tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post2584659155875802346..comments2024-03-29T09:32:34.853-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: James W Carden — How Libyan ‘Regime Change’ Lies Echo in Syriamike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-2306948922873246472016-09-25T19:04:02.268-04:002016-09-25T19:04:02.268-04:00The US establishment has convinced itself it needs...The US establishment has convinced itself it needs to to be the global hegemon to save the world. Many Americans view that as a frivolous want, especially when the US itself has major domestic issues. This is in large part what the current election is about. Whatever the outcome a large portion of the public is going to be disappointed and many will be outraged. <br /><br />The US elite is conflicted. It wants to present the US as a liberal democracy and the beacon of freedom, a shining city on a hill. But it acts like at empire run by an oligarchy. Actions speak louder than words. <br /><br />The question is the tradeoff between soft and hard power. The US is currently presenting the face of hard power and trying to disguise it as soft power as the world's cop and the one to take over the white man's burden from the British empire. <br /><br />Big gamble. A significant percentage of the world's population views the US as a rogue state and the greatest danger to peace.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/americans-dont-know-that-the-rest-of-the-world-views-u-s-as-biggest-danger-rogue-state.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/08/americans-dont-know-that-the-rest-of-the-world-views-u-s-as-biggest-danger-rogue-state.html</a><br /><br />This is an about face from right after WWII. It's hurting the US domestically and internationally. The hard right is benefiting from this both domestically and internationally, as the left spins off into irrelevance and the failure of the status quo to deliver for many people, if not most, is resulting in the rise of reactionary movements and leaders.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-37517227665941233802016-09-25T15:50:51.801-04:002016-09-25T15:50:51.801-04:00Should the US be backing the overthrow of a libera...<i>Should the US be backing the overthrow of a liberal democratically elected government to replace with with an illiberal theocracy?</i><br /><br />In an earlier thread you raised the concept of needs versus wants. The answer to your question may be there. Then there is the issue of whether Washington's "need" is practical and what are the best means to achieve it. Indeed, US foreign policy in Syria and the ME is questionable.<br /><br /><i>In addition, the dominant religious faction in the West is Christian but the media propaganda has masked what is actually going on in Syria and elsewhere with the suppression of Christianity is fundamentalist Islamic states and areas controlled by fundamentalists.</i><br /><br />Solidarity amongst Christians? Seems to be a weak political force compared with support for a secular government and society. Yes, if we in the west were in as dire a situation we would be supporting our own version of Assad.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-77961373048293931012016-09-25T15:24:58.119-04:002016-09-25T15:24:58.119-04:00Should the US be backing the overthrow of a libera...Should the US be backing the overthrow of a liberal democratically elected government to replace with with an illiberal theocracy?<br /><br />Leaving moral arguments aside, this is against everything the US stands for and strategically it is also a blunder in that it further undermines US soft power based on what America supposed stands for. Furthermore, it is allying with jihadis to use them as proxies. That's what started this whole thing when the US employed jihadis to create havoc for the USSR there by proxy. Regardless of what one may think of this morally, it is certainly questionable politically, strategically, and tactically. It resulted in "blowback" that cost the US a huge amount of blood and treasure (estimated at 5T and running), and eroded US soft power.<br /><br />In addition, the dominant religious faction in the West is Christian but the media propaganda has masked what is actually going on in Syria and elsewhere with the suppression of Christianity is fundamentalist Islamic states and areas controlled by fundamentalists.<br /><br />I personally think that there is a moral argument and so do a lot of other people, but there are also geopolitical geostrategic and political considerations of significance that are not being debated in the West and especially the US, where there is both a media blackout of the facts and and propaganda proactively concealing the facts.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-85170829461372799552016-09-25T15:06:35.271-04:002016-09-25T15:06:35.271-04:00Why does it have to be a popular uprising?
The ...Why does it have to be a popular uprising?<br />The 'popular uprising' against the Egyptian military was defeated. Popular uprisings by Palestinians were crushed by Jordan and Israel.<br /><br />Is ISIS a popular uprising?<br />Is the desire by Kurds for a state of their own a popular uprising?<br /><br />Save your moral narratives for peacetime.Peter Panhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09473311771939167712noreply@blogger.com