seems the opposite of a Pax America policy. I also don't understand how fighting ISIS made it worse.
      - CWuestefeld 8y ago
        Obama's attacks on Syria and especially Libya created a power vacuum - the incumbent leadership was bad, but in its absence there was a void that anything could move into. If Kaddafi were still running Libya, ISIS wouldn't have been. This is also true in Syria, but perhaps to a lesser degree than Libya, since the vacuum was less hard.

ynniv 8y ago

What pax has that money bought? Peace in Iraq? Afghanistan? De-militarization of Saudi Arabia? Iran? Israel? Correlation is not causation.

candiodari 8y ago
Generally speaking the "cause" of the pax Americana is safe (and mostly tax-free) international sea shipping. That's what made the huge difference. Keep in mind that yes, that required shooting up a few countries.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  How exactly did invading Iraq and Afghanistan, countries with 58 and 0 kilometers of coastline respectively, help keep international sea shipping safe?
  - zip1234 8y ago
    Perhaps increasing the US presence in key shipping areas such as the Arabian Gulf and the Horn of Africa?
    - pintxo 8y ago
      Which does not require to occupy countries without a costline? Especially if you own the largest fleat of aircraft carriers in the world.
      - candiodari 8y ago
        Afghanistan was a base of operations for terrorists. Now you can define that a lot of ways, and countries and police forces do define it however is convenient at the time. What matters for this however, is that it was a state sponsor and safe haven for people who'd go random places and blow economic interests up (from planes to tourist locations), located in a place where they actually had a shot at making stuff happen (ie. could have easy access to a lot of places). So Afghanistan had to go, both for it itself having to go, and to serve as a warning to other states what happens if you don't cooperate in the war on terror. The war on terror, of course, being the war to keep congress' economic interests safe.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

towelr34dy 8y ago

Or you could argue that the current climate of world peace was brought on by multiple currents including: 1- An acceleration of technology development that changed the sharing of resources to go from zero sum to a positive sum situation. 2- That nuclear weapons and other WMD have created a MAD situation, guaranteeing only minor skirmishes by super powers. 3- A variety of other factors including the integration of global supply chains, women's voting rights, etc. But please, don't let these factors get in the way of your narrative of American exceptionalism.

cyphar 8y ago

Given that America has constantly been at some sort of state of war since WW2, the concept of Pax Americana (which apparently started after WW2, while the Americans were in a cold war with the Russians -- and various new conflicts each decade) is simply a rewrite of history based on modern imperialistic pro-American propaganda. Arguing that "security and liberty" (of Americans I assume, not the rest of the world) is worth "bringing peace" (read: starting wars and overthrowing democratically elected leaders) to other countries is just silly. Many millions of people were killed in the middle east (and many of them were innocent civilians). How would you act if a foreign power (acting as though they were the bringers of civilisation to a group of savages) decide to kill millions of Americans? I doubt you would think that those invaders were particularly deserving of the moral high-ground.

cmurf 8y ago

Slavery brought about a substantial percent of that wealth and standard of living. Did the forefathers pay a higher price than slaves? To what degree is that cost, disproportionately shouldered, responsible for today's security and liberty? And to what degree is it an on-going contribution? That's a contrarian view. The standard view? Pax Americana is unquestioned by American political leadership regardless of political spectrum. Of course it brought peace, wealth, and improved the world, and continues to do so, and should continue to do so. Of course American interventionism is, on average, a moral obligation and achieves moral good. And Pax Americana achieved, is still impermanent, and must constantly be renewed. And further, it cannot be questioned by international law. That is the pre-9/11 position of the vast majority of Reagnite and Bush 2 foreign policy officials, as stated in the position paper "Rebuilding America’s Defense" (2000) by the Project for a New American Century think tank, 10 out of 12 founders of which were Bush 2 administration officials. And one of those officials who is also in the current administration, John Bolton, just said yesterday, the United States will not be held accountable by the International Criminal Court. Period. While there are data points suggesting this is more of a right wing ideology, you won't see the left wing aghast at these plainly spoken positions. They merely present a less verbally assertive version of it. It is not at all controversial to say, American political thought is still today, insisting Pax Americana is believed in, cannot or should not be questioned, is morally good and proper, and any international institution that disagrees, is instantly discredited. I would expect a Clinton administration would be quite a lot more diplomatic about it, but the policy would be effectively the same. Clinton did vote, at the time, in favor of interventionist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And "Rebuilding America's Defense" is often cited as pretext for these wars, as it spells out Pax Americana is under threat without another Pearl Harbor-like event to motivate the American public to the cause. And then soon after 9/11 happened.

notfromhere 8y ago

last time we fought a war to secure and maintain pax americana was 1945

lamarpye 8y ago
How does the Korean War fit in? Was the United States too aggressive to the peaceful North Koreans?

flexie 8y ago

Which of the wars following September 11 were necessary for Pax Americana? Could it be that these wars exposed how primitive guerrilla forces can bleed the mighty American military dry? It's not like the world has seen a very convincing show of force. I for one worry that the bluff has been called and that every dictator in the world now knows that apart from the threat of nuclear war, the American military's capabilities are far more limited than some perhaps had thought. When relatively poor and simple battlegrounds such as Iraq or Afghanistan cause trouble one or two decades on, then what could America do against more advanced enemies or against more enemies? This is to me the biggest worry: occupying two such relatively simple countries is a challenge. The Russians, the Chinese, Iran, heck even the tiny Syrian government, can now see that America had lots of trouble with what is currently nation No 54 and nation No 111 measured by GDP. Yes, I know that GDP does not equal military strength and that the US was officially not fighting the Afghan government. But in reality, the US was fighting primitive guerrilla forces in a primitive country. And the US didn't really come out impressing anyone with their strength.

bmiller2 8y ago
> every dictator in the world now knows that apart from the threat of nuclear war, the American military's capabilities are far more limited than some perhaps had thought Every dictator in the world fears an American military attack, because they will undoubtedly be overrun and dethroned. Look at how Ghadafi and Saddam tried to bend over backwards to show that they had no WMDs. American military prowess is second to none by a wide, huge margin. A small occupying force like those allocated to Iraq/Afghanistan after the initial invasions simply can not defeat guerrilla warfare. The lack of post-invasion plans doomed these conflicts, but the initial dictators/governments had no chance of survival.
- RobertoG 8y ago
  >>"but the initial dictators/governments had no chance of survival. " That's the reason they all now want nuclear weapons.
  - 8y ago

mikestew 8y ago

What about the contrarian view that the Pax Americana has brought the greatest era of peace, wealth and standard of living to the world? That's going to come with a big side order of "citation needed". To Americans? Yeah, arguably. "To the world"? Eh, there are a lot of non-Americans that might take issue. We can start with polls in Central America and the Middle East.

lamarpye 8y ago
Then do polls in South Korea.
- mikestew 8y ago
  And then if you figure since you're in the neighborhood, why not poll older folks in Vietnam? After a while, one might see where I'm going with this. And if you need a hint: on balance, I'm not convinced of the claim.
  - lamarpye 8y ago
    Polls of older people in Vietnam might reflect some survivor bias. The communists weren't very gentle to regime opponents. Apparently they weren't gentle to ethnic Chinese either, I have met many that were forced to flee in boats to avoid pogroms.