 |
| |
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Srry, but the only way the Monroe doctrine worked was cause it was also in [bn]British[/b] interests. In 1820 the US could not have stopped any imperial power from taking over SA states, specially Britain. BUt Britian could keep them at bay, which was in Brisith interest cause then they could gain market share. So Latin America owes more to the UK than US until well into the 19th century.
|
Yes and no. By 1860, the US had a significant naval presence in the western hemisphere so that even the mighty British would have second thoughts. All in all, Africa was much easier pickings.
quote:
Even then, the US failed to keep the French adventuresrs out of Mexico, and it was the Mexicans who drove them out. |
We were kinda busy with our own Civil War at the time so you can hardly blame the US. After 1865, a war-weary US sent aid to Mexico to help kick the French out.
quote:
The US meddled far far less, so the two situations are not compatible. You also ignore European meddling in Latin America and US meddling in Africa after 1945. |
The whole point is that the US meddled less in Latin American. Post 1945 the Cold War significantly increased foreign activities in both the US and the USSR. Democratization took a back seat to Cold War politics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Yes and no. By 1860, the US had a significant naval presence in the western hemisphere so that even the mighty British would have second thoughts. All in all, Africa was much easier pickings. |
Africa was also not made up of independent tastes founded on the European model. Notice that the only large indpendent African state of that time, Abyssinia, was relatively left alone, and it was left to the Italians to try somehting in 1896 , and lose. Oh, and US active intervention in Latin Americ is a bit bigger than you give it credit, specially in Central America, like in Nicaragua.
quote:
We were kinda busy with our own Civil War at the time so you can hardly blame the US. After 1865, a war-weary US sent aid to Mexico to help kick the French out.
|
Yes, help: anyone can send help. If Europeans were chomping at the mouth to get American colonies back, why did only Napoleon the II take a swipe at it? The Russians were happy getting rid of their American possesions for Cash before that. Overall, European powers were NOT much interested in remaking American Empires. As you say, Africa and the Far East were much better pickings and a whole lot simpler, even if there had been no Monroe doctrine. You forget, for example, that those states in America won their independence by their own hands..if one European power had been booted (well, two if you count the French in haiti), why go through the trouble? Don;t overestimate the significance of the Monroe donctrine.
quote:
The whole point is that the US meddled less in Latin American. Post 1945 the Cold War significantly increased foreign activities in both the US and the USSR. Democratization took a back seat to Cold War politics. |
It was very active in the Carribean and Central America (Mexico as well). You forget how busy the US was in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua in the 1910'2, 20's and 30's. The US lacked the ability to do much in South America until the late 1800's when it begun to competet with entrenched British interests.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
hi ,
yes the US tends to get involved , so to speak off , ......
Current Operations
Name Locale Dates US Forces
Former Yugoslavia and Kosovo
Joint Guardian Kosovo 11 Jun 1999 TDB 200?
Allied Force / Noble Anvil
Determined Force
Cobalt Flash Kosovo 23 Mar 1999
08 Oct 1998
10 Jun 1999
23 Mar 1999
Shining Hope
Sustain Hope / Allied Harbour
Provide Refuge
Open Arms Kosovo 05 April 1999 Fall 1999
Eagle Eye Kosovo 16 Oct 1998 24 Mar 1999
Determined Falcon Kosovo & Albania 15 Jun 1998 16 Jun 1998
Determined Effort
Joint Endeavor
Joint Guard
Joint Forge Bosnia-Herzegovina Jul 1995
Dec 1995
Dec 1996
20 Jun 98 Dec 1995
Dec 1996
20 Jun 98
Present
6,900
DELIBERATE FORCE Bosnian Serbs 29 Aug 1995 21 Sep 1995
Quick Lift Croatia 03 Jul 1995 11 Aug 1995
Nomad Vigil
Nomad Endeavor Albania
Taszar, Hungary 01 Jul 1995
March 1996 05 Nov 1996
Present
Able Sentry Serbia-Macedonia 5 Jul 1994 present
Deny Flight
Decisive Endeavor / Decisive Edge
Decisive Guard / Deliberate Guard
Deliberate Forge Bosnia-Herzegovina 12 Apr 1993
Jan 1996
Dec 1996
20 Jun 1998
20 Dec 1995
Dec 1996
20 Jun 1998
Present 2,000
??
??
Sky Monitor Bosnia-Herzegovina 16 Oct 1992 present
Maritime Monitor
Maritime Guard
Sharp Guard
Decisive Enhancement
Determined Guard Adriatic Sea 16 Jul 1992
22 Nov 1992
15 Jun 1993
Dec 1995
Dec 1996
22 Nov 1992
15 Jun 1993
Dec 1995
19 Jun 1996
Present ??
??
11,700
??
??
Provide Promise Bosnia 03 Jul 1992 Mar 1996 1,000
Southwest Asia
[none] (air strike)
[none] (cruise missile strike)
[none] (cruise missile strike)
DESERT STRIKE
DESERT THUNDER
DESERT FOX
Iraq 26 Jun 1993
13 Jan 1993
17 Jan 1993
03 Sep 1996
Feb 1998
16 Dec 1998
13 Jan 1993
17 Jan 1993
26 Jun 1993
04 Sep 1996
16 Dec 1998
20 Dec 1998
Shining Presence Israel Dec 1998 Dec 1998
Phoenix Scorpion IV
Phoenix Scorpion III
Phoenix Scorpion II
Phoenix Scorpion I Iraq Dec 1998
Nov 1998
Feb 1998
Nov 1997 Dec 1998
Nov 1998
Feb 1998
Nov 1997
Desert Focus Saudi Arabia Jul 1996 present
Vigilant Warrior
Vigilant Sentinel
Intrinsic Action
Desert Spring Kuwait Oct 1994
Aug 1995
1 Dec 1995
1 Oct 1999 Nov 1994
15 Feb 1997
1 Oct 1999
present
Iris Gold SW Asia ?? 1993 present
Pacific Haven / Quick Transit Iraq > Guam 15 Sep 1996 16 Dec 1996
Provide Comfort
Provide Comfort II
Northern Watch Kurdistan 5 Apr 1991
24 July 1991
31 Dec 1996 Dec 1994
31 Dec 1996
Present 42,500
??
1,100
Southern Watch Southwest Asia / Iraq 1991 present 14,000
Desert Falcon Saudi Arabia 1991 present
Other Operations
Korea Korea ongoing ongoing
New Horizons Central America ongoing ongoing
Sierra Leone NEO Sierra Leone May 2000
MONUC [UN PKO] DR Congo Feb 2000 ongoing
Resolute Response Africa Aug 1998 Present
Gatekeeper
Hold-the-Line
Safeguard California
Texas
Arizona 1995 present
Golden Pheasant Honduras Mar 1988 Present
Alliance US Southern border 1986 Present
Provide Hope I
Provide Hope II
Provide Hope III
Provide Hope IV
Provide Hope V Former Soviet Union 10 Feb 1992
15 Apr 1992
1993?
10 Jan 1994
06 Nov 1998 26 Feb 1992
29 Jul 1992
1993?
19 Dec 1994
10 May 1999
Counterdrug Operations
Coronet Nighthawk
Coronet Oak Central/South America 1991
Oct 1977 present
17 Feb 1999
Selva Verde Colombia 1995 present
Badge Kentucky 1990 Present?
Ghost Dancer Oregon 1990 Present?
Greensweep
Grizzly California Jul 1990
1990 Aug 1990
Present?
Wipeout Hawaii 1990 Present
Ghost Zone Bolivia Mar 1990 1993?
Constant Vigil Bolivia 199? ??
Support Justice
Steady State
Green Clover
Laser Strike South America 1991
1994
199?
Apr 1996 1994
Apr 1996
199?
Present
Agate Path
Enhanced Ops CONUS 1989
??? ???
Present
Completed Operations
Name Locale Dates US Forces
Silent Promise Mozambique / South Africa Feb 2000 ? Apr 2000
Fundamental Response Venezuela 20 Dec 1999 early 2000
Stabilize Timor 11 Sep 1999 Nov 1999
Avid Response Turkey 18 Aug 1999 Sep 1999
Strong Support [Fuerte Apoyo] Central America Oct 1998 10 Feb 1999 5,700
Infinite Reach Sudan / Afganistan 20 Aug 1998 20 Aug 1998
Shepherd Venture Guinea-Bissau 10 Jun 1998 17 Jun 1998 130
[none] Asmara, Eritrea NEO 05 Jun 1998 06 Jun 1998 130
Noble Response Kenya 21 Jan 1998 25 Mar 1998
Bevel Edge Cambodia Jul 1997 Jul 1997
Noble Obelisk Sierra Leone May 1997 Jun 1997
Guardian Retrieval Congo (formerly Zaire) Mar 1997 Jun 1997
Silver Wake Albania 14 Mar 1997 26 Mar 1997
Guardian Assistance
Assurance / Phoenix Tusk Zaire/Rwanda/Uganda 15 Nov 1996 27 Dec 1996
Quick Response Central African Republic May 1996 Aug 1996
Assured Response Liberia Apr 1996 Aug 1996
Zorro II Mexico Dec 1995 02 May 1996
Third Taiwan Straits Crisis Taiwan Strait 21 Jul 1995 23 Mar 1996
Safe Border Peru / Ecuador 1995 30 Jun 1999
United Shield Somalia 03 Jan 1995 25 Mar 1995 4,000
Uphold/Restore Democracy Haiti 19 Sep 1994 31 Mar 1995 21,000
Quiet Resolve / Support Hope Rwanda 22 Jul 1994 30 Sep 1994 2,592
Safe Haven / Safe Passage
Sea Signal / JTF-160 Cuba > Panama
Haiti > Guantanamo, Cuba 06 Sep 1994
18 May 1994 01 Mar 1995
Feb 1996
Distant Runner Rwanda NEO 9 Apr 1994 15 Apr 1994
Korean Nuclear Crisis North Korea 10 Feb 1993 Jun 1994
[none] Liberian NEO 22 Oct 1992 25 Oct 1992
Provide Relief
Restore Hope
Continue Hope Somalia 14 Aug 1992
4 Dec 1992
4 May 1993 8 Dec 1992
4 May 1993
Dec 1993 ??
26,000
??
Provide Transition Angola 3 Aug 1992 9 Oct 1992
Garden Plot Los Angeles, CA May 1992 4,500
Silver Anvil Sierra Leone NEO 2 May 1992 5 May 1992
GTMO
Safe Harbor Haiti > Guantanamo, Cuba 23 Nov 1991
1992
Quick Lift Zaire 24 Sep 1991 07 Oct 1991
Victor Squared Haiti NEO Sep 1991
Fiery Vigil Philippines NEO June 1991
Productive Effort / Sea Angel Bangladesh May 1991 Jun 1991
Eastern Exit Somalia 02 Jan 1991 11 Jan 1991
Desert Shield
Imminent Thunder
Proven Force
DESERT STORM
DESERT SWORD / DESERT SABRE
Desert Calm
Desert Farewell Southwest Asia 02 Aug 1990
Nov 1990
17 Jan 1991
17 Jan 1991
24 Feb 1991
01 Mar 1991
01 Jan 1992 17 Jan 1991
Nov 1990
28 Feb 1991
28 Feb 1991
28 Feb 1991
01 Jan 1992
1992?
550,000
Steel Box / Golden Python Johnston Island 26 Jul 1990 18 Nov 1990
Sharp Edge Liberia May 1990 8 Jan 1991
Cold War Era Locale Dates US Forces
Classic Resolve Philippines Nov 1989 Dec 1989
Hawkeye St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 20 Sep 1989 17 Nov 1989
Nimrod Dancer
JUST CAUSE
Promote Liberty Panama May 1989
20 Dec 1989
31 Jan 1990 20 Dec 1989
31 Jan 1990
??
ERNEST WILL
PRAYING MANTIS Persian Gulf 24 Jul 1987
17 Apr 1988 02 Aug 1990
19 Apr 1988
Blast Furnace Bolivia Jul 1986 Nov 1986
EL DORADO CANYON Libya 12 Apr 1986 17 Apr 1986
Attain Document Libya 26 Jan 1986 29 Mar 1986
Achille Lauro Mediteranean 07 Oct 1985 11 Oct 1985
Intense Look Red Sea / Gulf of Suez Jul 1984 Jul 1984
URGENT FURY Grenada 23 Oct 1983 21 Nov 1983
Arid Farmer Chad / Sudan Aug 1983 Aug 1983
Early Call Egypt / Sudan 18 Mar 1983 Aug 1983
US Multinational Force [USMNF] Lebanon 25 Aug 1982 01 Dec 1987
Bright Star Egypt 06 Oct 1981 Nov 1981
Gulf of Sidra Libya / Mediterranean 18 Aug 1981 18 Aug 1981
RMT (Rocky Mountain Transfer) Colorado Aug 1981 Sep 1981
Central America El Salvador / Nicaragua 01 Jan 1981 01 Feb 1992
Creek Sentry Poland Dec 1980 1981
SETCON II Colorado May 1980 Jun 1980
EAGLE CLAW / Desert One Iran 25 Apr 1980
ROK Park Succession Crisis Korea 26 Oct 1979 28 Jun 1980
Elf One Saudi Arabia Mar 1979 15 Apr 1989
Yemen Iran/Yemen/Indian Ocean 06 Dec 1978 06 Jan 1979
Red Bean Zaire May 1978 June 1978
Ogaden Crisis Somalia / Ethiopia Feb 1978 23 Mar 1978
SETCON I Colorado 1978 1978
Paul Bunyan / Tree Incident Korea 18 Aug 1976 21 Aug 1976
Mayaguez Operation Cambodia 15 May 1975
New Life Vietnam NEO Apr 1975
Frequent Wind Evacuation of Saigon 29 Apr 1975 30 Apr 1975
Eagle Pull Cambodia 11 Apr 1975 13 Apr 1975
Nickel Grass Mideast 06 Oct 1973 17 Nov 1973
Garden Plot USA Domestic 30 Apr 1972 04 May 1972
Red Hat Johnston Island Jan 1971 Sep 1971
Ivory Coast / Kingpin Son Tay, Vietnam 20 Nov 1970 21 Nov 1970
Graphic Hand US Domestic 1970 1970
Red Fox [Pueblo incident] Korea theater 23 Jan 1968 05 Feb 1969
Six Day War Mideast 13 May 1967 10 Jun 1967
CHASE various 1967 1970
Powerpack Dominican Republic 28 Apr 1965 21 Sep 1966
Red Dragon Congo 23 Nov 1964 27 Nov 1964
[NONE] Chinese nuclear facilities 15 Oct 1963 Oct 1964
Cuban Missile Crisis Cuba, Worldwide 24 Oct 1962 01 Jun 1963
Vietnam War Vietnam 15 Mar 1962 28 Jan 1973
Operation Ranch Hand
Operation Rolling Thunder
Operation Arc Light
Operation Freedom Train
Operation Pocket Money
Operation Linebacker I
Operation Linebacker II
Operation Endsweep
Operation Ivory Coast / Kingpin
Operation Tailwind Vietnam
Vietnam
Southeast Asia
North Vietnam
North Vietnam
North Vietnam
North Vietnam
North Vietnam
North Vietnam
Laos Jan 62
24 Feb 65
18 Jun 65
06 Apr 72
09 May 72
10 May 72
18 Dec 72
27 Jan 72
21 Nov 70
1970 1971
Oct 68
Apr 70
10 May 72
23 Oct 72
23 Oct 72
29 Dec 72
27 Jul 73
21 Nov 70
1970
Berlin Berlin 14 Aug 1961 01 Jun 1963
Laos Laos 19 Apr 1961 07 Oct 1962
Congo Congo 14 Jul 1960 01 Sep 1962
Taiwan Straits Taiwan Straits
Quemoy and Matsu Islands 23 Aug 1958
23 Aug 1958 01 Jan 1959
01 Jun 1963
Blue Bat Lebanon 15 Jul 1958 20 Oct 1958
Suez Crisis Egypt 26 Jul 1956 15 Nov 1956
Taiwan Straits Taiwan Straits 11 Aug 1954 01 May 1955
Korean War Korea 27 Jun 1950 27 July 1953
Berlin Airlift Berlin 26 Jun 1948 30 Sep 1949
Cold War Worldwide 28 Feb 1946 25 Dec 1991
Early 20th Century Locale Dates US Forces
World War II Worldwide 07 Dec 1941 14 Aug 1945
Yangtze Service
China Service China 1926
1930
1937
1945 1927
1932
1939
1957
Russian Revolution Russia 12 Nov 1918 01 Apr 1920
World War I Europe 01 Aug 1914 11 Nov 1918
Mexican Expedition Mexico 14 Mar 1916 7 Feb 1917
Nicaragua Nicaragua 1909 1933
Latin American Campaigns Cuba
Haiti
Dominican Republic 1906
1915
1916 1909
1920
1924
19th Century Locale Dates US Forces
China Relief Expedition China 13 Jul 1900 5 Aug 1900
Philippine Insurrection Philippines 4 Feb 1899 15 Jun 1913
War with Spain Cuba, Phillipines 22 Jun 1898 13 Aug 1898 306,760
Controversy of 1889 Samoa 1889
Civil War Southern States 12 Apr 1861 9 Apr 1865 2,213,363
Utah (Morman) War Expedition Utah 1857 1858
Walker's Expeditions Nicaragua 1855 1860
Mexican War Texas 8 May 1846 13 Sep 1847 78,718
Aroostock War Canada 1838 1839
Patriot's War Canada 1837 1840
African Slave Trade Patrol Atlantic Ocean 1820 1861
War of 1812 Worldwide 18 Jun 1812 17 Feb 1815 286,730
Barbary Wars Libya 1801
1815 1805
1815
18th Century Locale Dates US Forces
Quasi-War with France United States 1798 1801
Whiskey Rebellion 1794
Indian Wars United States 1790 1891
Shays’ Rebellion 1786 1787
Revolutionary War United States 19 Apr 1775 19 Oct 1781
French and Indian War North America 1754 1763
King George's War 1744 1748
War of Jenkins' Ear 1739 1742
Queen Anne's War 1702 1702
King William's War 1689 1697
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
That's quite a list... are those all 200 + wars we've got into?
Supposedly, we've been involved in over 200 military conflicts, which given how long we've been in existence, averages a military conflict roughly every 13 months... which, for a supposedly peaceful nation is not a good track record. |
hi ,
nope , there are more , small scale conflicts and aide , etc , ...
that would double the list , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Africa was also not made up of independent tastes founded on the European model. |
Neither was Latin America.
quote:
Oh, and US active intervention in Latin Americ is a bit bigger than you give it credit, specially in Central America, like in Nicaragua. |
But nothing compared to what a European power of the time could have done.
quote:
Yes, help: anyone can send help. If Europeans were chomping at the mouth to get American colonies back, why did only Napoleon the II take a swipe at it? |
Again, because an increasingly powerful United States promised to make it difficult.
quote:
The Russians were happy getting rid of their American possesions for Cash before that. |
Because their claim was weak. America was waxing and could have eventually just taken Alaska. The Russians were lucky to get the pittance they got for so large an area.
quote:
Overall, European powers were NOT much interested in remaking American Empires. As you say, Africa and the Far East were much better pickings and a whole lot simpler, even if there had been no Monroe doctrine. |
Perhaps. The Monroe Doctrine was kind of like a car alarm. Won't stop a professional thief but may make him choose another target. Just because it was not an all powerful shield does not mean that it was worthless.
quote:
You forget, for example, that those states in America won their independence by their own hands..if one European power had been booted (well, two if you count the French in haiti), why go through the trouble? |
Yes, but the fact that they even considered taking on the powerful European nations at all is partly due to the American success story. Simon Bolivar himself admits that his revolutionary ideals were inspired by the United States.
quote:
It was very active in the Carribean and Central America (Mexico as well). You forget how busy the US was in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua in the 1910'2, 20's and 30's. The US lacked the ability to do much in South America until the late 1800's when it begun to competet with entrenched British interests. |
You're right, but again I would hold up the US's meddling against European meddling any time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Europeans meddled very little in Africa until the Berlin Congress, they only controlled the coasts. The Monroe Doctrine was a dog without teeth until the 1860s.
And "Neither was Latin America" is bollocks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
The fact is that European meddling in the Americas run far far deeper than European meddling in Africa. The differences are many:
Afro-Eurasian diseased wiped out the majority of naitves of the Americas: in only 5 states of the Americas do natives make up a majority, or close to half (Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia). MOst other states are populated by mixed popuations, direct decendents of Europeans and direct decendents of Africans.
Europeans were the ones regularly struck down by African disease. Save the southern part of the continent. Europeans were never more than a small ruling caste over the masses of locals.
European rule in the Americas varied, from 400 years plus to about 200 years for toher places. In African, the bulk of the colonization took place in less than 100 years. Again, only on the Cae of Good hope, and a few isoloated trading outposst did European precense ast longer.
Europeans, by the very act of destruction, were also left to create. The oldest universities in Latin America are older than English colonies in the Americas: how many universities were Europeans setting up in their African colonies in the 1890's? Europea's actions in Africa were generally destrcutive up until the last few decades (after WW1) when they begun then to set upi the insitutions for Africa to use.
American's won their independence by force mostly, and for the whole part, aided by geography, set their own borders. This, unlike what you say, did and has allowed people in Latin America to form strong national identities and independen histories. Neither of these is true for the majority of African states, and both being true is even less likely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
If they were not independent states.... and they were not based on the European model... then what were they and who's system were they using?? The Aztecs'? |
Originally, yes. The European model was imposed on Latin America, however that model was dependent on centrallized control, which was hard to impose outside of the population centers and without a decent infrastructure. I'm also not convinced that the nationalistic "for god, king and country" attitude existed for Latin American states in the same way it existed in Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Attitudes don't have anything to do with governmental models... |
Facism? Communism? Fundamentalist Theocracies? "God Save the King"?
quote:
and if we're talking about Aztecs and Incas then we're NOT talking about Latin America. |
I was refering to the geographic region, Central and South America.
Must sign off for the night gents. regards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
The Australian August 04, 2003
Washington's Pax Americana smacks of Roman power game
In-Depth Coverage
By Paul Kennedy
The US emphatically denies it has worldwide imperial ambitions, but the global spread of its military commitments suggests otherwise, writes Paul Kennedy
THERE is a cunning after-dinner board game called SPQR which involves the defence of the Roman Empire at its height. The board is a map of Europe and the Mediterranean, showing Roman cities and ports and the military roads and the sea lanes between them. The game involves the "senators and populace" moving selected Roman legions (there were 27 of them in, say, 80AD) along those internal lines in response to new threats, whether they come from Syria, Scotland or the Danube.
There were few places along the borders of the empire where one legion could not reinforce another within 10 days' march -- which was just as well, since Rome's expansion had given it many enemies, and a legion that was based in Sicily one year might find itself in the north of England the next, guarding Hadrian's Wall.
I thought of SPQR while reading Where Are the Legions? Global Deployments of US Forces, published by Global Security, the nonprofit and nonpartisan policy research group based outside Washington (www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...deployments.htm). The message is clear, and very disturbing: there may not be many US troops coming home soon, perhaps not for a long time.
Washington now has military forces in about 130 countries, fighting in some of them, peacekeeping and training foreign military units in others. You can hear George Washington turning in his grave.
To be sure, the US has had standing military commitments abroad since the end of the World War II -- the occupations of Germany and Japan, the Korean War and the global rivalry with the Soviet Union made sure of that.
But when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, it was generally assumed things would be different. Alas, that simply is not so. The fight against al-Qa'ida, the war and guerrilla resistance in Iraq, the implosion of Liberia, the continued unrest in Afghanistan, instability on the Korean peninsula and the need to reassure Japan of a strong US presence in the western Pacific have all conspired against a draw-down of US forces in the far corners of the globe. On the contrary, they have very much been drawn up.
Using official statistics, the editors at Global Security report there are 155 combat battalions in the US army. Before October 2001, only 17 of those were deployed on active combat service, in Kosovo and a few other hotspots (garrison deployment in Germany and Japan is not regarded as "active combat" service). Today, that figure stands at 98 combat battalions deployed in active areas.
Even a non-military expert can see this is an impossibly high number to sustain over the longer term, which is why, in addition to the 255,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guard forces deployed in combat and peacekeeping missions abroad, the US has sent another 136,000 troops from the National Guard and Reserves.
Most of the US carrier fleet are now back in their bases, being refitted after the defeat of Saddam Hussein, but Washington still has 40,000 sailors afloat and on mission. Meanwhile, the US generals are asking for more troop deployments in Iraq, and the Pentagon has just diverted three warships to the coast of Liberia. The US Defence Department now has to play a real-life game of SPQR.
These are not comfortable facts, and they should surely be giving US congressional representatives cause for thought. It is true the Pentagon is putting immense pressure on any country that counts itself a friend of Washington to send forces to Iraq, Afghanistan and Liberia, but the results so far are unspectacular.
Really, the only ground troops with heft and logistical capacity are the British, and, given all their other peacekeeping commitments -- from the Balkans to Sierra Leone -- they are probably more overstretched than the US is. Poland has assumed responsibility for running a relatively quiet (so far) zone in Iraq. But as the Wall Street Journal reported, Washington had to go to 22 countries to drum up the 9000 troops for that zone, and they will rely heavily on US technical support to function at all.
You wonder what utility Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz really accord a battalion of Latvian grenadiers in central Iraq. And what happens when they become the targets of grenade attacks?
Militarily -- and let's forget for a moment the debate about whether the US should have gone into these countries in the first place -- these awkward facts point to two equally awkward conclusions:
First, given the military overstretch, the US needs a few more heavy hitters, along with the British. It needs armies with substantial punch that could send 25,000 troops to southwest Asia. But of the 190 national armies of the world, you can count substantial ones on the fingers of one hand. Israel can't play, China and Taiwan won't play. South Korea is pinned down at home and remains a drain on US troop deployments. Japan is too psychologically and constitutionally restricted. A Pakistani presence alongside the US in Iraq might cause massive internal convulsions. A large Turkish contingent would cause a retaliatory Kurdish uprising.
This leaves India, Russia, France and Germany, and perhaps Italy, but four of those five opposed the war on Iraq in the first place, and if the US needs them now, there will be a price to pay. This is as obvious today as it should have been last September. Of course, the US can always "go it alone", but it does so at some cost.
Second, the US miliary services, and the army in particular, must come up with some long-term rotation scheme. They may have to move to a sort of Cardwell System, which was devised in the late 19th century by the then British secretary for war, Edward Cardwell, to deal with the constant calls on troops to serve abroad. One battalion of the British regiment was rotated out, perhaps to Afghanistan or Mesopotamia, for two or three years, the second battalion stayed home in the regimental barracks, recruiting fresh volunteers until its turn came to go abroad.
The system worked, just as the SPQR system worked, because both combined regular rotation (helping troop morale) and strategic flexibility. Occasionally, there were horrible reverses: for the Romans in the German forests or the British in the Khyber Pass. But the structure was strong enough to allow for recovery, often for further advances. These were empires that were in it for the long haul.
Is this the US future -- to have its troops stationed for an undefined time on the Northwest Frontier or in a disease-ridden port in West Africa or some other outpost?
Washington frantically denies it has imperial ambitions, and I believe those denials to be sincere. But if the US increasingly looks like an empire, walks like an empire and quacks like an empire, perhaps it is becoming one just the same.
Paul Kennedy is a professor of history at Yale University and author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
 |
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
wow, i sure hope you missed my point on purpose. 
Fact: bastard regimes existed and exist and will continue to exist whether or not the US exists.
during the cold war, if the US didnt support them, the Soviet Union would have. Now would they not only be our enemies, but we would have lost valuable markets. The USA was not a god, it could not make all countries freedom loving bastions of liberty, despite that being a dream. instead we had to choose the lessor of two evils. support the bastards.
if you want to jump on your moral high horse, go ahead, but you are just making yourself look like a moron |
Okay look, what's important here is that you are still under the assumption that US policy is interested in freedom and liberty. This is clearly untrue, that's just the noises US politicians make to the US public to get them to do what they want, and clearly their propaganda over the years has been succesful.
The US supports capitalism, not democracy, the US is against any government that blocks the freedom of US corporate concerns to maximise profit. That's why they were against Nicaragua, Cuba and Chile, because those governments nationalised US corporate assests.
You're a typical US citizen, you won't abide your country being involved in imperialism, so you've been conditioned to believe that it spends it time fighting evil threats to all that is good, and having to compromise it's 'morals' even though it doesn't want to.
I can't really blame your outlook, you are in the power of the most powerful nation in history, you stand little chance of thinking anything that the leadership of that nation doesn't want you to think. How could the glorious leader[s] have anything but noble intentions, one day there will be paradise, but in the mean time sacrifices must be made, etc etc etc.
Last edited by problem_child on 06-08-2003 at 16:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
do you really believe that america wanted a war , ......
allas , imagine they did , did they twist saddam's arm to invade Q8 , ..... 
have a nice day |
Look, first off, anybody can get Saddam Hussein into a fight, I could do it easily if I met him in the street
But don't take my word for it, it's still true. Ask anyone who knows about Middle Eastern diplomacy at the time what was going on between Kuwait and Iraq regarding the oil-fields near the Kuwaiti border, and the involvement of the US military with Kuwait leading up to the war. You really think the US is not a master manipulator, and doesn't know how to play the game of Devide & Conquor, and gained nothing from GW1 (bases in Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, arms sales, strategic oil control etc)
At one point the US military even blatantly lied that Iraq was about to launch a massive offensive against Saudi itself, they of course never produced the 'satallite images' they claimed they had to support this, however they got the international support they wanted so... in the end it didn't matter.
You won't believe any of this because you just beleive everything they tell you. Read up on the situation of the time and you won't be so naive. Look for non-aligned political analysis of the diplomatic issues circa 1988-90 between Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi and the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
problem_child
|
|
State of the Animal
Mar 2000
time: 05:30
|
|
By the way Saddams Ba'athist were a National Socialist movement. Like most national socialists they were/are bastards, but they did also beleive in developing their country (while oppressing those considered external to the national identity). What this means is that Iraq was actually a fairly developed nation before GW1, by the standards of the region.
By the end of the IranIraq war though, Saddam was increasingly making Arab nationalist noises, anti American-influence-in-the-Middle-East noises, Nassarist noises... he used to be a US buddy, but the US was not about to let an Arab Nationalist threaten their interests in the ME, he had to go. Of course before Pre-emptive Doctrine was developed for GW2, how else would they destroy Saddam and smash Iraq back into place (the lesson being that nobody becomes a developed nation without US approval) other then to create a war?
To achieve this they instructed their Kuwaiti client to get thuroughly rude and economicaly aggressive with Iraq (if a country acted the same way against the US economy, Carrier-fleets would be on the scene in weeks, well, days) The US orchastrated the other clients to push all Iraqs buttons to get Iraq to react militarily. Saddam was played by the US and it's cronies like a violin. I don't think even the Kuwaitis realised the US would actually let them be taken over though... even though the 'royal family' got out in time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Okay look, what's important here is that you are still under the assumption that US policy is interested in freedom and liberty. |
this is a concern of the US, it may be secondary, but none-the-less a concern.
quote:
This is clearly untrue |
oh clearly
quote:
The US supports capitalism, not democracy |
we support both. it only appears we support the latter more because it is MUCH easier to support. to enforce capitalism is a piece of cake. to enforce democracy requires us to deploy large amounts of troops, in force, overseas. The US only has so much manpower and so much willingness to see our blood spilt for others. when you ask why we helped in some places and not in others, quite simply it has to do with the fact that some places are more in our interest, and since we only have so many resources to deploy, we will deal with the problems that will give us the most benefit. is this not sensible to you? or is the USA just inherently evil for not totally giving of itself in the name of its ideals until she collapses from over-exertion?
quote:
That's why they were against Nicaragua, Cuba and Chile, because those governments nationalised US corporate assests. |
they stole our property. gee, we are such bastards for opposing them....how could we?
quote:
You're a typical US citizen, you won't abide your country being involved in imperialism, so you've been conditioned to believe that it spends it time fighting evil threats to all that is good, and having to compromise it's 'morals' even though it doesn't want to. |
no, im a realist who understands that a country can only fight so hard in its beliefs to its own detriment if it wants to be successful. you on the other hand are a typical conspiracy theorist whos irrational anti-americanism is illogical and self-perpetuating, like a bad religion. i mean no insult by that, just my observation.
quote:
I can't really blame your outlook, you are in the power of the most powerful nation in history, you stand little chance of thinking anything that the leadership of that nation doesn't want you to think. |
our leadership is trying to maintain america's power and keep us from decline. to do so they sometimes have to do things that compromise our ideals, such as supporting bastard regimes to fight our enemies and stuff like that. i think thats understandable. i guess i can understand why you dont, you find it hypocritical. all i have to say is GET OVER IT.
quote:
How could the glorious leader[s] have anything but noble intentions, one day there will be paradise, but in the mean time sacrifices must be made, etc etc etc. |
i dont know exactly what you are talking about, but yes, our leaders are trying to make the US a better place. that is why they are voted into office, if they didnt, they would never be elected or reelected for sure. When they can make the world a better place too, they try. America first. you seem very upset about this very reasonable and understandable fact
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by problem_child
By the way Saddams Ba'athist were a National Socialist movement. Like most national socialists they were/are bastards, but they did also beleive in developing their country (while oppressing those considered external to the national identity). What this means is that Iraq was actually a fairly developed nation before GW1, by the standards of the region. |
Yeah, well the Nazis built the Autobahn and made the trains run on time. So I guess except for the Jew thing I should admire them too?
quote:
how else would they destroy Saddam and smash Iraq back into place (the lesson being that nobody becomes a developed nation without US approval) other then to create a war?
To achieve this they instructed their Kuwaiti client to get thuroughly rude and economicaly aggressive with Iraq (if a country acted the same way against the US economy, Carrier-fleets would be on the scene in weeks, well, days) The US orchastrated the other clients to push all Iraqs buttons to get Iraq to react militarily. Saddam was played by the US and it's cronies like a violin. I don't think even the Kuwaitis realised the US would actually let them be taken over though... even though the 'royal family' got out in time. |
Oh, this one is just rich. Sure, the US has all these "other clients" in the ME who love us so much that they'd risk their own lives starting a war for us. And those Kuwaitis! What a bunch of troopers they were for picking a fight with a bordering country possessing a vastly superior military - and all to help out their ol' buddy Uncle Sam for some vague political reasons. Bully for them I say!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gunkulator
Originally, yes. The European model was imposed on Latin America, however that model was dependent on centrallized control, which was hard to impose outside of the population centers and without a decent infrastructure. I'm also not convinced that the nationalistic "for god, king and country" attitude existed for Latin American states in the same way it existed in Europe. |
BY this definition, the US did not fit the model either, now does it?
The new states were republics, with constitution, governments, so forth and so on. That is the definition of a western model state. Your opinion about possible attitudes notwithstanding, and without standing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2003 00:43
|