The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[LynahFan]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The most effective entity to police the world at this time would be a "Concert of Europe"-like cartel composed of the US/UK, China, Russia, Germany/France, and maybe India -- you need enough members or span the globe but not so many that its too unwieldy. Of course to have that each member has to be happy with the slice of the pie they already have, and right now Russia is dissatisfied. The other problem is these arrangements are by definition deeply conservative and undemocratic, like any oligarchy. But it does work, especially when backed by enormous advantage of firepower.

Isn't that what the 5 permanent SC members are supposed to be?

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

That is true and something my father was patient and understanding enough not to lose his temper about when I would ***** and rail about Nixon and Vietnam in my teens. There was plenty wrong with him, but Vietnam was on Kennedy and Johnson, not Nixon (in our country--the Geneva Conference dividing the country in two led to problems in Vietnam, IMO, similar to the Balkan Peninsula (Yugoslavia), Iraq, and other places that were partitioned according to geographic and not historic or cultural lines).

I thought Robert McNamara's two books looking back on Vietnam were interesting reads. I've forgotten nearly all of it, of course, because I read them more than two months ago, but he raised some interesting observations after meetings he had with former dignitaries and military personnel from N Vietnam, including Kennedy's "pay any price, bear any burden" inaugural speech and the effect it had on North Vietnam's perception of our intentions in S.E. Asia.

The day Nixon took the oath, in January of '69, there were 600,000 Americans in Vietnam and he had nothing to do with sending any of them there. We had an election in '64. One candidate said (I paraphrase) "We're in a shooting war in Vietnam, and we should do whatever's necessary to win it or get out." He was universally denounced as a "war monger." Instead, we elected the "peace" candidate (and gave him massive veto proof majorities in Congress). Do da Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ring a bell?

One of the great unanswered questions is what would JFK have done in Vietnam if he'd lived. The Oliver Stone perspective is that Kennedy would have ended the war. And maybe he would have. But there's no conclusive evidence on that point. The "Stoners" suggest that JFK's plans to withdraw 1,000 troops support the "end the war" scenario. He would have had to withdraw far more than 1,000. On the day he took the oath the number of Americans in Vietnam was in the hundreds. On the day he died, there were 13 or 14K Americans in Vietnam. He had authorized the creation of the Green Berets, to fight counter insurgency warfare in Vietnam. And even authorized them to wear their unique headgear.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The problem with the UN (besides FIFA-level corruption) is it weighs all nations' interests equally. The political reality of the world is it's a community with a half dozen extremely powerful individuals and then 200 or so peons. The way stability has been achieved traditionally in that configuration is the powerful form a cartel (an aristocracy, a priesthood, an "industry lobby," a royal house) that suppresses competition between powerful actors and divies up wealth extraction from a subject population into spheres of influence.

The most effective entity to police the world at this time would be a "Concert of Europe"-like cartel composed of the US/UK, China, Russia, Germany/France, and maybe India -- you need enough members or span the globe but not so many that its too unwieldy. Of course to have that each member has to be happy with the slice of the pie they already have, and right now Russia is dissatisfied. The other problem is these arrangements are by definition deeply conservative and undemocratic, like any oligarchy. But it does work, especially when backed by enormous advantage of firepower.

We could call it the League of Nations.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

No question Bush II got us entangled in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I have no time for politicians, in office and in charge, or their supporters, who sit and point the finger and complain the mess was created by their predecessor.

We know it was created by their predecessor. That's probably why you got elected. You wanted the job. You claimed you could do it better. You knew about the mess when you applied for the job. Fix the problem.

By the way, this habit is not unique to Democrats or Republicans, or limited to government at the Federal level. I just have no time for it.

Nice concept but there is no fix for this particular problem. You cannot fix people that want to live in the 12th century, and the more you kill them the more they reproduce new ones. Dingbat (Bush II) completely blew off the pottery barn rule and we are stuck in this crap for the next millennium.

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The problem with the UN (besides FIFA-level corruption) is it weighs all nations' interests equally. The political reality of the world is it's a community with a half dozen extremely powerful individuals and then 200 or so peons. The way stability has been achieved traditionally in that configuration is the powerful form a cartel (an aristocracy, a priesthood, an "industry lobby," a royal house) that suppresses competition between powerful actors and divies up wealth extraction from a subject population into spheres of influence.

The most effective entity to police the world at this time would be a "Concert of Europe"-like cartel composed of the US/UK, China, Russia, Germany/France, and maybe India -- you need enough members or span the globe but not so many that its too unwieldy. Of course to have that each member has to be happy with the slice of the pie they already have, and right now Russia is dissatisfied. The other problem is these arrangements are by definition deeply conservative and undemocratic, like any oligarchy. But it does work, especially when backed by enormous advantage of firepower.

Pretty good solution. The hope is that you set up a select/broad set of global rules that most everyone can agree on...i.e., strict regard for international borders...get buy in from global citizens, have joint financing, and then have an international organization with enough credibility globally to win the hearts and minds both on the ground and globally.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Pretty good solution. The hope is that you set up a select/broad set of global rules that most everyone can agree on...i.e., strict regard for international borders...get buy in from global citizens, have joint financing, and then have an international organization with enough credibility globally to win the hearts and minds both on the ground and globally.

The thorny problem for any solution of this kind is enforcement. It would be wonderful indeed to "set up a broad set of global rules that everyone agrees on." But then what happens when someone violates those rules? Is the penalty for a violation also "set up and agreed upon" in advance?

Inside any one country's boundaries, their internal police force and judiciary system enforce the rules and apply penalties for violation. However, in the international sphere, who supplies the police and their equipment? Who pays for it?

That's where these "global agreements" always break down, no?

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

PS

While I was quite dissatisfied with the manner in which the Iraq occupation was conducted, I was surprised and impressed that something like 30 nations contributed funds, people, and material to that effort (plus an additional 15 countries that wished to remain anonymous that also contributed "overflight rights" and "supply chain permissions", according to the BBC article), just as I was surprised when both Russia and China agreed not to oppose the Security Council resolutions to authorize the UN as the body that would oversee the invasion and occupation.

Just imagine how different things would be if France had not vetoed UN action, and it was a UN force and not a US force that invaded and toppled Saddam!!


I was not very surprised to find out that France's opposition at the Security Council turned out to be mainly to keep hidden the fact that so many people in the French government were being bribed by Saddam Hussein.

[Foxton]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Just imagine how different things would be if France had not vetoed UN action, and it was a UN force and not a US force that invaded and toppled Saddam!!

Just imagine if the US hadn't lied about the reasons to invade Iraq or if they happened to find ANY of the claimed WMDs.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Just imagine if the US hadn't lied about the reasons to invade Iraq or if they happened to find ANY of the claimed WMDs.

Everyone is a genius in retrospect, eh?

Funny, if I think that something is true, and it turns out that I was mistaken, is that a "lie"? I thought that a "lie" included a deliberate attempt to deceive, and if I thought I was telling the truth but I was relying on erroneous information, that was a "mistake" but not a "lie."

The whole pretext for the invasion and occupation was that Saddam was refusing to comply with multiple UN resolutions. Saddam himself could have short-circuited the whole process merely by saying, "welcome, UN weapons inspectors. I have no WMDs, and you have full and unfettered access to any place you want to look to prove it."

If it was a "lie" then Saddam himself did plenty to perpetuate that "lie" as well.

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Everyone is a genius in retrospect, eh?

Funny, if I think that something is true, and it turns out that I was mistaken, is that a "lie"? I thought that a "lie" included a deliberate attempt to deceive, and if I thought I was telling the truth but I was relying on erroneous information, that was a "mistake" but not a "lie."

The whole pretext for the invasion and occupation was that Saddam was refusing to comply with multiple UN resolutions. Saddam himself could have short-circuited the whole process merely by saying, "welcome, UN weapons inspectors. I have no WMDs, and you have full and unfettered access to any place you want to look to prove it."

If it was a "lie" then Saddam himself did plenty to perpetuate that "lie" as well.

Plus, Hussein was a repeat offender in the use of WMD. Anybody remember the crudely hand lettered sign outside of a WMD manufacturing facility "baby milk factory?" It's an interesting phenomenon, this "idiot" George W. Bush, was able to convince the world's intelligence agencies (including Mossad) that Hussein had WMD. How could this "moron" have pulled that off? It's a wonderment.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Isn't that what the 5 permanent SC members are supposed to be?

Kind of. Whatever the intent, all they've been up until now is a way to veto any action that goes against one of the big guys' interests (for example, the US always vetoing any censure of Israel, or the PRC always shooting down any attempt to define human rights). They were a negative check but not a source of positive action. That's no so much the fault of the big guys as of the limitations of the UN itself. Metternich didn't call for a vote before stomping on Venice or Sardinia, he just wrote to the Czar and the Prussian King to make sure they weren't unduly alarmed by it. I'm thinking of an arrangement like the latter. The "price" of the rival powers looking the other way when you wanted to "clean the yard" was they in turn would more or less heavy handedly do their own local laundry. We want to finish IS off? Fine -- but no complaining when Ivan has to rush "emergency medical supplies" to Donetsk.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Pretty good solution. The hope is that you set up a select/broad set of global rules that most everyone can agree on...i.e., strict regard for international borders...get buy in from global citizens, have joint financing, and then have an international organization with enough credibility globally to win the hearts and minds both on the ground and globally.

Really that's not what I was suggesting. I'd prefer that as a solution, but it would never fly now because for better or worse the big boys would never cede sovereignty -- even in symbolic form -- to an international organization, and of course such an organization would always be compromised because it would so wildly flaunt democratic norms by only listening to 5 or 6 of the 200 nations of the planet. What I was suggesting was to have no formal international entity at all, but an informal conspiracy among the major players to each police their own sector and not object when the others do the same. This of course does happen, but as we've seen it is often trumped by other geopolitical considerations. The trick, in this hypothesis, would be to make the suppression of terrorism (but with it, of course, legitimate striving for local sovereignty) explicitly paramount. Jockeying for relative advantage between the great powers would still take place, but only in the marginalia left over after questions of global security were settled.

At some point we may evolve to the point where international actors are more of a community and less of a gang of wild dogs, but we're not there yet -- heck, there are a huge number of people among us who can't even wrap their heads around the concept of law within, let alone between, nations. And none of that is even considering the potentially healthy effect of decentralizing power and authority as much as possible throughout the world to avoid a dystopic future, be it German, Chinese, or Herpa-derp.

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Today in der-- wait, what? Huh? Are you currently under the care of a physician?

[Foxton]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The whole pretext for the invasion and occupation was that Saddam was refusing to comply with multiple UN resolutions. Saddam himself could have short-circuited the whole process merely by saying, "welcome, UN weapons inspectors. I have no WMDs, and you have full and unfettered access to any place you want to look to prove it."

Keep on truckin, trying to continue your parties eternal attempts to revise history.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea.../18_blix.shtml
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Hey Kepler - regarding your trading partners....

Do we divide the world horizontally or vertically?