Father Knows Best

[Ben Arown-Awile]

In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written in 1998, former President George H.W. Bush wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs...We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

 

[hollowdweller]

I've read that before.

I'm happy for all those people in Iraq that don't have Saddam anymore. I'm happy for all the people in the former East block countries that aren't under communisim anymore.

On the other hand I do worry now that communisim is gone that there is nothing really that will prevent any future US leader from trying to change the globe is he sees fit. I see no problem with projecting our military might to protect our country and even our economic interestst in some instances, but the thing that will be so hard for us as citizens is to be able to figure out whether it is really justified by the facts. The combination of government secrecy and complacency by the press in investigating the actual facts I believe seriously impairs our ability to make an informed choice on such things. Also without the balance of the USSR I fear we may rush into things best left alone.

The other problem I see with the US being the major mover and shaker is that it seems like our government and our people to a large degree seem to lack an understanding of the history and customs of the cultures they are attempting to change.

It seems to me like almost any other country has a citizenry and gov't that seems to have a better grasp of the politics and culture of other places than we do. Maybe this is because we are not really near anybody else, but it is a major obstacle in international relations I believe.

 

[Thomas Linton]

I've read that before.

I'm happy for all those people in Iraq that don't have Saddam anymore. I'm happy for all the people in the former East block countries that aren't under communisim anymore.

On the other hand I do worry now that communisim is gone that there is nothing really that will prevent any future US leader from trying to change the globe is he sees fit. I see no problem with projecting our military might to protect our country and even our economic interestst in some instances, but the thing that will be so hard for us as citizens is to be able to figure out whether it is really justified by the facts. The combination of government secrecy and complacency by the press in investigating the actual facts I believe seriously impairs our ability to make an informed choice on such things. Also without the balance of the USSR I fear we may rush into things best left alone.

The other problem I see with the US being the major mover and shaker is that it seems like our government and our people to a large degree seem to lack an understanding of the history and customs of the cultures they are attempting to change.

It seems to me like almost any other country has a citizenry and gov't that seems to have a better grasp of the politics and culture of other places than we do. Maybe this is because we are not really near anybody else, but it is a major obstacle in international relations I believe.

HD, as a former history teacher, I share your concern about the lack of knowledge of our citizens - and the vast majority of the citizens of all nations.

What prevents us from ruling the world directly? One small country and one medium country exceed our military capacity and we're broke. If America conquers the world it won't be by force of arms.

As for the relative "grasp" of our citizens, what about the French who agree with the statement "Americans are all alike"? That would make you and Pat Robertson political soul-mates, HD. LOL

DIJ can chime in on the typical world view in Japan.

Then there's China - and the "barbarians" (That would be you, HD.).

The grass is always greener, but the reality is that there are "weeds" all over the world.

Don't weep for Communism, of which little remains except China and North Korea. The need to balance the U.S. was one of the rationales for those who supported Joe Stalin while the Gulags operated 24 x 7. (Now there was a sweet guy!)

 

[Spectre]

American cannot really force its will upon the world, but sometimes I am afraid it
might be foolish enough to try.

A nation that confronts the rest of the world invariably loses. Greece, Rome, France, Germany, USSR...It may take a while, but nobody can control most of the world for long.

John

 

[arty]

It is not just N. Korea. Look at what happened in Vietnam...it is no democracy, and it sure is not capitalist. We went in, lost too many fine men, declared victory, and left.

 

[Spectre]

The Korean conflict was decidedly different than the Vietnamese one. Had it been me, I would have ordered MacArthur to bomb the bridges, and maybe the Chinese staging areas.

In all honesty, who knows what shape the world would be in if that had happened?