-
The Last Republican?
February 3, 2012 | 382 comments
-
Wade and Nancy
November 9, 2010 | 23 comments
-
National Patronizing Radio
October 22, 2010 | 126 comments
-
Good News
September 24, 2010 | 39 comments
-
A Referendum, Not an Election
September 14, 2010 | 75 comments
Special Report
New World Order?
It was nice while it lasted.
Twenty years ago this week, the war known as “Desert Storm” ended with the United States and its allies utterly victorious and President George H. W. Bush’s vision of a “new world order” seemingly validated. Aggression had been met, turned back, and punished. So decisively, it seemed, that no rogue state would try anything like Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait again. Bush’s approval ratings soared, briefly, to 90 percent.
That now seems not merely a long time ago but like something from another, dimly remembered age. Which may account for why not much was made of the anniversary. There were no speeches and no parades recognizing a military triumph that would, we were told, usher in a Pax Americana.
U.S forces carried most of the weight in the fight, though a coalition of nations had been assembled and a few of them made a material contribution to the battle. For others, participation was mostly symbolic. The heavy lifting and fighting was done by more than half-a-million Americans with overwhelming air and sea power that had been built up during the Cold War and was finally, conclusively unleashed.
Coalition forces flew some 100,000 combat missions and dropped nearly 90,000 tons of bombs. The air war was largely an American undertaking and it made the world aware, for the first time, of what “smart bombs” could do.
Who could stand up to that? The United States was supreme. And in the flush of invincibility, hardly anyone bothered to ask why, exactly, this war had been fought and what, now that it had been won, victory meant for the future.
As for the first part of the question, it seems that war had been fought in the cause of… well, what exactly?
“Stability” turned out to be the best answer. This had been a battle to defend the sanctity of established borders and to deter aggression. No Wilsonian stuff about making the world — or even the Mideast — “safe for Democracy.” Kuwaiti royalty had fled to the safety of London ahead of the invading Iraqis and returned, after the fighting was done, to resume life as before. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein may have been embarrassed by his defeat but he was still in power and still killing his political enemies — wholesale and retail.
But borders went back to what they had been and, so, the cause of stability had triumphed. But it was — as the next 20 years proved — a most unstable and ephemeral victory. And, perhaps, one never worth the price. Americans who were infants when their country declared victory over Saddam Hussein grew up to become soldiers or Marines and casualties in another war to depose him.
Whatever stability may have been accomplished two decades ago, it now looks exceedingly fragile in that part of the world where there is, certainly, no peace. The American troops are gone and Iraq descends into chaos. In Syria, meanwhile, the regime subdues its dissident citizens with artillery. Libya remains in a state of chaos after a civil war in which the United States backed the winners but not with troops or sufficient material to buy any influence. Egypt, a country which annually receives some $1.3 billion from the U.S., holds American citizens for trial in a fashion that makes them more hostages than defendants. Iran, of course, remains hostile, belligerent, and on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
This, then, is the new world order and may explain why there were no anniversary parades to commemorate the victory in Desert Storm.
It could be, one thinks, that George H.W. Bush at 90 percent approval and returning American troops being honored with a Manhattan ticker-tape parade was the high point of a kind of naïve, hopeful faith in internationalism. This time, we had finally gotten it right. No more refusing to join the League of Nations and retreating into isolationism. No more unilateral adventures like Vietnam. From now on, it would be about UN resolutions and international coalitions.
Today, our Secretary of State, is stymied in the UN in an effort merely to condemn the Syrian regime. China and Russia will not go along. Ms. Clinton forcefully expresses her dismay and nothing changes. Members of the U.S. Senate publicly argue that we must come in on the side of the Syrian dissidents. With arms, only. No mention of troops.
Does anyone on earth believe the United States has sufficient stamina to see through any commitment we make in Syria. Or anywhere else? The days of a half-million man expeditionary force are gone. We are reluctant, even, to send spare ordinance.
One wonders whether, if we knew then what we know now, we would undertake a Desert Storm again. Or if we might just let the Kuwaitis find some accommodation with their new occupiers. The new world order has perished. And along with it, one thinks, the faith in internationalism for its own sake.
It is time, many no doubt think, to fall back behind our own borders — claim it is for the sake of “stability” — and bring the troops home. From Afghanistan — where our “allies” are killing our soldiers for burning the Koran, whether or not the victims actually did the burning — and also from Germany where we have been doing garrison duty since the fall of Berlin and are not needed to do anything, really. The mission is symbolic — holding together the now-pointless NATO.
We tried that new world order. Gave it our best and certainly more than any other nation on earth. Nice idea, too bad it didn’t work out.
Time, now, to come home.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Geoffrey Norman
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/01/new-world-order
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
clint| 3.1.12 @ 6:18AM
Good article. But it was 21 years ago this week, not 20. Don't mean to be nitpicking
Alan Brooks| 3.1.12 @ 4:25PM
Bush was the GOP Carter;
substitute Bush's vague notions for Carter's inchoate "human rights" (in the age of Pol Pot, btw).
JJ| 3.1.12 @ 6:59PM
Ever notice that Hilary Clinton is now looking like Benjamin Franklin?
Alan Brooks| 3.1.12 @ 7:22PM
Ben Franklin knew how to party!
POST American| 3.1.12 @ 6:52AM
"You will shortly be hearing
communism is dead.
---DON'T believe it."
-Mikhail Gorbachev
1990
Just weeks after the passage of the
brazenly ANTI-Consitutional, chillingly
North Korean NDAA 1021
--and
Pelosi's call for even more full spectrum
monitoring, data collection and surveillance
while visiting the acknowledged world leader
in EUGENICS extermination across the
Pacific
---and!
sitting justice Ginzburg's virtual act of
TREASON, as she disses the US Constitution
while standing on the 'Banks of De--Nile'
in 'E---jipped'
--------------------------UH-----------------------------
we'd say the same can MOST certainly
be said of the 'quiescent' NWO.
"These Boys have been working on this
for over a century. Don't think for a second
they're going to back off because 'people
don't --LIKE-- it'."
Make that a nano-second. . .
------------------HUAC/ NUREMBERG---------------
Whenever you're ready------------
tr| 3.1.12 @ 7:02AM
My understanding is that there is an annual parade in Kuwait City. Seems like that is a very appropriate, and, yes, the most appropriate venue for a commemoration.
Is that ever shown in the U.S. media? No. Or maybe I just miss it every year.
Would Al-Jazeera cover it?
Surely our red, white, and blue U.S. State Department employees know how to get max bump and props out of this annual event, right?
Here is the DOD article on it last year: http://www.defense.gov/news/ne.....x?id=62945 Sounds like it was a pretty grand event.
tr| 3.1.12 @ 7:04AM
Due to our guy's sacrifices and efforts in 1990 and 1991, well, this is what they get to do today in Kuwait City:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOuVs-j2adI
February 18, 2012
Old Soldier| 3.1.12 @ 7:36AM
There are some important distinctions between today and 21 years ago.
In 1991, we had a clear cut mission - liberate Kuwait, extra points were earned for destroying the Republican Guard and taking down Saddam.
I was in a Marine Infantry battalion back then. When we got the word that there was a ceasefire, we assumed Saddam was dead or on the run. I still think that is was a mistake to stop before he was gone.
We couldn't mount an effort like Desert Shield / Desert Storm today. We simply don't have the units. In 1990, we had 18 active Army Divisions and a National Guard built to be a heavy follow-on force (not prison guards and extra bodies). Saddam Hussein was nuts to pick a fight with the U.S. and UK at the end of a massive Cold-War build up.
I saw a decent chunk of the 18th Airborne Corps and the British 1st Armoured Division role past us getting ready for that big left hook. An awesome sight.
Our Army has half that field strength today - and Obama wants to chop another third of that. We might be able to do it cheaper and lighter today - that will work until we run into a decently trained and equipped enemy.
Brian Mc| 3.1.12 @ 7:37AM
We have always been a country that 'fights' for the good; never for land, or wealth. If it were the case, gasoline would be 39 cents a gallon. Since we are the "do-gooders" the world, for the most part, hates our guts. Just so long as there are those who would be uncivil to their neighbors it will always be an uphill struggle to maintain that civility...a losing proposition. Evil hates good so we are hated, cops are hated, religion is hated, the right is hated-our core beliefs are 'good'...hence.
Old Soldier| 3.1.12 @ 7:50AM
The other big difference between '91 and now:
We all really like the Kuwaitis we met. Several Kuwaiti men who made it out ahead of the Iraqis were embedded in our battalion as interpreters. They were great. After the cease-fire, a line of Kuwaitis headed home all would stop to thank us, hug us, shake our hands, etc...
We moved through Kuwait City a couple of days later. It was still a wild parade / party. Cheers, and waves, and one guy riding an Arabian Stallion next to our convoy - hooting and waving a scimitar. I would go back to Kuwait any time.
Compare that to veterans returning from Afghanistan today. Any of them that spent time in the field absolutely HATE the Afghans. They are untrustworthy medieval savages. Even the Afghan soldiers supposedly on our side are completely worthless. Telling them a plan (before confiscating their phones) is the same as telling the enemy. They won't lift a finger to fight, unless it's against us.
Our troops have no idea what we are trying to accomplish their. They are just trying to get home alive. This essay has been going around for a month - a Lt. Col. had the guts to write a very honest and damning assessment of our situation.
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030
Maxwell| 3.1.12 @ 8:09AM
Old Soldier, that report is heart breaking.
W| 3.1.12 @ 9:36AM
Thank you for your service Old Soldier. Your comments about the Afghanis, and the Iraquis,
are exactly what several returning vets have told me, and one this morning doing work at my house. We should leave today. Obama has announced a withdrawal date for 2013, conveniently after the election so it is not an issue either way. He can say we have done and job and are leaving. If we can leave in 2013 we can leave now. Eleven years is enough.
Occam's Tool| 3.1.12 @ 5:30PM
Enemy never properly identified in Afghanistan---it is radical Islam. Solution would be to de-populate the areas with Taliban, and then leave.
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 3.3.12 @ 2:41AM
Occam you must mean "DE-POPULATE" like how your Zionist bretheren depopulated the Palestinian people (both Muslim and Christian) from their land am I right?
PCC| 3.3.12 @ 3:44AM
Thank you for the link, OS. A sobering and damning report, even in its heavily redacted form. It conforms with my view that we should pull all of our brave and precious troops out of the AfPak toilet immediately, yesterday, now.
Nancy in NC| 3.1.12 @ 7:54AM
Call me cynical, but what good did it do and what was the real reason?
If one reads history you will find there's always an underlying reason for war other than the one for public consumption, whether it be land redistribution or some other power grab...WWII being the exception...truly a good vs evil event. I don't know who was being propped up or what kind of deals were made, but I'm pretty sure there were other reasons...and whether they were met, we'll never know.
It makes me sick to see some of our finest and best get killed in hell holes across the ponds for no decent reason other than to obey their commanders in chief. What a waste.
Old Soldier| 3.1.12 @ 9:04AM
I never felt any doubt about us doing the right thing in 90-91. The stories of rape, torture, and murder coming out of Kuwait City were horrifying. We got the bastards - and eventually handed the real culprits (Special Republican Guard thugs) over to the Kuwaitis.
I never had an ounce of doubt about what we did in '91.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 10:21AM
A little bit too cynical there Nancy as you suggested. It was an attempt to hold a rogue in line and suceeded well. Sadly the American Left has never understood the limits on hegemony or the proper use of military force and the "neo-cons" who followed a Wilsonian concept missed it as well. All that said, it does represent a sucessful use of US power, properly applied and sadly a missed opportunity to establish a more stable world.
We should not however, that the "new world order" is nothing new. Look at the Great Seal on your dollar bill and you will see "Novo Ordo Seclorum' or roughly "new world order"
Screwtape| 3.1.12 @ 11:00AM
rape torture murder are going on in Africa every day. In American cities every day. Since when is the US military the world's super cops? If we had got the bastards, as you mistakenly believe, we wouldn't have had to go back ten years later on some trumped up pretext of WMD. Nice try though. But I will not be fooled again.
Old Sold| 3.1.12 @ 1:06PM
That was my experience. The logic of course, is that is was too dangerous to leave Hussein in control of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia wide open to the Iraqis.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 4:29PM
As I recall, at the time The Left said tens of thousands would be killed and Ted Kennedy talked about all the body bags coming hom. Then after the hundred hour war, The Left complained that we failed to go into Baghdad and get Saddam. The when we did, years later for other reasons, they said we should have never done so. Can they ever make up their minds and hold a consistent position or is it simply a matter of political expediency for them?
Purp| 3.1.12 @ 6:42PM
Are you seriously saying that 20 years passes and there is no reason to change an opinion or a strategy? Really? Are you stoned?
From the Desk of Media Matters| 3.1.12 @ 8:11PM
Pierre "Purp" Pelosi,
Stop embarrassing us.
Keynesian economic policy was disastrous eight decades ago, not only are we still actively pushing it, it is our primary goal.
Do you really think a strategy highlighting longterm ignorance is wise based on our strategy?
Stop embarrassing us.
- MM staff
Mark in LA| 3.1.12 @ 5:39PM
Yes the "stories" of rapes and murders. Just like the "stories" of same in Kosovo. Just like the "stories" about WMD in Iraq. They were all lies and gross exaggerations byt stories sounds better.
PCP Smoker| 3.1.12 @ 7:56AM
Not one of the usual Ron Paul assholes who spam these pages, but it is time to take a break from the politically correct fighting and the associated "commitment(s) we make in Syria. Or anywhere else..."
Please. No more. Either fight to win (break things and kill people) or don't fight at all.
Pecos Pete| 3.1.12 @ 10:05AM
PCP: "Either fight to win (break things and kill people) or don't fight at all."
Absolutely! The current ROEs our people are forced to comply with prevent winning a skirmish, battle or war.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 10:35AM
Apparently, PCP Sucker Is One Of The Usual RINO-CINO Neo-Chickenhawk Assholes.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Screwtape| 3.1.12 @ 11:05AM
You Neocon chickenhawks have had 22 years to make the world safe for democracy. You failed miserably. Now fade away already.
9thID| 3.1.12 @ 11:34AM
Yeah, it's time to go back to genocide-enabling neo-isolationism of the Liber-al/Liberal-tarian appeasers. If we could only gut your welfare state, we wouldn't be gutting our miliary. In any case, the Libs and neo-Libs will be in Canada soon enough if SHTF...
Screwtape| 3.1.12 @ 12:15PM
'There is nothing conservative about war. For at least the last century war has been the herald and handmaid of socialism and state control. It is the excuse for censorship, organized lying, regulation and taxation. It is paradise for the busybody and the nark. It damages family life and wounds the Church. It is, in short, the ally of everything summed up by the ugly word ‘progress. P. H.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 2:21PM
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Clint| 3.1.12 @ 2:29PM
That's More Of Your Israel Firster Smear Bund Propaganda Girl Crap, 9th IDiot.
" Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Mac Jehoff| 3.1.12 @ 2:50PM
The Islam first TPINO-LWJO main line bum bandit cut and paste specialist flames on.
Screwtape| 3.1.12 @ 4:57PM
It's called America First, numb nuts. You Tel Avists wouldn't understand.
Occam's Tool| 3.1.12 @ 5:34PM
I understand an Islamist Firster when I see one.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 5:54PM
Watch it there OT. Ha Ha
Burke| 3.2.12 @ 10:52AM
"I understand an Islamist Firster when I see one."
Good comeback. I can top that: I see a racist warmongering pinko commie pedophile atheist Nazi when I see one... Now that's a brilliant comeback.
Occam's Tool| 3.1.12 @ 5:34PM
PCP is correct. That is what I advocate---maximum breakage, minimal fighting.
tsd| 3.1.12 @ 8:16AM
Today we are not in a war, period. The last real war we fought was WWII. You fight a war to win, you understand collateral damage and human rights, but you give your solders every tool to win and you let them go in and take out the enemy and anything in the way. If you do not fight it 100%...STAY HOME! Today our leaders think you can play war... you cannot. Our troops should never be diplomatic tool who are being killed and injured in some pussy game played by people with no flesh in the game. We so dearly need some real leadership in this country. And by the way the UN is the joke of our times, send the fools home. New world order....No world order, only dis-order.
SUBVET| 3.1.12 @ 10:33AM
tsd........."The last real war we faught was WWII"
All wars are political for one reason or another...you have to look up the definition of political, always the hidden reason is MONEY.
TENN Slim| 3.1.12 @ 8:50AM
Right, disengage, retreat to our borders, then let the Leftist Socialist manage our daily lives, right...
The WORLD changes, Governments change.
As this decade passes, the WORLD of folks will change.
Correct answer to all this is MANAGE the CHANGE. Get in thier, be active in this, expend, expand, win, play the game. HE... folks, what else have we to do. The Cloward Piven Theory already has us about to descend into the 21st Century Dark Ages.
The Chaldean Hand has written
Semper FI
Indy| 3.1.12 @ 9:10AM
The New World Order is very much alive and well, led by George Soros. He is actively working to devalue the US Dollar, he does have a track record of collapsing economies. The media is complicit or afraid; they fail to report Soros has predicted riots in the US and a heavy handed response from the government to gain control of citizens.
But, hey nothing to worry about, the DOW is up, unemployment is down (I know, based on manipulated numbers), GDP for last quarter was revised upward so all is great, right? Why do my spidy senses tell me the real reason so many are retiring from Congress is because they know what's coming
Von Mises Jr.| 3.1.12 @ 4:27PM
Our congress is passing Agenda21 to destroy our property rights as we speak:
http://www.didyouknowonline.com/agenda21.php
John786| 3.1.12 @ 9:57AM
Straw man article. The new world order was about using various dubious excuses : nation building, rights, democracy etc.. To control the ME. Now that the Arabs are waking up to this: there is no plan B. Real democracy is very inconvienient to the powerful. Maybe it's time the US spent its precious dollars providing dental care for its poor. It's shameful how the poor are treated in the US.
Pecos Pete| 3.1.12 @ 10:12AM
John786: "It's shameful how the poor are treated in the US."
Golly gee, and maybe a gosh. You should do a bit of traveling to foreign countries, like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, all of Africa, and most of the middle east. Then come back and tell us how the "poor' in the USA are shamefully treated.
SUBVET| 3.1.12 @ 10:43AM
Ditto....Pete
John786 tell me how poor we are when thousands die dayly because clean drinking water is not available in Uganda....you sound like the rest of the sheep....Sir do something with your life to help others it will give you a inter satisifaction you can't describe.
Remember ----- all this will be written in the Book of Life.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 10:29AM
John
What you rightly point out as failure, "nation building", imposing democracy, etc. were and remain wrongheaded policy. The actual war, the liberation of Kuwait, took only a matter of days. That was not followed by any occupation process, nation building or ather misguided attempts. What happened later, and continues to this day are Wilsonian attempts to impose culture and values on societies which do not have the same cultural parameters as Western nations. That is, as you rightly note, a wrong policy. Nations and cultures must each find their own path. No hegemon can, or should attempt to, impose those. Such a hegemon can only maintain a semblance or order and stability between contending visions. This is where you and I differ on Iran for example. Differnet dreams as the sad saying goes.
Trent| 3.1.12 @ 2:59PM
Please! Do not take -- anyone -- this as some attack or tit for tat useless argument. The couple of questions below are asked in seriousness.
Above Al Adab mentions what we often hear discussed in many forums: "...impose culture and values on societies which do not have the same cultural parameters."
Yet above we can all see the YouTube clip of the Ferraris being showcased on a boulevard that looks no different than a boulevard in California or coastal Spain.
When this worldwide phenom Filipino Manny Pacquio does his fights, people around the world stop what they are doing and watch. Often together with complete strangers in bars or clubs or pay-per-view theaters. It is the same when it is a big boxing match.
Everyone has heard of Afghan Idol, right? They have it. I am not current on it, but the first two years permitted no women. The third year 4 women participated, although with great trepidation. Every country has some version now of "Idol" or "Who's Got the Best Talent," and "Millionaire."
Everybody around the world could relate to "Slum Dog Millionaire" because there is some version of the same in their country.
Are we really so sure most people are that utterly different?
Doesn't everyone appreciate a well cooked, well prepared meal? Every society has its variation of sirloin and a baked potato, but it is the same, isn't it?
When the next soccer FIFA World Cup kicks off in Brazil in June 2014, how much of the world is watching? A LOT. Much of the viewership comes from countries not even in the final 32 nations involved. The Olympics cannot claim this same worldwide audience mostly because the Winter version has less draw. The Summer Games in London in August will be a huge draw. Even when people are not interested in the sport, they want to see the opening and closing ceremonies.
These guys driving Ferraris are probably mostly local Kuwaitis or Saudis, right? What guy in the world has not heard of Ferrari or Lamborghini? Or Porsche?
Show me a place in the world where these is no artwork, music, poetry of some sort, or sports pages.
Who is not doing digital photography these days?
Need I say Facebook? (sure, to me it is a waste of time, but ask anyone under 26 or 30 what they think of it)
I am not so sure one has to impose these "values" (I'd call them interests, fixations, or fascinations), they are just naturally there. Just like every woman wants a really fine dress and wants to look her absolute best on her wedding day. Why do all women like at least some jewelry?
I could go on and on.
I am not so sure that we "impose" anything.
Culture?
Show me a 30 year old or younger in this world that is not interested in a smart phone.
When Brit David Beckham would get his hair cut, styled, dyed or whatever else a certain way, millions of boys around the world would do the same. In China! In Japan. In India. Is this silly? Sure it is. But nobody is forcing them to do it and this interest skips across cultures with lightning speed.
How many parents have had to say, "What!? You're not getting THAT tattoo!" (Or now, maybe the parent already has one themselves)
There is a crazy youngish man in the Philippines that has undergone multiple cosmetic surgeries to look exactly like Superman. This is real. He now looks like Superman, except his height, as I understand it.
Men all over the world have wanted to utter Arnold (as actor) Schwarzeneggerian things just to part the waves and masses in front them -- to get what they want.
Most people don't want gunfire in the streets where they live at night. What they want is a good nights peaceful sleep.
Most people don't want to fear getting shot on the way to and from work or the market/grocery store.
Most people want to make their own choices in life. (See: Burma, Georgia, Belarus, Syria?)
These are sincere questions, rhetorical questions.
Are we really so sure we are imposing anything? Or is a lot of it (certainly not all of it) already underneath?
I am not a fan of pop culture.
But it sure is pervasive. So I am not that sure of parameters.
How many times do you see footage of the fighters in Libya or the men in the streets of Cairo and the man or boy is wearing a European soccer club's shirt?
Even in Monrovia, Liberia you see kids hankering for the latest Nike or Adidas shoes.
Just my thoughts.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 5:57PM
All very true and astute. Yet the missing ingredient is the market choice the individuals can make in adopting western styles, ie music, clothes, etc. That is of a different magnitude than the imposition of particular social organizations.
John786| 3.1.12 @ 8:54PM
Haji,
I agree:
"Nations and cultures must each find their own path".
Let nations compete in the world of ideas. Let people live with the consequences of their own choices. But I fear that this may be an utopian ideal. The powerfull everywhere have there own perceived interests to protect. Ce la vie.
JA| 3.1.12 @ 10:34AM
The USA has been almost continuously in one conflict or another since 1898 - and it never, ever seems to end, and worse, the final results of these conflicts are always unpredictable.
We "won" in 1898 which eventually led to WWI, the rise of Lenin / Stalinand Hitler and Pearl Harbor and WWII. We "won" WWII by helping Stalin (a killer more murderous than Hitler) and tossed eastern europe and the Baltics into the communist killing machine for 45 years.
We "lost" Vietnam, and now we are engaging in friendly naval activities with them to counter China.
We "helped" Egypt, Pakistan, etc. and they hate our guts.
We are still di^king around with those god^^m pirates in Somalia because we are scared, literally, to just KILL THEM AT SEA.
Yes, it is time to mind our own damn business, arm ourselves to the teeth, and use overwhelming, catastrophic force in defending ourselves and to ANNIHILATE TOTALLY those who attack us. This includes Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. We warn them now - LEAVE US ALONE - but if you molest or kill any of our citizens, etc. - THE USA WILL ANNIHILATE YOU. When our enemies are CERTAIN we mean business, then they will leave us be.
The USA is bankrupt; our education, health energy, environmental policies are terrible, and we have a bunch of lying, devious, bas^ards in congress and the WH. We need to get our own house in order. WE CANNOT SAVE THE WORLD.
SUBVET| 3.1.12 @ 11:19AM
HOPE of the WICKED by Ted Flynn outlines the master plan to rule the world.
This book opens many doors to the overall plan to control us. JA you state "we need to get our own house in order".......we cannot save the world. After you read this book you tell me how we will get our house in order. THEIR plan has been in existance since the spanish/american war.
Evil triumphs because good people do nothing. It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.1.12 @ 12:10PM
Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Screwtape| 3.1.12 @ 10:50AM
"Nice idea. It didn't work." Right, only it wasn't a nice idea. It was a horrible idea, the return of Wilsonian democracy crusading which has bankrupted this country and made us universally hated. The no fly zone and troops in Arabia were cited by bin Laden as two of the three reasons for 911. The other being our support of Israel. So, yeah, not a good idea.
nathan| 3.1.12 @ 11:06AM
Go back to the infamous Versaille "peace" treaty which we are still dealing with a century later. Those wonderful French and British, just pure noble souls, totally screwed their Arab allies (broke every promise to them, Lawrence of Arabia was outraged) over and decided to carve up the middle east in a manner contrary to the way the Ottomans had ruled it. Ethnic boundaries? Who cared? Did Iraq have a legitimate claim to Kuwait? Based on the old maps, the way it was ruled before the British came in, there is a good chance they did. (As a side note remember folks, the first use of WMD's in that part of the world was by who? Not the muslims but by the noble British who used poison gas against the Iraqis as a way of avoiding casualties on their part. Villages according to some stories were wiped out. How nice of them.)
Did the Iraqis behave badly in Kuwait city? Yes. So bloody what. I see none of you shedding any crocodile tears for everything the Iraqis did times a thousand in Africa. Did any of you call for massive intervention there? Or does the rape of African women not move you to tears? Again that wonderful conservative selectivism.
What pray tell was our DIRECT interest in Kuwait? OUR DIRECT INTEREST? None. Saddam was going to keep selling oil. Did he attack us? Did he threaten Americans? Why in any way was this our fight? Sorry, but when you look at the history going back to how the Ottoman ruled you can't even assume it was an act of aggression. Maybe it was just correcting what the British screwed up when they drew the maps wrong something they did all the time in Africa and Asia.
So we kick him out. Now follow me here folks. That minor little embargo. 100-500,000 civilians dead. Children. That bother you any? Albright saying yawn, we were remaking the middle east, so hundreds of thousands of civilian dead? Who cares. Were those dead kids any less important any less victims than the Kuwaiti civilians you all get so worked up about? And sorry, that's on us, we imposed the embargo, we're responsible for what happens.
How about the civilian deaths in Iraq for eight years. 100,000 to a million? That trouble any of you?
We need to end this. In 60 years we haven't learned anything. We got into Vietnam for the wrong reasons and stayed for the wrong reasons. We were wrong there too and put over 50,000 people on that wall. How many more Americans do we have to lose over neocon dreams of empire?
We don't win these fights. We lost in Iraq, we have lost in Afghanistan, go into Iran and we'll lose there too.
Old Soldier, you said the Afghanis won't fight except against us. Think about that. We invaded their country, I don't recall them begging for us to come in and "liberate" them, they didn't beg us to stay, we are foreign occupiers, and you're surprised as Cal Thomas seemed this morning that they don't love us? Shocking. Try being occupied by a foreign army, however NOBLE the intentions and see how you like it. The British found that out the hard way too. They were just so shocked whe the Japanese invaded Burma and the Burmese welcomed the Japanese? The Burmese didn't love them after ALL they had done for them?
Please! Hell no they didn't love them and couldn't wait to see them go. Why is that so hard to understand folks? The Iraqis, according to every poll taken were delighted to see our tail lights. You don't think all that abusive behavior had anything to do with it? The abuse of innocent detainees, the torture, the blowing up of all those innocent civilians? That made us look no different than the bad guys? Abu Ghraib is what bad guys do not what we were supposed do NOT do. When you have a future congressman whom "conservatives" love torturing people, then we're shocked that we weren't loved by the people we were occupying? How rude of them.
Time to come home and stop this. We've harmed ourselves too much. Sacrificed our principles too much. Turned ourselves into people the Founders would be appalled by. Time to come home and stay home.
axbucxdu| 3.1.12 @ 11:32AM
Just a footnote to your comments, Nate, but our one and only one interest in Kuwait was to prevent Saaadem from screwing with the petrodollar market. He was bucking to, eegads! trade his oil in something other than the FRN.
That as we know, would never do.
Gaius Sempronius Gracchus | 3.1.12 @ 1:10PM
If the GOP actually committed to this foreign policy view I would be sorely tempted to switch parties.
But I'm an old working class white guy and I will need every bit of the New Deal and Great Society safety nets I can lay hands on in a few years when it's my turn to count on them.
That's bread and butter, and your party can't be trusted with it, more's the pity.
Al Adab| 3.1.12 @ 2:50PM
Gaius:
Read your Aesop in re the grasshopper and the ant. Do you mean to say you stored nothing for the winter of your life?
Does your reliance upon the "safety net" presume a moral claim to the earnings of others, confiscated and redistributed by the central government? How immoral can you get? What if you had at your disposal for investment, those dollars taken from you in the FICA tax? You would have great net worth today.
BTW remember what became of your namesake.
Gaius | 3.2.12 @ 6:22AM
It's a moral claim partly, but only partly, for payback for all I paid in. That was my ant-like saving.
Redistribution corrects the injustice of the market and decades of criminal accumulation.
The people have every right through democratic government to decide how their economy will work and how its proceeds will be used, including the right to confiscate excess.
But your party exists to defend the undeserving in their privilege and beat down the ordinary people to enrich them further, and those are stripes it cannot change.
More to the point, your party will never again stand for isolationism, anyway.
That went away with the Cold War and will not be back.
Yours is the party running America into the ground with free trade and floods of immigrants to defend Israel and keep the world safe for global corporations, banks, and traitor American capitalists, just as Pat Buchanan has said for many years.
Wrapped in the flag but fooling only the greatest fools.
In much of this the Democrats are no better but the most serious aggression against the heritage of American social democracy the ordinary people of the country rely on always comes from your side.
Biggy G| 3.1.12 @ 1:33PM
"Nice while it lasted?" For whom?
W funded the Iraq War with currency inflation instead of taxes. As the Austrians predicted, this led to asset bubbles -- including the housing bubble. When the bubble burst, as the Austrians predicted (go to YouTube and search for "Peter Schiff Was Right"), we got the current depression.
Which a lot of you dim bulbs blame on Obama.
Obama is to W as Roosevelt was to Hoover: taking a bad situation and making it worse. Let us note, however, that W and Hoover (this is a technical term) sucked.
Sam H| 3.1.12 @ 2:02PM
Screwtape,
So because Bin Laden did not condone of our support for Israle, No-fly zones or troops in Arabia, they were all "bad ideas"?
We could support Iran, have had zero no-fly zones and imported more Muslims to Arabia and Arab and Muslim goofballs and murderers would still look to the West and Israel as the cause of their sclerotic, dysfunctional and worthless societies.
Screwtape| 3.2.12 @ 10:55AM
Not what I said. Sorry if your reading comprehension sucks.
Sam H| 3.1.12 @ 2:04PM
Hey Biggy,
Nice try, but I suggest you research a little bit more.
Conservatives have been pointing out the housing bubble for the last 30 years.
Mr. Schiff was just a tad late.
Oh, and just so we can communicate on your level, Mr. Obama and FDR both suck(ed).
aware| 3.2.12 @ 6:27AM
Name one.
sirbourbon| 3.1.12 @ 3:44PM
I like the idea of "coming home," but the author of the article needs to go into more detail of the meaning behind Mr. Bush's New World Order" speech.
George H.W. Bush gave that speech on the NWO at UN headquarters before the assembly. Bush said that the United Nations would be revitalized not the US. He was willing to use US troops to enhance the UN which does not need enhancing but abolishing!
It is interesting that the "Wall Street Occupiers" are calling for a New World government. Do they mean the same thing as G.H.W. Bush's NWO?
Google the Youtube clips available on the net for Bush seniors' speech at the UN on the New World order .Listen and watch for yourself that Bush was willing to give all the glory to an organization founded by US leftists and secret communists like Vinona Files identified soviet spy Alger Hiss. Google Venona Files for the documentation on Hiss and then read >>
http://thenewamerican.com/usne.....government
JJ| 3.1.12 @ 7:03PM
There are two groups battling for one world government. Bush represented the neo-con globalists who see a world without those pesty nations. The other are the neo-communists who see a world run by them in which they are the elite and you are the sheep.
Bruce Haley| 3.1.12 @ 5:02PM
Are you insane? It wasn't the Kuwaiti war that did us in, it was Bush II's Iraq debacle. Everything you bemoan flows from that. And no, I don't have BDS. Iraq was the biggest mistake in US history.
Mark in LA| 3.1.12 @ 5:28PM
Tell that to the slimy neocons who are using every trick to lie us into a war with Iran and Syria.
Occam's Tool| 3.1.12 @ 5:37PM
Off to Weasel Zippers---enough Ronulans are polluting this site.
Tim Shevlin| 3.1.12 @ 6:47PM
We are weak now BECAUSE of the well-meaning, but ill-advised intrusions into intractable world problems. No loss of will, just too much life and treasure wasted on an ungrateful, unreceptive world. Yes, it's time to regroup and regain some strength--financial first, then we can (try to) lead once again.
T.S. Anaheim, CA
Bob K.| 3.2.12 @ 1:03AM
Mr. Norman,
Why would we want to make any commitment in Syria? It is a geopolitical and internecine nightmare.
It is a country with a large Sunni majority which is ruled by the Alawi, a small Shia sect centered in the northwestern part of the country with perhaps 15% of the population which controls the military. The Alawi rulers see it as an existential situation. It is a matter of their survival and they have enlisted Iran and Russia in their cause. Russia has a Naval base on the Syrian Coast for it's Black Sea fleet's access to the Mediterranean Sea. Syria's small population of Armenian Orthodox Christians support them.
As things are now Israel is better off. Instability along their northern border is to their advantage. A Sunni government ruling from nearby Damascus would effectively surround Israel with hostile Sunni states all financed by Saudi Arabia and determined to drive it into the sea.
Nothing good can come out of a Sunni ruled Syria.
Jacob Morgan| 3.2.12 @ 1:25PM
The other way of looking at it was that the first gulf war established beyond all doubt at the time that the American military could and would prevent rouge nations from violating other nations. This was about the time that 1) the USSR melted away and pro-West Yeltsin came to power, 2) China was an outcast state after Tianamin square, 3) the American economy was going strong, was sustainable (DOW 3,000--does anyone think that was inflated?), and stuff was still made in America. Japan entered their lost decade and it looked like American manufacturing would rebound. Circa 1991 one did not worry about Iran launching nuclear bombs, one did not worry about being unemployed for years at a time, and one really did think that their kids would have it better than they did.
In the coming Clinton years Russia reverted to something closer to totalitarianism, China--despite no reforms since Tianamin Square--gobbled up the industrial might that used to be America then sucked hundreds of billions of dollars a year out Ameria so we could buy the stuff we used to make ourselves, the American economy turned from one bubble to another (.COM stocks, then accounting scandals, then housing). At the same time every rouge state in the world started working on the bomb and Clinton did nothing but burn up some cruise missiles whenever terrorists got bolder and bolder.
Clinton was elected to get out of a recession that was over before he came to office and was back before he left, only by this time he had sold out the country's industrialization to China and started the whole bubble economy. His foreign experience was nil and it showed, and the world became a tremendously dangerous place. American was on the top of the world, and blew it.
The second Bush actually tried to do the right things at times, but ignored the China problem and adopted a speak-uninteligably and carry a small stick approach to foreign affairs. And should have put the brakes on the bubble economny for good, but did not. And now we've got ourselves a commited socialist who waited for a crisis to come along to exploit to destroy this country. Now eveyone is scared of having no job for years or even ever, and contemplate taking up hobby farming just to avoid watching their family starve if things get worse.
There should not be a parade to commemorate the first gulf war, but there should be a memorial to mourn the America that was when that war ended.
Mr. Peabody, where is that way back machine?
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 3.3.12 @ 2:11AM
The United States commitment to being the New World Orders policeman might very well end up in the fall of the United States itself.
Brian Richard Allen | 3.3.12 @ 11:34AM
.... One wonders whether, if we knew then what we know now, we would undertake a Desert Storm again ....
Or does one wonder, rather, whether, if we knew then what we know now, we would have been more astute as an electorate than to have allowed the recidivist, treasonous, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, co-serial-rapist and only incidentally "president" Blythe-Cli'ton to, for eight awful years, have be-squatted and be-manured our 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue public housing projects? And to have allowed the fruits of the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of gallons of our nation's warriors' blood and Trillions of Dollars of our treasure to have been flushed away? As if but scum, down an oval-office sink?