4 ms·

> hey both have this old-guard mentality of "might makes right" hegemony, which a lot of other countries (and some portion of their populations) don't like beca

> hey both have this old-guard mentality of "might makes right" hegemony, which a lot of other countries (and some portion of their populations) don't like because it's broadly incompatible with a human-rights centered worldview that favors the pipe dream of peaceful multilateral democracies. At least you are honest enough to say it's a pipe dream. It really is. The world is pretty brutal and liberal democracy is a value shared by a minority of humanity. If liberal democracy wants to survive it sometimes has to defend itself. The minimum it needs is an army to protect its people. Does that absolve U.S or Israel from every arms sell they do? Probably not. But it's a broad context we need to understand when we talk about this issue. > which a lot of other countries (and some portion of their populations) don't like because it's broadly incompatible with a human-rights centered worldview I understand that's the liberal and progressive thing to say. But if you really think about it, it reeks from hypocrisy. The "progressive" countries (who are they exactly?) like Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them. They wouldn't want the U.S to go away, not in a million years.

technobabbler 5y ago
> which a lot of other countries (and some portion of their populations) don't like because it's broadly incompatible with a human-rights centered worldview >> I understand that's the liberal and progressive thing to say. But if you really think about it, it reeks from hypocrisy. The "progressive" countries (who are they exactly?) like Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them. They wouldn't want the U.S to go away, not in a million years. Yeah, even a self-identified progressive, I unfortunately still mostly agree with you. Most of the liberals/progressives I've discussed foreign affairs with seem to have a pretty limited understanding of (or even interest in) military history. Not that I'm an expert by any stretch, but I do worry that they naively see the world as an unreasonably safe place. I don't think it is. The American progressive strong suit is in domestic affairs -- leftist populism, basically -- not military strategy or even foreign policy at large. Broadly, I suppose I believe in big hugs for my fellow citizens, big talks with our competitors, and big guns for our enemies (but we sure as heck shouldn't shoot first). > Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them Y'know, Trump wasn't right about much, but maybe NATO really ought to pay its fair share in regional defense. Our forces are so disproportionate that NATO is less like an alliance and more like a protectorate. It can't just forever be "the Western world will fall apart absent American carriers"... if for no other reason than hypersonic missiles. We cemented global hegemon status in the post-WW2 years, but it's not a responsibility we should have to single-handedly carry into the indefinite future. If our allies need to build up their defenses, maybe we could encourage them by gradually bringing ours home. And if we have fewer foreign expeditions, cool, maybe we'd make fewer enemies. In other words, I think our military should be strong enough to defend against homeland invasions and provide limit support to our allies, but not so strong that it runs the entire world's geosecurity. Somewhere in between is the question of what to do about Eurasia and specifically China... ideally we'd find some Cold-War like balance of mutually assured destruction, with neither side really wanting a hot war. Even better would be if we just cooperated economically with them and worked together on climate change, and let them run their social experiment while we run ours. We need to stop thinking we can singlehandedly liberate the world from oppression, or bring light to darkness, or whatever. We're just another country with big guns and small hearts... there's been many through history, none of which ended particularly well.
technobabbler 5y ago
> The world is pretty brutal and liberal democracy is a value shared by a minority of humanity. If liberal democracy wants to survive it sometimes has to defend itself. The minimum it needs is an army to protect its people. Yes, I agree to a large extent. Most of the world's strong extant states were forged in war (or is a quasi vassal state to one which was). We didn't get here by being nice to each other. A strong defensive military is something I think every state would be wise to have, so long as human nature remains what it is... we're not wizened philosopher-kings, more just horny, hungry apes. The distinction I draw is in foreign interference in matters that do not directly threaten us. I would rather see us resign from our role as world police/bully and focus more on domestic affairs, severely scaling back our force projection abilities (namely, carrier groups whose homeland defense uses are limited). I don't believe in this idea that "the only way to protect ourselves is to shape the world in our image, and forcibly subjugate those who will not willingly convert". Yes, there are shitty dictators out there, there is real evil in the world, but we're no angels and we've done a really shitty job of trying to make other countries better (with limited exceptions, like post-WW2 Japan and Germany). The thing is, sustainable peace through militant nationalism is also a pipe dream. It's never stable for long and it creates vast power differentials that breeds discontent and violence; eventually it bleeds back over to us. I'd bet, measured across a few decades, our forays in Afghanistan and Iraq will create more terrorists than we've actually stopped... our administrations think in 4-8 year terms, not 20+, incurring foreign policy debts that later generations will have to try to pay off in an increasingly unstable world compounded by not just virally-amplified ideologies but also skyrocketing inequality and climate change. There is no military force that can keep an unstable, discontent world of ~8 billion apes in check for long. Absent either a world dictatorship or peaceful multilateral democracies, I'd settle for regional hegemonies and old-school spheres of influence instead... we stay out of China's way, they stay out of ours, we trade peacefully. That means some nations will fall, whether it's Israel (possible, but unlikely?) or Taiwan (probably), Ukraine, etc. Sucks for those countries, but by % of world population, I believe that will result in greater overall peace and prosperity. Shrug. It's all pipe dreams. Always has been. Some of us just have bigger pipes, I guess.

technobabbler 5y ago

> which a lot of other countries (and some portion of their populations) don't like because it's broadly incompatible with a human-rights centered worldview >> I understand that's the liberal and progressive thing to say. But if you really think about it, it reeks from hypocrisy. The "progressive" countries (who are they exactly?) like Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them. They wouldn't want the U.S to go away, not in a million years. Yeah, even a self-identified progressive, I unfortunately still mostly agree with you. Most of the liberals/progressives I've discussed foreign affairs with seem to have a pretty limited understanding of (or even interest in) military history. Not that I'm an expert by any stretch, but I do worry that they naively see the world as an unreasonably safe place. I don't think it is. The American progressive strong suit is in domestic affairs -- leftist populism, basically -- not military strategy or even foreign policy at large. Broadly, I suppose I believe in big hugs for my fellow citizens, big talks with our competitors, and big guns for our enemies (but we sure as heck shouldn't shoot first). > Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them Y'know, Trump wasn't right about much, but maybe NATO really ought to pay its fair share in regional defense. Our forces are so disproportionate that NATO is less like an alliance and more like a protectorate. It can't just forever be "the Western world will fall apart absent American carriers"... if for no other reason than hypersonic missiles. We cemented global hegemon status in the post-WW2 years, but it's not a responsibility we should have to single-handedly carry into the indefinite future. If our allies need to build up their defenses, maybe we could encourage them by gradually bringing ours home. And if we have fewer foreign expeditions, cool, maybe we'd make fewer enemies. In other words, I think our military should be strong enough to defend against homeland invasions and provide limit support to our allies, but not so strong that it runs the entire world's geosecurity. Somewhere in between is the question of what to do about Eurasia and specifically China... ideally we'd find some Cold-War like balance of mutually assured destruction, with neither side really wanting a hot war. Even better would be if we just cooperated economically with them and worked together on climate change, and let them run their social experiment while we run ours. We need to stop thinking we can singlehandedly liberate the world from oppression, or bring light to darkness, or whatever. We're just another country with big guns and small hearts... there's been many through history, none of which ended particularly well.

technobabbler 5y ago

> The world is pretty brutal and liberal democracy is a value shared by a minority of humanity. If liberal democracy wants to survive it sometimes has to defend itself. The minimum it needs is an army to protect its people. Yes, I agree to a large extent. Most of the world's strong extant states were forged in war (or is a quasi vassal state to one which was). We didn't get here by being nice to each other. A strong defensive military is something I think every state would be wise to have, so long as human nature remains what it is... we're not wizened philosopher-kings, more just horny, hungry apes. The distinction I draw is in foreign interference in matters that do not directly threaten us. I would rather see us resign from our role as world police/bully and focus more on domestic affairs, severely scaling back our force projection abilities (namely, carrier groups whose homeland defense uses are limited). I don't believe in this idea that "the only way to protect ourselves is to shape the world in our image, and forcibly subjugate those who will not willingly convert". Yes, there are shitty dictators out there, there is real evil in the world, but we're no angels and we've done a really shitty job of trying to make other countries better (with limited exceptions, like post-WW2 Japan and Germany). The thing is, sustainable peace through militant nationalism is also a pipe dream. It's never stable for long and it creates vast power differentials that breeds discontent and violence; eventually it bleeds back over to us. I'd bet, measured across a few decades, our forays in Afghanistan and Iraq will create more terrorists than we've actually stopped... our administrations think in 4-8 year terms, not 20+, incurring foreign policy debts that later generations will have to try to pay off in an increasingly unstable world compounded by not just virally-amplified ideologies but also skyrocketing inequality and climate change. There is no military force that can keep an unstable, discontent world of ~8 billion apes in check for long. Absent either a world dictatorship or peaceful multilateral democracies, I'd settle for regional hegemonies and old-school spheres of influence instead... we stay out of China's way, they stay out of ours, we trade peacefully. That means some nations will fall, whether it's Israel (possible, but unlikely?) or Taiwan (probably), Ukraine, etc. Sucks for those countries, but by % of world population, I believe that will result in greater overall peace and prosperity. Shrug. It's all pipe dreams. Always has been. Some of us just have bigger pipes, I guess.