The Pax Americana is Dead

[TGHusker]

Article:

 

http://www.hoover.org/research/pax-americana-dead

 

 

Interesting article, even more interesting comments after it.

 

Discussion ??s

 

1. Is Pax Americana dead?

2. Has Pax Americana been good for the world?

3. To answer # 2 one may need to ask: what would the world be like if not for the umbrella of American military and economic might since the early 1900s?

4. If Pax Americana is over, what should replace it?

5. Is the article correct in stating that Obama's lack of being decisive (and non-involvement) causing all of the world hotspots to ignite. Has Obama's actions been an over-reaction to GWB too gung-ho 'cowboy' foreign policy?

6. With Hilary's distancing from Obama's Syria strategy, is she trying to position herself as the 'just right' potential president between GWB and Obama?

 

 

 

My thoughts:

1. It is dead during this presidency. Obama has loss creditability with his lines in the sands, his weak defense of allies, and his rhetoric that doesn't scare foes or builds trust with our friends.

2. & 3 Overall, yes. American had to get involve in WW1, WW2 and Korea to stop totalitarianism from taking over the world. We rebuild Europe and Japan and we have fostered trade with former enemies since then - Vietnam, China, etc. Our strength economically has helped the world through direct foreign aid and indirectly via the World Trade Organization, IMF, the UN, etc. Militarily: we have for the most part kept various thugs from conquering many nations. However, I do think we have at times overstepped into areas we didn't need to get involved in and overstayed our welcome in other places. At other times we 'pulled our puches' too much instead of going for 'total surrender (Vietnam and 1st Gulf War) GWB's nation building concept was an overstep. You can't force democracy on a people who culturally aren't ready for it.

I do wonder if we were less dependent on M.E. oil, if we'd be much less involved in the gulf. Our support of Israel alone may have kept us tied up there. Without Pax Amer - we might all be speaking German or Russian. The Cold War would have been much different and may still be going on.

4. I don't think Pax Americana needs to be over or should be over. I do think it needs to be defined better. No more nation building. More real partnerships for the purpose of building good and stopping bad. I think the world needs America to be strong and to have strong leadership to make peace work. If there is not a good structure in place to replace Pax Amer, then a vacuum is filled by what we see going on in Syria/Iraq and other places. We give the thugs the courage to step out of the shadows.

5. A. - Not all hot spots as some would've started regardless of who was president. and B. - Yes - Obama giving dates when he says we will leave Iraq and Afgan seem more to please his political promises/agenda/needs than good policy.

( Now Obama passes the buck again for Iraq withdrawal - blame GWB, others)

His drawing lines in the sand and not doing anything allows the thugs to be bold. I think he was trying too hard to be the anti-GWB.

6. Yes - we all know the Clinton's - it isn't about core convictions but about political posturing for personal gain. The once loyal SOS is now having to put on her political hat and distance herself from an increasingly unpopular president (now at 40%).

 

 

Definitions:

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Pax_Americana.html

Pax Americana^[1][2][3] (Latin for "American Peace") is an appellation applied to the historical concept of relative peace in the Western hemisphere and, later, the Western world, resulting from the preponderance of power enjoyed by the United States of America starting around the turn of the 20th century. Although the term finds its primary utility in the later half of the 20th century, it has been used in various places and eras, such as the post United States Civil War Era in North America^[4] and globally during the time between the Great World Wars.^[2]

Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations concerning the peace established after the end of World War II in 1945. In this modern sense, the term has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. The term derives from and is inspired by the Pax Romana of the Roman empire, the Pax Britannica of the British Empire and the Pax Mongolica of the Mongol Empire.^[5]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations to refer to the peace among great powers established after the end of World War II in 1945, also called the long peace. In this modern sense, it has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations. For example the Marshall Plan, which spent $13 billion to rebuild the economy of Western Europe, has been seen as "the launching of the pax americana."^[5]

[tschu]

Is there anything you won't blame Obama for?

[TGHusker]

Is there anything you won't blame Obama for?

That was quick! I'll counter - Is there anything you don't support him on? If you actually read my post - it is more about the concept of Pax Americana and whether it should continue, is it over etc. I blame GWB for overstepping and Obama for not being decisive - in agreement with the article. I also do not blame him for all of the hot spots that we currently face.

Perhaps instead of being so sensitive about what people say or don't say about Obama, look at the post and respond with thought about the questions I'm throwing out for discussion.

[BigRedBuster]

Is there anything you won't blame Obama for?

Why not discuss the topic instead of becoming defensive towards Obama?

[BigRedBuster]

As to the original topic.

 

I read a different article on this a couple weeks ago and I have been having some of these same questions going through my head ever since.

 

A few things I believe have become obvious.

 

a) The American public (me included) is sick of footing the bill in both money and lives for everyone else's security around the world.

 

b) When America steps back from this job, a vacuum is formed and something will fill it.

 

c) So far, the bad guys have filled this vacuum.

 

I personally wish maybe the European Union would step up and take more of this. They are closer to the action and stand to have more of an immediate negative affect if things go bad in the ME. However, it seems like when we try to do something, they are some of the first to criticize.

 

I'm fine with sitting back and seeing what they suggest doing about the problem.

 

In my utopia world, we would pull back so much from all of this crap that we need to have very very VERY little military. Utopia never happens so I am not expecting that to happen. It WON'T even come close to happening unless someone else steps up as the policemen of the world.

[carlfense]

As to the original topic.

 

I read a different article on this a couple weeks ago and I have been having some of these same questions going through my head ever since.

 

A few things I believe have become obvious.

 

a) The American public (me included) is sick of footing the bill in both money and lives for everyone else's security around the world.

 

b) When America steps back from this job, a vacuum is formed and something will fill it.

 

c) So far, the bad guys have filled this vacuum.

 

I personally wish maybe the European Union would step up and take more of this. They are closer to the action and stand to have more of an immediate negative affect if things go bad in the ME. However, it seems like when we try to do something, they are some of the first to criticize.

 

I'm fine with sitting back and seeing what they suggest doing about the problem.

 

In my utopia world, we would pull back so much from all of this crap that we need to have very very VERY little military. Utopia never happens so I am not expecting that to happen. It WON'T even come close to happening unless someone else steps up as the policemen of the world.

+1

[LukeinNE]

As to the original topic.

 

I read a different article on this a couple weeks ago and I have been having some of these same questions going through my head ever since.

 

A few things I believe have become obvious.

 

a) The American public (me included) is sick of footing the bill in both money and lives for everyone else's security around the world.

 

b) When America steps back from this job, a vacuum is formed and something will fill it.

 

c) So far, the bad guys have filled this vacuum.

 

I personally wish maybe the European Union would step up and take more of this. They are closer to the action and stand to have more of an immediate negative affect if things go bad in the ME. However, it seems like when we try to do something, they are some of the first to criticize.

 

I'm fine with sitting back and seeing what they suggest doing about the problem.

 

In my utopia world, we would pull back so much from all of this crap that we need to have very very VERY little military. Utopia never happens so I am not expecting that to happen. It WON'T even come close to happening unless someone else steps up as the policemen of the world.

 

So....announce a complete phased military withdrawal from Europe? It'd be rather like that teacher who located me hiding in a corner at a jr. high dance and physically pushed me into something that I feared more than death.

[BigRedBuster]

 

As to the original topic.

 

I read a different article on this a couple weeks ago and I have been having some of these same questions going through my head ever since.

 

A few things I believe have become obvious.

 

a) The American public (me included) is sick of footing the bill in both money and lives for everyone else's security around the world.

 

b) When America steps back from this job, a vacuum is formed and something will fill it.

 

c) So far, the bad guys have filled this vacuum.

 

I personally wish maybe the European Union would step up and take more of this. They are closer to the action and stand to have more of an immediate negative affect if things go bad in the ME. However, it seems like when we try to do something, they are some of the first to criticize.

 

I'm fine with sitting back and seeing what they suggest doing about the problem.

 

In my utopia world, we would pull back so much from all of this crap that we need to have very very VERY little military. Utopia never happens so I am not expecting that to happen. It WON'T even come close to happening unless someone else steps up as the policemen of the world.

 

So....announce a complete phased military withdrawal from Europe? It'd be rather like that teacher who located me hiding in a corner at a jr. high dance and physically pushed me into something that I feared more than death.

 

Not sure where you got that from.

[LukeinNE]

Not sure where you got that from.

 

Sorry, I was referencing your comment about the EU stepping up. Perhaps us taking a step back there would force them to take their military capability more seriously?

[BigRedBuster]

 

Not sure where you got that from.

 

Sorry, I was referencing your comment about the EU stepping up. Perhaps us taking a step back there would force them to take their military capability more seriously?

 

Since I acknowledged that my utopia of little to no American military will never happen, I understand we will always be involved in some manner around the world. My point about the EU is that my feelings are if they think they are so much smarter than we are in dealing with this crap, then start putting their money and lives where their mouth is and take care of it for a while. It's time for America to go on a cigarette break.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Not sure where you got that from.

 

Sorry, I was referencing your comment about the EU stepping up. Perhaps us taking a step back there would force them to take their military capability more seriously?

 

Since I acknowledged that my utopia of little to no American military will never happen, I understand we will always be involved in some manner around the world. My point about the EU is that my feelings are if they think they are so much smarter than we are in dealing with this crap, then start putting their money and lives where their mouth is and take care of it for a while. It's time for America to go on a cigarette break.

 

BRB I agree with you in principle. Ok we rebuilt Europe, check that off the list, we rebuilt Japan, check that off the list, we saved S. Korea's skin, ck that off the list, We've saved Saudi Arabia's kingdom over and over again (they were next in line for Saddam after Kuwait in 91)- ditto that with Israel (although Israel can fight a good fight without our manpower and have done so), we've stopped communism in SE Asia from spreading beyond Vietnam even though we couldn't stop it ultimately there, etc. Time to let the strong economies of Europe, Japan, S Korea etc to pony up and spend money on protecting the civilized world. We could start by reducing some of the bases overseas.

There are some that argue that we our cutting our defense too much and that has caused an inability for us to be able to respond to these hotspots. I would say, lets build up the structures that would allow Europe etc to carry a bigger load so that we don't have too. Let's not cut back while there is a vacuum in our wake. Instead of nation building, we need to be coalition building where there is a more even distribution of responsibility to keep the peace. I believe that is what Obama wanted to do in response to GWB but I think some missteps have hurt our creditability and hasn't repaired the GWB breach of trust caused by his unilateralism.

[knapplc]

The reason tschu responded immediately with "is there anything you won't blame Obama for" is that this concept of the "Pax Americana" is a farce. At no time has there been a lengthy peace during America's existence, and certainly not one that America has forged.

 

In context (despite the blathering of the wikipedia nonsense), a "pax" would be at least somewhat comparable to the peace forged by the Romans that lasted generation after generation. The Pax Romana was 200 years of almost zero conflict through utter domination of Rome's sphere of influence, and it's where the world awakened to the concept of a "pax ______." Of course, the Romans forged that peace at spear point, through genocide and the constant threat of invasion and utter ruination by their legions. Razing everything to the ground and salting the earth so no crops grow for years kinda makes the neighboring countries think twice about rebellion, but that's not exactly the kind of image America wants these days - at least, not sane Americans.

 

Per Wikipedia, another comparable period of peace was the Pax Mongolica, again forged through the hell of conquest. It wasn't some benign peace where harmony existed throughout the world, it was a period of sheer terror for everyone not a Mongol, where rape & plunder were common for those who lived under the Mongol thumb. Again, not a peace Americans want, or should want.

 

Unlike Rome, America hasn't forged even 20 years of peace throughout their sphere of influence (which is global).

 

 

Barack Obama hasn't ended any time of peace lasting generations - such a peace hasn't existed throughout the history of the United States. Obama inherited two wars started not seven years before his presidency started. The Cold War "ended" 17 years before Obama took office - less than one generation - but eight years after the Cold War ended Putin came to power, and has been in power since. At no time during Putin's reign has there been a "peace" between the countries, and certainly not one that Obama is in any way responsible for ending.

 

The lack of understanding of basic history here isn't appalling, it's absurd in that there is - apparently - some expectation that it will be believed to be genuine.

[BigRedBuster]

Has there been a utopian peace in the world over the last 100 years? Heck no.

 

However, to think that America hasn't been a part of keeping at least some type of peace in many parts of the world with force is being either not honest or naive.

 

Today, the world has erupted in violence on many fronts which lead to this question. No, I don't necessarily blame Obama for this. Maybe some do but not me.

 

America is losing their ability to hold down aggression in some corners of the world. Some of that is our own fault. For instance, taking out Saddam replaced one horrible tyrant with a very unstable government which has lead to more and more violence.

 

In a way, our wars in the ME lead to (or at least contributed to) the Arab Spring which has lead to some of the violence in other parts of the region. This is exacerbated by the fact we are pulling our troops out of the region on several fronts. Again, I don't really blame Obama for this. The American public is tired of being there and footing the bill in both dollars and lives. I am included in that group.

 

Our presence there in some way or another over the last 50-60 years has kept a certain level of peace. That is also one large reason why people there hate us so much. The problem is, when we pull out, those people who hate us so much end up killing each other. Hmmmm....so, what happens?....we are now are seeing our government exert our force again in air strikes and a small group of boots on the ground to try to bring back some type of peace.

 

Pax______ doesn't mean (at least to me) that there is a utopian love and peace amongst everyone in the world produced by our military. It simply means that we have prevented groups of people from exterminating each other. I believe we have done that over the last 50-60 years.

[carlfense]

Weakness. Fecklessness. No credibility. Tyrannical.

[BigRedBuster]

Weakness. Fecklessness. No credibility. Tyrannical.

If that was aimed at me it missed the mark. That's not what I am saying.