Is The United States On A Path To Global Domination?

[Mark Heide]

This week I watched an interesting interview with Stanley Hoffman on the Charlie Rose show. I think everyone will find it interested to read, and after reading his article, I agree with his solution for Iraq makes the most sense.
Here's the link:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/24/hoffmann-s.html

Mark

[adios]

IMO the article was a terrible piece of journalism. It's a biased piece written by a liberal for a liberal publication. It was a rambling tedius work with lot's of suppositions with little in the way of facts to back them up. The Defense Planning Guidance document referred to was basically ignored by the first Bush administration as it was re-worked by then Secretary of Defense Cheney. Cheney is Vice President today and how important he is in forming US foreign policy is open to debate. USA VP's traditionaly don't have much of a role in the administration except as cheerleaders. The Clinton administration almost certainly embraced some of the proposals in the document. The proposals on Iraq in the article are nothing new.

I guarantee that there will be multilateral action if Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missiles aren't in the process of being destroyed by next Saturday, the deadline imposed by Blix. Annan met with the press today in Turkey I believe and stated in no uncertain terms that Iraq must comply with the Blix directive. I predict that Hussein will offer some token gesture to string the current process along. I heard the term for this tonight coined by the Clinton administration, "cheat and retreat."

The way the UN process has unfolded reminds me a lot of the "good cop-bad cop" routine. Oh yeah the USA is participating in that UN process lest we forget.

[Chris Alger]

Of course it is. How could a country that spends more than twice as much as the rest of NATO combined yet finds itself less secure that at any time in it's history be on any other course? And military spending is just one measure of what a country will sacrifice annually to achieve military might. It understates U.S. capabilities.

The link you provided is just one of many articles and letters I've seen by a foreign policy expert expressing reservations about the radical departures of Bush's foreign policy, arguing that's how it's reckless and counterproductive. This is an unprecedented level of elite (as opposed to popular) dissent against a prospective foreign policy and probably one of the reasons there's even slight controversy in the media about the Iraq war. (Very different from coverage of Vietnam until late 1967, when similar cleavages at the top emerged). Hoffman, btw, has been teaching international relations at Harvard for nearly 50 years and is perhaps one of the dozen most widely read foreign policy scholars.

What's interesting is another school that recognizes the new direction while praising it, often describing it as a "new" form of benevolent or "liberal" imperialism. See, e.g., "The Answer to Terrorism? Colonialism" (Paul Johnson); "American Empire (Get Used to It)" (Michael Ignatieff, The New York Times Magazine); "The Need for a New Imperialism" (The Financial Times); "The Post-modern State" (Robert Cooper).

It seems that both partisans and detractors of the policy recognize is that Bush's claim of "self-defense" against Iraq is sprurious. Rightly or wrongly, there is a consensus that the U.S. is embarked on a more brazenly aggressive course.

[Mark Heide]

Tom,

I think the article clearly states the two opposing foreign policies. Futhermore, I find your statement, "IMO the article was a terrible piece of journalism. It's a biased piece written by a liberal for a liberal publication. It was a rambling tedius work with lot's of suppositions with little in the way of facts to back them up."--offensive.

I'm willing to listen to both sides of the argument. Why not provide an opposing viewpoint that contradicts his bias and liberalism?

Mark

[brad]

'What are the new exceptionalists' main arguments for liberating the United States from the constraints imposed by allies and treaties? Most bizarre may be the claim that the U.S. Constitution allows no bowing to a superior law, such as international law, and no transfer, pooling or delegation of sovereignty to any international organization.'

thats pretty bizarre. you mean as americans we have our own country? thats so far out there i cant even begin to comprehend.

[Mark Heide]

Brad,

I think as Americans we have our own WORLD. This is why we have the enemies that we have. When you force your way of life upon someone else you are bound to have enemies. It's similar to the European religious crusades of the middle ages.

I think when the US constitution was written, they had no idea of the world of today. The US did not honor it's treaties with the American Indians, so why should things change now. There's plenty of Hollywood propaganda showing how brutal the American Indians were, but were they? Remember all those popular western movies?

Mark

[brad]

hey washington said lets stay out of everybody's business but our own but his advice wasnt followed. got to agree with you there.

got to agree with you about the indians too.

[Mark Heide]

Chris,

Thanks for posting and giving me some more names to search for additional stories on the subject. By the way, Michael Ignatieff was on Charlie Rose this week and he expressed his imperialist ideology.

Mark