Should America keep pursuing the Wolfowitz doctrine

[tupac chopra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Opinions_concerning_foreign_policy

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

I don't think even one year ago Russia could have been said to be a hostile power but a lot has changed in a year. Putin has been open about how the American war machine might be stopped through bringing down the USD, and he has begun to make good on his word in that regard.
China (now the worlds largest economy) has formed a very deep strategic alliance with Russia late last year too, and recently rebuked the United States over Ukraine.

What should or could America do? Keep pursuing it's goals that don't seem to have changed much to prevent anyone power arising that "necons" might think is hostile or...?
What other ideas are there apart from those of the neocons?

 

[Togo]

I think the only reasonable alternative to pursuing US hegemony at all costs, is to adopt a world order that based on consensus values. That involves adopting international frameworks to resolve issues, and sticking to principles rather than political allegiance. Under this approach it is not enough to label something as being pro-this or anti-that, or retreat to considerations of national interest, but instead to consistently apply common principles.

Unfortunately, the neo-con bipolar (them vs us) view of the world has had a major boost, with the rise of figures such as Putin, and posters such as yourself, who consistently apply the same old cold war bipolar lens to every problem, seeing issues in Western and Eastern Europe purely in terms of opposition to, or support of, the US. You only have to read the OP to see how embedded that view is. That is really all the neo-cons need to carry dominating foreign policy for the next century.

 

[Togo]

double post

 

[NobleSavage]

I think the only reasonable alternative to pursuing US hegemony at all costs, is to adopt a world order that based on consensus values. That involves adopting international frameworks to resolve issues, and sticking to principles rather than political allegiance. Under this approach it is not enough to label something as being pro-this or anti-that, or retreat to considerations of national interest, but instead to consistently apply common principles.

Unfortunately, the neo-con bipolar (them vs us) view of the world has had a major boost, with the rise of figures such as Putin, and posters such as yourself, who consistently apply the same old cold war bipolar lens to every problem, seeing issues in Western and Eastern Europe purely in terms of opposition to, or support of, the US. You only have to read the OP to see how embedded that view is. That is really all the neo-cons need to carry dominating foreign policy for the next century.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Russia and China are very concerned about consensus values. The US is only interested in an international framework when it benefits us -- which is what I think you were pointing out. Is it a consensus value to force other countries into an international framework? Personally, I think we should pull out of NATO and let Europe pay for their own defense. Then we can start working on common values.

 

[tupac chopra]

I think the only reasonable alternative to pursuing US hegemony at all costs, is to adopt a world order that based on consensus values. That involves adopting international frameworks to resolve issues, and sticking to principles rather than political allegiance. Under this approach it is not enough to label something as being pro-this or anti-that, or retreat to considerations of national interest, but instead to consistently apply common principles.

Ok. The only leader I see pushing that is Vladmir Putin. But you must know that.

Unfortunately, the neo-con bipolar (them vs us) view of the world has had a major boost, with the rise of figures such as Putin,

Yet, it is Putin who is asking for the things you want. But you do know that don't you??

and posters such as yourself, who consistently apply the same old cold war bipolar lens to every problem, seeing issues in Western and Eastern Europe purely in terms of opposition to, or support of, the US. You only have to read the OP to see how embedded that view is. That is really all the neo-cons need to carry dominating foreign policy for the next century.

The next century? Wow...dramatic.

 

[Togo]

I could be wrong, but I don't think Russia and China are very concerned about consensus values. The US is only interested in an international framework when it benefits us -- which is what I think you were pointing out.

Yes. Hence lumping Putin in with the neo-con bipolar approach, despite him being politically opposed to the US neo-cons.

Is it a consensus value to force other countries into an international framework? Personally, I think we should pull out of NATO and let Europe pay for their own defense. Then we can start working on common values.

Possibly a good idea, possibly not. There are some downsides - Russia literally drops off the radar, the US have to vastly increase their intelligence activities, including areas in which they've struggled historically. They also lose signal intercept capability in Europe, particularly financial tracking, and have to build a new generation of early warning satellites to maintain the same level of nuclear capability they have now. So it would be an expensive move, for both sides.

In terms of this thread, of course, it would be the end of US hegemony. Forcing Europe to build up their own defence capabilities means they have them not only for defence, but also to enforce their own policies. Israel, for example, cut off from the US and surrounded by an increasingly hostile Europe, would be an obvious casualty, forced by sanctions to adopt some kind of power-sharing with the Palestinians. The US would also lose much of their influence in Eastern Europe, the Indian sub-continent, and their monopoly over intervention in South and central America. Their influence over the Pacific would probably increase.

In return they'd be forced into a more out-ward looking mind-set whereby the rest of the world is more scary and less controlled, but they'd gain an ally that was more able to pull it's own weight and achieve more. It's not an entirely insane plan, but it would be very expensive for both parties and it's not hard to see why neither side has wanted to go for it.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes. Hence lumping Putin in with the neo-con bipolar approach, despite him being politically opposed to the US neo-cons.

Opposing the US neocons is something he indicates he says he does reluctantly. He is clear in his words that he says he seeks a world where many diverse elements can each have their say.
But...he says he accepts that America is not the "partner" that was promised and that it is probably futile to pursue that avenue at present.
So, suggesting that Putin's opposition to "neocons" is his defining element, is questionable

 

[Togo]

Ok. The only leader I see pushing that is Vladmir Putin. But you must know that.

He doesn't push it. He makes speeches about it after he takes unilateral action to get what he wants, just like the US does.

There are plenty of other countries in the world that take a different approach, but the US and Russia are the only ones you seem to know anything about.

 

[bilby]

Yes. Hence lumping Putin in with the neo-con bipolar approach, despite him being politically opposed to the US neo-cons.

Is it a consensus value to force other countries into an international framework? Personally, I think we should pull out of NATO and let Europe pay for their own defense. Then we can start working on common values.

Possibly a good idea, possibly not. There are some downsides - Russia literally drops off the radar, the US have to vastly increase their intelligence activities, including areas in which they've struggled historically. They also lose signal intercept capability in Europe, particularly financial tracking, and have to build a new generation of early warning satellites to maintain the same level of nuclear capability they have now. So it would be an expensive move, for both sides.

In terms of this thread, of course, it would be the end of US hegemony. Forcing Europe to build up their own defence capabilities means they have them not only for defence, but also to enforce their own policies. Israel, for example, cut off from the US and surrounded by an increasingly hostile Europe, would be an obvious casualty, forced by sanctions to adopt some kind of power-sharing with the Palestinians. The US would also lose much of their influence in Eastern Europe, the Indian sub-continent, and their monopoly over intervention in South and central America. Their influence over the Pacific would probably increase.

In return they'd be forced into a more out-ward looking mind-set whereby the rest of the world is more scary and less controlled, but they'd gain an ally that was more able to pull it's own weight and achieve more. It's not an entirely insane plan, but it would be very expensive for both parties and it's not hard to see why neither side has wanted to go for it.

It would also fly directly in the face of the Wolfowitz doctrine, if we consider the definition of 'threat' to be 'the ability to oppose the US militarily', regardless of the present diplomatic situation. The switch from 'friendly' to 'hostile' can happen very fast, particularly if longstanding military alliances are suddenly ceased for internal political reasons.

A NATO without the US would in short order become such a 'threat' to the US, regardless of what might happen in Russia.

One benefit to the US of the status quo is that they effectively suppress military spending by the European NATO members, simply by providing them with assurances of assistance if it is needed.

The benefits to European NATO nations of this are obvious; but there is a definite threat to the USA that a future self-funded Western European military alliance could potentially be capable of matching the USA in capability.

While Americans hold the reins of NATO power, that threat cannot arise; and this eliminates one of the three current potential adversaries (the other two being Russia and China, neither of whom is yet economically strong enough to raise such a force).

 

[tupac chopra]

In terms of this thread, of course, it would be the end of US hegemony. Forcing Europe to build up their own defence capabilities means they have them not only for defence, but also to enforce their own policies. .

For someone who criticises the 'us and them" approach you sure like the
us and them" approach

 

[Togo]

In terms of this thread, of course, it would be the end of US hegemony. Forcing Europe to build up their own defence capabilities means they have them not only for defence, but also to enforce their own policies. .

For someone who criticises the 'us and them" approach you sure like the
us and them" approach

I'm discussing the likely consequences. Whether I approve of them or not is another matter.

I would prefer a low-armament world in which people make agreements with each other. Having the US pull out of NATO means developing more weapons to fill the gap, which means a more heavily armed Western Europe, which in turn means they have a greater pressure to justify that expense by finding things for them to do. It increases the temptation to engage in 'them and us' politics, and lowers the benefits of an agreement.

The benefit, from what you've said, is that Europe would be freer to make it's own decisions, since you've been insisting that it's merely a US puppet.

 

[tupac chopra]

For someone who criticises the 'us and them" approach you sure like the
us and them" approach

I would prefer a low-armament world in which people make agreements with each other. Having the US pull out of NATO means developing more weapons to fill the gap,

Because we must have lots and lots of weapons. We have no choice, do we?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#Opinions_concerning_foreign_policy

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

I don't think even one year ago Russia could have been said to be a hostile power but a lot has changed in a year. Putin has been open about how the American war machine might be stopped through bringing down the USD, and he has begun to make good on his word in that regard.
China (now the worlds largest economy) has formed a very deep strategic alliance with Russia late last year too, and recently rebuked the United States over Ukraine.

What should or could America do? Keep pursuing it's goals that don't seem to have changed much to prevent anyone power arising that "necons" might think is hostile or...?
What other ideas are there apart from those of the neocons?

Only if you had your eyes closed. It was obvious that Russia was heading in this direction for quite some time now.

 

[Togo]

I would prefer a low-armament world in which people make agreements with each other. Having the US pull out of NATO means developing more weapons to fill the gap,

Because we must have lots and lots of weapons. We have no choice, do we?

All other things being equal, the effect of withdrawing from a military alliance is to increase the burden on each member. As I said before, I prefer the idea of a low-armament world, but you're not going to get there by annexing parts of the Ukraine or trying to 'bring down' the US.

 

[Derec]

I don't think even one year ago Russia could have been said to be a hostile power but a lot has changed in a year. Putin has been open about how the American war machine might be stopped through bringing down the USD, and he has begun to make good on his word in that regard.

Really? I see ruble (or should it be rubble?) tanking and the U$D doing quite well. Hitler was "greatest field commander of all time" (or GröFaZ in the German acronym). Maybe Putin is "greatest financial strategist of all time" ...
How about Wolowitz doctrine instead? We send him in to seduce Put-Put's new girlfriend and make him real mad. Now that is "wet work"!

 

[barbos]

I think the only reasonable alternative to pursuing US hegemony at all costs, is to adopt a world order that based on consensus values. That involves adopting international frameworks to resolve issues, and sticking to principles rather than political allegiance. Under this approach it is not enough to label something as being pro-this or anti-that, or retreat to considerations of national interest, but instead to consistently apply common principles.

Unfortunately, the neo-con bipolar (them vs us) view of the world has had a major boost, with the rise of figures such as Putin, and posters such as yourself, who consistently apply the same old cold war bipolar lens to every problem, seeing issues in Western and Eastern Europe purely in terms of opposition to, or support of, the US. You only have to read the OP to see how embedded that view is. That is really all the neo-cons need to carry dominating foreign policy for the next century.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Russia and China are very concerned about consensus values. The US is only interested in an international framework when it benefits us -- which is what I think you were pointing out. Is it a consensus value to force other countries into an international framework? Personally, I think we should pull out of NATO and let Europe pay for their own defense. Then we can start working on common values.

Nobody is concerned about consensus values. Every country is after its own interest.
Swiss have their banks and want their tax evaders, US has wallstreet and want their derivatives shenanigans, russia has their gas and their oligarchs.

 

[tupac chopra]

I don't think even one year ago Russia could have been said to be a hostile power but a lot has changed in a year. Putin has been open about how the American war machine might be stopped through bringing down the USD, and he has begun to make good on his word in that regard.

Really? I see ruble (or should it be rubble?) tanking and the U$D doing quite well.

True, but I mean that Putin has begun to stop using the USD. He has been working on BRICS versions of various financial institutions. It would be silly to imagine that such steps would immediately cause the USD to fall.
The question is what will be the long term effects of Russia and China beginning to trade commodities in their own currencies?
And what will be the effect of the BRICS developing their own financial institutions to replace or compete with the present ones?
These are major developments but the fact you are trying to point to short term currency movements in response shows you don't yet grasp that.

 

[tupac chopra]

Because we must have lots and lots of weapons. We have no choice, do we?

All other things being equal, the effect of withdrawing from a military alliance is to increase the burden on each member.

Maybe they will use the opportunity to talk, negotiate and work together rather than spend all their money on weapons?

 

[untermensche]

In terms of this thread, of course, it would be the end of US hegemony. Forcing Europe to build up their own defence capabilities means they have them not only for defence, but also to enforce their own policies. .

For someone who criticises the 'us and them" approach you sure like the
us and them" approach

What's wrong with starting an arms race on the European continent?

The US had a good idea after WWII. It had unprecedented power and wealth. The idea was to keep as much of the world as weak and economically subservient as possible for as long as possible to maintain it's advantages in both areas.

It grabbed the world when it was a weak kitten and has not let go.

Unfortunately the world is no longer a kitten and letting go has dangers and the cat that has grown has deep resentments.

 

[tupac chopra]

Maybe Putin is "greatest financial strategist of all time" ...

The irony is that America has had the whole world (well a lot of it) agreeing to their monopoly. Happy to use SWIFT happy to use the USD, happy to use the IMF. The whole world (pretty much) happy to use their systems and their money. But the idiot leaders of the USA have pushed countries like China and Russia into a corner where they have said..."ok..fuck...whatever...we will build our own systems".

Even American companies are feeling it.
http://wolfstreet.com/2013/10/17/nsa-revelations-kill-ibm-hardware-sales-in-china/
The whole world knows now that if you buy American hardware or software, it will be compromised.