The World’s Future at stake. The U.S. Elections
Sydney Morning Herald 8.2.08. Extracts from:
“America’s choice, our future“(full article here).
“But surely the disastrous misadventure in Iraq will deter future American commanders-in-chief from launching any new wars? Not at all. There are three points here.
First, America is a country that is comfortable with war. In the 230 years since the Declaration of Independence, the US has invaded other countries on more than 200 occasions, according to the Congressional Research Service. That is an average of one foreign incursion every 14 months in the nation’s history.
Second, the end of the Cold War was supposed to mean a standing-down of the US military machine. The opposite has happened. The Pentagon’s budget today, after adjusting for inflation, exceeds its Cold War average by one-eighth, though there is no longer any nation that could be called a peer competitor.
“The truth is that there no longer exists any meaningful context within which Americans might consider the question, ‘How much is enough?’ ” writes Professor Andrew Bacevich, a historian at Boston University and former US Army colonel in his book The New American Militarism.
The total defence budget is bigger than that of all other nations combined.
“During the entire Cold War era, from 1945 through 1988, large-scale US military actions abroad totalled a scant six. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, however, they have become almost annual events.” “
Bacevich calls it “the normalisation of war“. He goes on: “Policymakers have increasingly come to see coercion as a sort of all-purpose tool.”
The article compares the one Republican and the two Democratic candidates: McCain is a hero of the Vietnam war who has consistently supported the Iraq war, Clinton is an opportunist doing whatever seems popular at the time, and only Obama has consistently opposed the Iraq war and stated that he wants to change America’s attitudes away from militarism, which routinely sees the military option as the option of first choice.
Past wars were bad and killed many millions, wars may be far worse in the more crowded world of the future with its more destructive weapons. The United States, with its scientific, technological and economic power, could change the world for the better, and for the far worse, since it becomes more likely that the use of nuclear weapons will not be anathema in future wars (see here).
The report in the Sydney Morning Herald does not mention the numbers of casualties in the various military excursions. Are they of concern to McCain? Here are the latest figures for Iraq (higher figures have been given, and I don’t think that they include the casualties indirectly caused by the invasion, for example due to the almost complete breakdown of the medical system, such as baby mortality):
Although the most dangerous regions of Iraq could not be sampled, new estimates arrive at a death toll of 1 million Iraqis since the beginning of the invasion.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I don’t know about you, but I’m kind of glad we’re on their side, if only for the fact that in any wars, the one with the most scary weapons isn’t going to attack us. I’m hoping leaders of other counries take the option of “If you can’t beat them join them” - even if those same leaders aren’t in the firing line of the bombs. I know it might be selfish of me not to take the side of the innocent citizen, but they wouldn’t be in any danger if their leaders would just cave in to the Americans’ demands. In the ideal of moving from a world where there is many wars to one in which there are very few wars, the only way I imagine it possible is to have one really powerful country, which is also in some way accountable to its citizens. Can you think of a different suitable Country?
February 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Well, it sounds nice but I doubt that the Russians and the Chinese will that easily cave in. Both countries have recently proposed (again) to keep space arms-free. The proposal was rejected by the US. The predominance of the US depends to a large degree on its scientific knowhow. I have the greatest respect for the American scientific expertise, and I have the greatest respect for the intelligence and drive of the Chinese and Russians as well. I wonder how long the scientific predominance of the US will last. And what then? - A safer bet seems to me an agreement among nations respecting their mutual interests. Among the contestants for the US presidency, Obama appears to be the one who most likely would go along that path, although one does not know, of course, whether (if elected) he could overcome the entrenched interests of the Military PR Industrial complex.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
[...] This reinforces my view about the US elections. Click here. [...]