There Are 7 Responses So Far. »

1. Comment by Jacob Steelman on 25 September 2009:

   Who cares if your country is a super power or not. The concept of governments ruling over vast amounts of real estate makes no sense to me. I think city-states have more in common with each other than the concept of countries. All I want is for the place where I live to allow me to live in peace, not tax me, not regulate me, not regulate the market including the medium of exchange, not restrict or regulate my freedom of movement. As an American ex-pat I have lived and worked in many countries. The enjoyment of living in a country depended not on it being a super power but on the people in that country and the amount of freedom my family and I had to live our life as we wanted. A large powerful super power extending its dominance and empire around the world ends up like all the empires before it – bankrupt and no longer a super power. All that remains of the Roman Empire are empty ruins, the British empire is no more and likewise will follow the American empire. Since America has embarked on wars and empire building rather than being the beacon of liberty for all the people of the world it has been in decline and has lost the respect of the world’s people. With half of the world’s population China, India and the rest of Asia (including Australia) will be the dominant economies and countries of the world as they liberalize their economies and societies. America will become less and less relevant.

2. Comment by Mark on 26 September 2009:

   I agree with you, very amazing something so strong can be said in such a short phrase. In Real Estate terms, American soil can considered some of the most valuable in the world, right? I think Obama nailed it the other day with the U.N., America cannot do it alone! Now, what is IT, and who decides what IT is? As the smaller Nations have said, the parties deciding are the SUPERPOWERS (G8,G20), and not a true representation of the Global Nations. So much change is needed, especially if we want to END the hatred expressed to the powerful and Elite, BUT, what opposition exist? Secret Societies, Greedy Capitalist, Con-Artist, Extremist, and ethnocentrist. What is this change, how do we make the transition to the change?
   I think the move from the G8 to the G20 having global discussions and ultimately making decisions, if needed, is a good step, but the Fear tactic will have huge influence as I believe it had on the economies of the U.S.A. and the world. How do we allow the world to come together as ONE?

3. Comment by Jacob Steelman on 26 September 2009:

   Mark the world will come together as one through the free market in which the government does not intervene. A free market is the most democratic organization in the world. Whatever you want is available at a price. In contrast government is a system designed for the ruling elites of countries and the world. Government thrives on creating class conflicts – consumers against business, man against woman, child against parents, old against young, one religion against another religion, black skin people against white skin people, black skin against brown skin , yellow against black, brown and white, the conflicts are endless. Ultimately these conflicts mushroom into armed conflicts destroying people and property. The free market provides for all without conflict. See Leonard Read’s pamphlet – I Pencil. Thousands of people are employed around the world making something as simple as a pencil – this is the wonder of the free market. The free market has developed the internet and telecommunications so that peoples of the world can communicate easily with each other and have access to information. Now a person in Phontong,Thailand has access to the same information and communications as does a person living in New York City or London or Paris or Hong Kong all as a result of the free market quest to provide more and better goods and services to consumers. Now contrast government around the world limiting migration of people from one country to another, constructing trade barriers restricting trade between one countrty and another, armed conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan t,oday, armed conflict in Vietnam by France and the USA during the 1940s through the 1970s, armed conflict in Ireland in the 1960s through the 1990s, the Korean War in the 1950s, the Spanish War in the 1930s-1940s, the Cold War, WWII, WWI not to mention civil wars, other regional conflicts.

4. Comment by John Lance on 3 October 2009:

   Interesting question. As a career military officer, it has crossed my mind many times whether I was doing more ‘harm’ than ‘good’ when I was doing my job in a non-U.S. country. Even purely humanitarian operations (Indonesian Tsunami Relief, for instance) are often met with a curious mix of ‘glad to see someone helping’ and ‘go to hell, we don’t need your help, we’re doing just fine, thank you’. Very confusing for personnel at the grunt level, I can assure you.
   On one hand, I could see that most countries, while glad to receive all the benefits of being on friendly terms with the U.S., were not over-joyed to have American military personnel on their soil. I was stationed in South Korea for almost 16 months in the late 90s and realized that, while most South Koreans appreciated our assistance during the Korean War and the subsequent Cold War, they were weary of our presence and looking forward to the day that the last U.S. troops left for good.
   On the other hand, I have seen first hand the stability and humanitarian assistance that the U.S. brings to the global arena. Make no mistake about it, things would definitely get worse in most parts of the world if the U.S. elected Ron Paul as President and pulled everyone back to U.S. territory. Like it or not, the U.S. made a conscious decision after WWII to stay engaged on the international stage, no matter how much this ran against the grain of traditional American culture. Also, it is extremely doubtful that the Chinese, Indians, resurgent Russians or whoever else at the top will be as restrained as the U.S. when it comes to use of military force and conduct during unrestrained combat operations. The U.S. isn’t perfect by any stretch, but it is definitely not the Roman Empire or British Empire and I think this will be painfully evident to any future countries that come under the domination of the Chinese or Indian Empire. So, am I a proponent of U.S. Global Power? Am I one of Robert Kaplan’s ‘Imperial Grunts’? Probably not, I’m retiring in two years (currently a helicopter aviation advisor for Air Force Special Operations Command) and my attitude towards all these foreign countries I’ve worked in is “Sayanora suckers, it’s all on you now”. For better or worse, all these countries around the world are going to have to start fighting and defending their own turf without our direct support. Will there still be room for advisors like me? Of course there will, almost every nation I’ve visited was glad to have a 12 or 14 man team for month or two of cooperative training and advising. But having 2000 or 6000 U.S. troops show up for a couple of years? No way, most countries have no interest in that level of U.S. involvement. Next few years will be entertaining to watch, just glad I’ll be done before things get completely out of hand (I hope) with Iran and the other feral entities out there.JL

5. Comment by Jacob Steelman on 3 October 2009:

   John apparently you have not read Smedley Butler’s (another career military man) book War is a Racket. As my wife Orasa says “open your eyes”. How could the dead and wounded people of Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc. be worse off? Even post-conflict do you think people like trained armed killers from a foreign country walking the streets of their country? Power is exercised at the point of a gun and thus the military is the instrument of power for governments including the United States government. The US military is never deployed abroad for good purposes but for the purpose of exercising US power and thus extending the US attempted dominance of the world through extension of the US empire. The 20th Century was one of the bloodiest centuries in the history of mankind with tens of millions of people murdered in the various wars, purges, power struggles,etc. all done in the ” best interest” of the citizens of various countries. What they really meant was the best interest of the ruling elites.

6. Comment by John Lance on 3 October 2009:

   I’ve read parts of Butler’s book, especially the Caribbean and Central America parts (I speak Spanish and deploy to those areas in my current job). Can’t say he paints a flattering picture, especially of United Fruit and the other U.S. concerns of that day. Personally, I don’t think Smedley really gave two damns about U.S. policy, he just needed a paycheck after he retired. Wouldn’t be the first time a guy like him got caught up in trying to supplement his pension (check out Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham for the modern example). Happens to even the best of them. I’m much more of a Dan Daly fan when it comes to early 20th century Marines. But let me get this straight. After flying flood relief in Mozambique (Operation Atlas Response, 1999), refugee resupply in northern Kosovo, evacuating the embassy in Liberia in 1994 (to include members of Medicines sans Frontieres and two Chinese colonels who needed a lift to Sierra Leone) and, to top it off, flying search and rescue missions out of Hurlburt Field during post-Katrina relief operations, I’m supposed to ignore all of my own experiences and believe you and your ‘open-eyed’ wife because you spout a bunch of talking points from Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky? Not to sound crude, but as the kids say these days, LMAO. Economics drives a lot of things, that’s why blogs and websites like this one exist. And most countries that occupy a position like the U.S. tend to be fairly ruthless in how they exercise their power, be it military, economic, cultural, or even religious. The United States isn’t perfect, never has been, never will be. It can’t be purely altruistic and survive, no nation can. And every nation has it’s share of injustice and unfairness, no one ever claimed an American exemption in that regard. So, the real question becomes – “Is the U.S. malevolent or just clumsy/incompetent when it screws up on the global stage?” I’ve been on the pointy end now for well over 15 years and I’ve seen a lot more evidence of the latter than the former. Are there some ‘evil’ people wearing a U.S. uniform or carrying out U.S. policy? Of course there are, human nature doesn’t change because of nationality or political affiliation. It’s how that organization/government deals with it’s ‘demons’ that tells the real story. China will never have a national ‘gnashing of teeth/tearing of garments’ moment over an Abu Graib incident. Neither will Russia or even India. To be fair, countries aren’t like people. They don’t have ‘personal’ feelings or single opinions. We refer to nations as if there is some person called ‘Country X’ that has like and dislikes, loves and hates, just like a single human being. They don’t, and expecting them to act like a person, either for good or ill, is ultimately futile. I’m not going to change your opinion, you’re probably a grown man just like me, with what you consider excellent justifications for your beliefs and opinions. Consider this, though. If the U.S. was really that diabolical, really as evil as people like Michael Moore paint it to be, would immigrants from all over the world be clamoring to move here? Would devout Muslims, of all people, be standing in line to move here, get a job and eventually get a green card? That was the standard I always kept in mind when the Cold War was still going and people would defend the Soviet Union and damn the U.S. Which country shoots people trying to leave and which country has to patrol the border to keep them out? But then again, what do I know, right? I’m sure I’ve been fooled by some nefarious conspiracy all these years. All those host nation citizens who keep bugging me to put in a good word for them with U.S. immigration must be in the pay of this shadowy cabal, right? But if you’d rather believe the worst, feel free. That’s the beauty of living in this great nation. You can stand on the corner, ranting at the top of your lungs about how evil this country is and no one will harm a hair on your head. No secret police, no censorship, nada. And guys like me get torn up and sometimes killed to make sure it stays that way. I could say ‘You’re Welcome’ but we both know that would imply something that will probably never get said…. JL

7. Comment by Jacob Steelman on 4 October 2009:

   John – Your reaction is not surprising. No government worker wants to feel as it his or her endeavors were wasted. Your justifications are the standard ones utilized by government workers especially military employees as Butler pointed out. Your perspective of the world is based on the power and utilization of that power by your employer for the benefit of the ruling elites who influence government policies through lobbyists and direct placement of officials (such as Henry Paulson who was previously head of Goldman Sachs). Government’s power is based on the point of a gun – being a military employee you are the point of the gun (the enforcer). My world view is based on freedom for individuals to pursue their daily lives as they see fit and keep the wealth that they generate through their efforts in the private marketplace. Which system does that best – the private free market without interference from government intervention (the more government interference, whether by regulations or military adventures at home or abroad, the less efficient the allocation of goods and services). I have worked and lived around the world for over a quarter century dealing with governments at various levels. I can tell you Butler’s insights into the workings of the world are reality and yours are pure fantasy spins used to justify government intervention (and the theft of wealth from its taxpayers) on behalf of their clients, the ruling elities. Open your eyes.The money that is used to pay your salary, buy the aircraft, transport you to some far off continent, your food and lodging, etc. has to be paid for by someone – the American taxpayers. That money is taken by force through direct taxation or indirect taxation (depreciation of the currency from the Fed’s printing of fiat currency). So to that extent American taxpayers have less wealth for goods and services they need. So while you are having a good time “helping” people in Mozambique, members of MSF (why did France not help them?) and 2 Chinese colonels (why did China not help them?) American taxpayers are having to do with less. While you were helping victims of Katrina taxpayers not living in New Orleans were less well off. I have lived and worked in New Orleans; the levee system was well known among the ruling elites to be weak due to the poor job of your employer’s Corps of Engineers but they and the others elected to still live there and take the risk for which other Americans not living in the area were forced to pay. Open your eyes.The issue is not whether the US is bad or incompetent (that would be the natural perspective of a government employee) but freedom – freedom to pursue their lives without government taking money from them by force (at the point of a gun) to transfer it to government employees or other people in the US or overseas or provide ruling elites a free ride at the expense of taxpayers. If you want to help people of the world then join a private charitable organization which voluntarily receives money from people who believe the same as you and want to help the citizens of Mozambique, MSF and Chinese colonels but do not participate in the theft of money from other Americans (thereby making them poorer) so that you can feel good.

Post a Response