The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Hegemony
Salvation122
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
KevinNash sort of indirectly brought up hegemony in the Ron Paul thread, and I figured it was a broad enough topic to get its own thread.
In response to him, then:
Let me lay it out for you, as calmly as I can.
The United States controls the single largest amount of force in history. We are unparalleled. No one else even comes close. There is not a single nation with a single warship on the same level as a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, or an Ohio submarine. No one has a B2-calibre bomber. Not to mention our sizable nuclear advantage.
The mere fact that we are the overwhelmingly dominant military power in the world prevents war. Everyone in every nation on earth knows that the United States can, if they choose, end a given conflict unilaterally, simply by blowing up everyone involved. As such, conflicts tend to remain relatively small and regional. It prohibits policies of forced annexation (read also: conquest) absolutely.
Hegemony is naturally stable. Stability, on the nation-state scale, is desirable above all else. Hegemony is achieved through military superiority.
Simply put, we are the world's policeman. And we can never, ever stop.
This is not a position we enjoy. Do you not believe that the United States would rather spend the hundreds of billions of dollars the military is budgeted on something more useful? On feeding our poor, on curing them of their ailments, of providing them with shelter? Of course we do. The people of the United States, even its politicians, are not callous men. We have homes and children and families. We see the poor and sick on our streets. But because of our unique position, the money must be put elsewhere. We must maintain our forces.
Power - true power, military power - is not like economics. It truly is a zero-sum game. When one player gets weaker, others get stronger. The United States, by and large, is benevolent. It does not exercise its power for territorial advantage, and never overtly for economic gain. Those who would gain power through our disarmament may not be as conservative in its use as we are. Therefore power must be maintained, for the good of the world.
It does not matter whether or not you asked for it. It does not matter whether or not you like it. It does not matter whether or not you agree. It is the only solution that guarantees stability and sovereignty, on the gross scale, for every nation.
Does the United States occaisionally do bad things to maintain its power? Yes, it does. We have done horrible things in the past, things which were often foolish. The United States did, and continues to do, dishonorable things. But again, this is not out of choice. We are very much bound to history, to our place in the world. The only responsible use of this power is to maintain it, and to use it as rarely as possible.
This is the way of the world. It is the truth. It is not comfortable, and it is not pretty, for anyone. But it is what it is, and we cannot step back, for if we do, another may take our place, and they may not be as gentle as we have.
In response to him, then:
Let me lay it out for you, as calmly as I can.
The United States controls the single largest amount of force in history. We are unparalleled. No one else even comes close. There is not a single nation with a single warship on the same level as a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, or an Ohio submarine. No one has a B2-calibre bomber. Not to mention our sizable nuclear advantage.
The mere fact that we are the overwhelmingly dominant military power in the world prevents war. Everyone in every nation on earth knows that the United States can, if they choose, end a given conflict unilaterally, simply by blowing up everyone involved. As such, conflicts tend to remain relatively small and regional. It prohibits policies of forced annexation (read also: conquest) absolutely.
Hegemony is naturally stable. Stability, on the nation-state scale, is desirable above all else. Hegemony is achieved through military superiority.
Simply put, we are the world's policeman. And we can never, ever stop.
This is not a position we enjoy. Do you not believe that the United States would rather spend the hundreds of billions of dollars the military is budgeted on something more useful? On feeding our poor, on curing them of their ailments, of providing them with shelter? Of course we do. The people of the United States, even its politicians, are not callous men. We have homes and children and families. We see the poor and sick on our streets. But because of our unique position, the money must be put elsewhere. We must maintain our forces.
Power - true power, military power - is not like economics. It truly is a zero-sum game. When one player gets weaker, others get stronger. The United States, by and large, is benevolent. It does not exercise its power for territorial advantage, and never overtly for economic gain. Those who would gain power through our disarmament may not be as conservative in its use as we are. Therefore power must be maintained, for the good of the world.
It does not matter whether or not you asked for it. It does not matter whether or not you like it. It does not matter whether or not you agree. It is the only solution that guarantees stability and sovereignty, on the gross scale, for every nation.
Does the United States occaisionally do bad things to maintain its power? Yes, it does. We have done horrible things in the past, things which were often foolish. The United States did, and continues to do, dishonorable things. But again, this is not out of choice. We are very much bound to history, to our place in the world. The only responsible use of this power is to maintain it, and to use it as rarely as possible.
This is the way of the world. It is the truth. It is not comfortable, and it is not pretty, for anyone. But it is what it is, and we cannot step back, for if we do, another may take our place, and they may not be as gentle as we have.
Salvation122 on
0
Posts
I am having a hard time grasping just how you could ever, in good faith, say that.
Maybe you just don't know anything about our recent and historical actions on a grand scale. That's possible.
I would say more pragmatic then benevolent... the U.S. knows not to use a bomb when a poison cigar works so much better. But to argue that we do not meddle in the affairs of others, often to their detriment, does not seem accurate.
The US acts in the US's best interest. Sometimes, that's in the interest of the world at large. Sometimes, it's not.
I guess you're right in that if the military were to overtly carry out atrocities, that would be bad. But I don't see how our endless succession of covert ops, installing dictators, or assassinating leaders not friendly to us can be swept under the rug and our actions still be deemed "benevolent."
This is a lie. The politicians can easily end the human rights violations that happen in US territories, but they refuse to do so because the corporation fund their campaigns. That's the very definition of callous.
So is this. I'm not arguing your point. But calling the US benevolent, at least right now, is hardly accurate. Of the two conflicts we are fighting right now, Iraq and Afghanistan, one of them is for territorial advantage and economic gain(I'll let you guess which one).
Everything else you said is pretty accurate. However, we were able to exercise this same hegemony during the 90's and our military spending bill was far far less and it was still twice as high as the next five countries combined. The amount of money we spend on the defense budget is simply not needed.
Hmmm, Noam Chomsky reading aside would it be better to say the U.S. likes to make omelets?
If that was worthy of a response, I would offer one.
What?
Are you aware that the US invaded an oil rich nation in a strategically important area, and did so on false pretenses? Are you aware of how many dictators the US has installed specifically to make a country friendly to US business interests?
Of course the US exercises its power for territorial advantage an economic gain! Thats exactly how the US maintains its dominance!
Now, this doesn't put us above criticism. We as Americans should demand accountability, transparency, and international benevolence from our government. We should listen to the international perspective on what effects our policies are having. Often, the "fact" of American benevolence is used as some sort of rejoinder by conservatives whenever we do something sleazy or morally questionable, and it shouldn't be - benevolence is not a permanent characteristic, and it's only through careful assessment and moral questioning that it can be maintained.
It also might be smart for the US to start to enter into true power-sharing with some of the emerging powers at an early stage (China, the EU, maybe Russia). It's much better to work out the details of such relationships at an early stage rather than letting it get to the point where the existing powers are ready to throw down.
This I feel articulates the situation the US is in very well.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But if we're going to argue about the US benevolent vs US giant blood sucking facist nation bit, rest assured that our country does too much all over the spectrum to allow itself to be so one-dimensionally classified. We are by in large the lead numberical donor of foriegn aid worldwide. We have one of the most ethnically and racially tolerant institutions in the world (when I say this, I'm talking about issues like American Muslims, who by in large feel like they can participate in our society, vs European Muslims, who are in many cases openly ostracized and isolated).
We have also bombed and attacked other nations when it is entirely unwarranted. It's a toss up people, the US is good sometimes and bad other times, just like pretty much everything else.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I agree that the pecking order needs to be maintained, and I agree that the U.S. is, comparatively speaking, a benevolent hegemon.
However:
Bologna. If our military endeavors were strictly peacekeeping, dedicated to preventing conquests and genocides, I would believe you. However, that has not been the case. Our most famous military engagements since the Cold War have been about securing our supply of oil, often at the expense of regional stability. And the military-industrial complex in America is still alive and well—there are many people in the United States who want to continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the military because those billions of dollars is ending up in their pockets for the weapons they manufacture. See also our "balance of power" strategems in arming Israel and now, Saudi Arabia—people profit off this shit, Sal.
I don't necessarily have a problem with using military hegemony to ensure stability so that the world economy remains sustainable. But our completely non-sustainable and world-destroying economy seems to be driving much of our hegemonic military action.
And then there is the broader issue of whether hegemonic policing the world is actually desirable to letting nations duke it out themselves. While I'm not going to argue we shouldn't be preventing genocides with out power, I do think that our involvement in policing the Muslim world has largely decreased stability there and resulted in a more violent and dangerous society. This is largely because of Muslim attitudes towards outside cultures. What's needed there isn't tanks and guns, it's missionaries. (Missionaries of Western culture, of course ... not fucking Christians.)
The illusion is necessary because the US is a democracy. You have to appease the public or they kick you out of office.
Fortunately, you have tools like propaganda and selective reporting. Nothing is as convenient as having your citizens make your excuses for you, because you made them believe in the illusion and so they would never accept the possibility that the US may in fact not be benevolent under the surface.
That's a fun little dystopian fantasy you're living in there. Did it ever occur to you that Blackwater, Guantanamo, Contractors raping employees, Soldiers accused of killing Iraqis etc. would NOT have hit the public spotlight in such a world?
Most of the shit we do wrong actually recieves press.
And our benevolence isn't always an illusion, only sometimes. Believe it or not there are people in Washington who actually, you know, want to do good things. Shocking I know...
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Also, how is military power a zero sum game? There's not a finite amount of weaponry or people available in the world, and some other country making guns doesn't destroy our own. I'm guessing what you're measuring is some kind of nebulous 'ability to wage war', which only has value in comparison to other countries' ability - much like economics, which you say it is not like.
And I also wonder if you'd still say it 'guarantees stability and sovreignty for every nation' if you actually lived in some of those other nations.
Our military might prevents war? But.....arent we in two wars? One of which was caused by an attack on our soil? The other because we could go to war?
How are we the world's police officers? We didnt do anything in Rawanda. Nor Liberia. We're not doing anything in Darfur.
I suppose we're forgiven for Darfur because our unequalled military is stretched to the limits in Afganistan and Iraq.
does it really matter if other nations can match all that as long as they still have enough of a nuclear arsenal to pretty much destroy the country? Mutually assured destruction does a lot more for maintaining peace between large nations than the US
Our forces are so spread out that it'll be very difficult to kill them all. And if we're assuming the Russians would try to use their nukes do we really even know if they're even fully operational? Their military is so run down I'd be surprised if a majority of them are able to launch from their silos.
Your information is outdated. Putin has got their economy back on track, thanks to Russia's oil reserves - and has resumed some of the missions that the Soviet Union used to conduct - like long-range bomber sorties, aka 'military readyness exercises.'
The most common counter-thesis to hegemony is binary opposition, which argues that stability is maintained when two roughly equal powers work against each others' goals, probably best exemplified by the Cold War. This is a lie. For one, the Cold War wasn't really stable, it was just balanced, which isn't the same thing, and two, the Cold War directly led to far greater invasions of sovereignty and far more open conflict than seen since the fall of the Wall.
Tell me again about the hard hitting journalism that exposed the lies and deceit and prevented the US from going to war in Iraq. Oh, wait.
This is a myth that, for Americans' sake, needs to be dispelled. You aren't unparalleled. In fact, if you engaged in war with anyone of the major powers on the planet, it would be damn fucking close. The most powerful land army ever constituted, with an undefeated record in all conflicts which it was involved, was beaten by the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in a ten year period in the 1980s. You have a myth of power that doesn't accurately reflect the state of your ability to project and maintain power.
Which wars did you prevent, again? I certainly know which ones you started! The only war that I can think of that was prevented in part by the power of the US was an ultimate showdown between NATO and the Warsaw Pact - but that was only prevented by power parity between the USSR and the US, and some pretty good diplomacy.
Like how you ended the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam, and Korea?
You are going to have to define what you mean by "relatively small and reigional." I suppose Kashmir could be considered regional, but forced annexation was certainly not prevented. Nor was the conquest of Kuwait by Iraq - sure, it was liberated, but the conflict itself wasn't prevented. What about the Israeli conquest of the West Bank from Jordan? Or the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt? Or the Golan Heights from Syria? Those were all cases of forced annexation, and they aren't prevented by the mere existence of the United States military.
I'm sorry, what?
Stability is only desirable insofar as it allows reasonable administration and commerce to happen. There are many reasons why stability isn't desirable - hell, stability in South America isn't desirable to the US.
So, then, the Soviet Union was the pre-eminent hegemon in Eurasia and Africa until '91? Because it had military superiority? Come on, now. The claims you are making don't stand up to critical attention.
I was going to make a sarcastic comment and flame you for this statement, but, instead, I'll do you a favour. This comment is incredibly arrogant, ill-advised, and ultimately wrong. If you expect to have a civil conversation about the role of the hegemon in the world today, you would be better to stop using this absolutely absurd phrase. Your usage of it only underlies my and many others' points about the utter ineffectiveness of the United States as hegemon, and the astoundingly ignorant arrogance that seemingly animate many American policies around the world.
Oh, fuck that. This is another national myth that needs to fucking stop. First of all, I disagree that you are the "world's policeman" (see above); second, one of the key reasons that the United States acts the way it does and spends the money it does, is because it is both profitable and in it's interests. No nation takes military action or makes military spending decisions out of altruism. It never happens like that.
More bullshit myths. The world would not tear itself apart if the United States cut the size and deployments of its military and instead focused on domestic issues. Hell, many of the reasons why the US must maintain it's military in such a fashion are directly a result of the very existence and actions of the military in the first place! Would Iranians hate the United States if they hadn't toppled their only democratically elected Prime Minister in history, instead installing a brutal, totalitarian dictator who engaged in torture and terrorism?
There's a line from Horace, I believe, that translates something like "If you want peace, prepare for war." It's bullshit. If you want peace, you must earnestly and honestly work for peace; if you prepare for war, you will get war. Hell, this is a basic political and historical truth that was first really articulated by Thucydides, four hundred years before the birth of Christ. There's no excuse for a political leader to not be aware of this.
Your analysis of power is found wanting.
Your statement is nonsensical. Political actors can't be said to be "benevolent" or "malevolent" - those are statements which refer to the character of an individual. All that can be said is that a political actor takes benevolent or malevolent action. If you still hold that the US takes benevolent action, I will disagree with you - it takes benevolent action only when it is in it's interest. I would assert that it is in the United States' interest to appear as it were taking benevolent action, being free to actually undertake malevolent action. Such as supporting torture and totalitarian dictators.
Who else would build military bases in 117 countries? Who else would go to war approximately once every 7 years for over half a century? You are deluding yourself.
Fuck you. Stability and sovereignty were guaranteed far better 100 years ago under the repressive thumb of European imperialism and colonialism. You don't see people clamouring for a return to that, do you?
I'll be a very happy man when the United States has to beg for the table scraps from China's table - when this bullshit myth of the superiority of Empire will finally die. All you've said is "USA #1! USA #1! YOU CAN'T DISAGREE! USA #1!" - which is not only bullshit, it's utterly absurd and ignorant bullshit. The US is hegemon, and it has brought with it increasing globalization and the proliferation of capitalism. That is the only "benefit" it has brought to the world - essentially a further progression of what was brought to the world a century ago by the British Empire. The role of Hegemon in the modern world has essentially remained unchanged in character and action, and when the United States is knocked from it's position as top dog and China or India takes it's place, their time as the Hegemon will basically be the same. It will bring further globalization and increased capital.
Most anything else is a myth that will soon be dispelled, one way or another.
Well, first of all, your statement regarding "far more conflicts in the Cold War" is disingenuous. We've not yet been 20 years since the German reunification, and the Cold War lasted just under 50. Second, there aren't many periods of time when there were no Hegemons, and the Middle Ages certainly isn't one of them. There was this thing called the Catholic Church, and it very effectively ruled all of Europe from the Great Schism until the Protestant Reformation. Third, the role of Hegemon does not need to be filled explicitly by one individual political actor. The role of the European "balance of power" and the associated "great game" between Britain, Russia, France, and later Germany ensured stability and a general lack of large scale conflict for about fifty years. That's not unlike what we have today.
All hail Saggio, our new hegemon.
Policemen gotta eat, too. Which is not to say that it's all love and kisses, because there most certainly is some shady shit that goes down, but I think - and this can't really be proved either way - that there's less shady shit than a lot of people think.
What's needed is both.
Between... ? The suspense is killing me.
With regard to the OP, Salv actually isn't entirely wrong. The US is one of the most restrained empires the world has ever known when it comes to invading other nations. This - and indeed global stability - is of course primarily due to the state of interdependence that we're currently in, but I'll take it. American citizens are considerably free and democratic to boot, obsessed with civil liberties and individualism.
Now this isn't to say that other powers couldn't do as competent of a job in policing the world given enough practice, but I'm sure as hell not particularly keen on the idea of granting them that opportunity. An unjust system that works to our advantage is nothing for us and our allies to gripe about.
8-)
My first act as the Forum Policeman is to repudiate the pox that is the double post.
The Catholic Church deserves mention, because it's kind of weird. The Church's power was erratic and weird and nothing like it has ever or likely will ever exist again. The Church mostly acted as a sort of bizarre, proto-UN with its own agenda, and characterizing it as a hegemonic power is rather stretching the facts.
You mean the rampant skepticism that lead thousands of Americans to protest, some even going overseas to Iraq to act as human shields (before being forceably removed?)
You mean the loads of criticism launched in the direction of Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and later Powell (who was initially AGAINST the idea of the invasion) as the troop build ups started?
The information was there, it simply failed to prevent the war. If the information HADN'T been there, and we'd all invaded Iraq as one happy family (which we sure as HELL did not), then ege may have been right.
Hell, read Woodward's books (particularly Plan of Attack), even high ranking people WITHIN THE PENTAGON were looking at the administration like "WTF guys?" Not to mention a massive chunk of our populace.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Look, it's not a matter of whether the information was there.
Out of all the information that is relevant to an issue, a certain percentage is revealed by the military or the government.
Out of that, a certain percentage receives coverage.
Out of the usually tiny portion that receives coverage, a certain percentage reaches the audience (think front page news vs. a small paragraph on bottom left corner of the 26th page).
And even then it's a matter of how it reaches the audience. Propaganda, bias, spin, etc. News sources aren't exactly objective.
When you consider all these stages that information goes through, you realize that for every Blackwater and Guantanamo incident we hear about, there is probably ten that is either not revealed, or is not covered, or doesn't reach the audience, or doesn't incite the necessary reaction in the audience.
You're looking at the news about Blackwater and going "look, when it happens, we hear it!" Whereas the fact is, it's not that simple.
Your speculation is probably accurate, but I'm betting in smaller doses than you think.
Never mind the fact that you're stipulating an argument that is devoid of proof. You're basically saying "I know all this bad shit happens behind the scenes, but have no proof because the media filters it."
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I'm far more interested in seeing how the current erosion of sovereignty across the globe through increased globalization and the rise of non-state actorsis going to translate in the coming years/decades into an international framework to replace the current security situation, either through more power ceeded to the UN overall, its successor, institutions more like the EU but across a global scale, and the like.
Of course, to get that far in the first place we're (the global community) are going to have to recognize sovereignty's erosion and stop dwelling on this old nation-state ideal so that we can stop getting into these absurd situations where we do nothing in places like Sudan, Darfur, etc.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
That's not what I am saying at all.
I'm basically stating a truism with regards to the nature of discovery and spread of information and pointing out how it might be used to promote an illusion of benevolence.
--
In any case, the American hegemony isn't only supported by military might. In Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins describes his own experiences of convincing (read: strong-arming) foreign governments to "open up" their economies and adopt new systems... and how his methods were entirely backed by the National Security Agency.
Basically it works like this:
- get contracted by foreign governments in huge construction and infrastructure projects (working for giant multinationals)
- work at the foreign country doing econometric forecasting
- grossly exaggerate the forecasts, padding up existing potential growth and showing potential growth where there is none
- use the exaggerated forecasts to help governments justify receiving debts from the United States
- twenty years down the line when the forecast doesn't hold true, what you end up with is a country that owes billions of dollars to the US and thus is essentially under US control
Brilliant.
I think this is the point I most agree with. Even if we concede that hegemony is necessary and even if we can point to the US as the country that must be the dominant power that doesn't mean the we, the United States, must be the sole, leading, or even participating actor in every single conflict that sprouts up absolutely everywhere in the name of national security.
I don't really see the need for NATO anymore but that doesn't mean the US cannot lend assistance to western European allies where it serves the interest of us and global stability. That being said is 75,000 troops in Germany really necessary today? Can Germany and Russia not come to an agreement about where their sphere's of influence begin and end on their own terms? Japan and China? Are they incapable of coming to balanced agreements? As someone else mentioned many of these economies are now tied together and where in the past Japan and China were mortal enemies, today they are vital trading partners.
I agree that globalism stakes the United States interests in a greater sphere than the northwestern hemisphere today. What I don't agree with is that the US is the only player that can afford complete and total military action anywhere and everywhere, at least to the percentage that we currently stake. We are the wealthiest but not the only wealthy player. Are we literally 10 time more wealthy than western europe or japan and should our military spending be reflected as such? I don't think that it should. Perhaps some of these responsibilities should be transitioned to other nations to match their vested interests.
I don't feel this way because I don't think the US should be the most powerful nation on earth, I feel this way because I see an inevitable end to our dominance and the sooner we can judiciously set aside our resources for a later time and delegate responsibilities to other nations where wise to do so, the longer we will be a factor.
Also I should state that hegemony is not just about military dominance but also cultural and economic dominance. I see the former as something that is harming the latter.
Your argument that the Catholic Church was the hegemon of Europe during the Middle Ages is based on the period from 1418 to 1517?
What?
Even during that period wasn't France busy invading all of its neighbors?
Also - balance of power promoted arms races and continual trials of strength that repeatedly threatened to erupt into a general war - and then did erupt into a general war worse than anything the world had seen up to that point.
I can't say I care for stability that rests on constant cynical maneuvering within a structure of pervasive instability.
Then tell me why militant Wahhabist Islam has risen as a credible and serious threat to hegemon power, despite the fact that it lacks a centralized economy, military force, or leadership and cannot be said to have "power" in the sense you are using the word.