"When the Cold War ended, I had some hope..."
Kenneth Waltz, structuralism
lecture in H110, october 15 2004
(hold man trembling voice) "When the Cold War ended, I had some hope..."
GW Bush: "thinking inside-out", is it only bush administration that would have invaded Afghanistan or any in same situation? probably
But Iraq?
American behaviour overwhelmingly one of a powerful country using its power, so probably it would... US fought so many wars in its history in so few years. Look at last 20-25 years...
Reagan: Liban (embarrassing), then... Grenada!
Bush 1: Gulf War, + "Op Just Cause" in Panama, unjustified and public opinion sanctionned Bush 1 for doing war unjustfully...
Clinton: Kosovo, Somalia
Bush 2: Afghanistan, Iraq
it's kinda the general behavior of the US to wage wars, not just Bush 2.
look at Latin-America... Cold-War, US military presence everywhere USSR was not! USSR was being "paranoiac about being surrounded by enemies because it was exactely so! US moving in where USSR is moving out... US even bringing in NATO former satellites and soviet republics.
we do what we say what we would not do
external situation shapes internal situation
countries in world history that possesses immense power normally behave in using its power, US is doing exactely that.
France, Spain, UK and Rome each had there times and did the same.
Bush administration is "traditional realists" about how state behave on international state: bad states behave badly, good states behave good.
Raymond Aaron quoted.
Kissinger quoted. "legitimate states do legitimate things"
Morgenthau: right to intervene in internal, domestic affairs since it inflluence international affairs: bad domestic policies in USSR has strong influence on state of world affairs.
Franco: indebted to Germany for victory over republicans. But didn't go to war b)w 1939 & 1945, did "good" thing, Spain relatively sparred from destruction of WW2 (yet already scarred by civil war), and Franco regime survived Hitler's Reich by 30 years.
Allende, dully elected. Kissinger charges was that Allende would "unintentionally" make socialism slip out of control out of is hands despite he being a democrat. Therefore, right of US to intervene.
"rogue states" that can't be deterred or contained... Bush "flip-flopping" about Iraq & Hussein: prior 2001 on record about saying Hussein can't do anything and can't go anywhere, he's contained and deterred... than post 9/11, he's rogue and dangerous.
Kaddafy...
US use of nuclear force as "blackmailing" tool in Korea, early 50's....
Nukes as weapon of aggression... how would you use that? impossible strategic use of such a weapon... nonesense... in state context..
but for terrorism context... in state context, gotta have another state to deter, agress...
now terrorist have nowhere to turn to (in terms of countries to grant them asylum)...
3rd piece of puzzle: counterweight to dominant power
balance of power: no material to reconstruct the balance... US vs. nobody...
European Union? everything it needs (population, military might, econoomy) except being a political being effectively... Europe not in fact a state.
China? noticable military spending, but not - and wisely so - into a huge military all-out build-up to position itself yet as a counterweight to the US
"fight, sustain and prevail in a nuke war" - caspar weinberger
Iraq? hahahaha...
US? deterring itself... it's crazy!
nuke much more difficult to line-up than one thinks, regular standing army is expensive to line up... and balancing is hard to do and costly, tricky, hard to find the right moment to comply... forming and reforming coalition, really hard! think about coalitions against Napoleon, so think about coalitionning against the US, ouf!, what a cost that would be...
only option left: unilateralism of the US. this would be so for quite some times.
lecture in H110, october 15 2004
(hold man trembling voice) "When the Cold War ended, I had some hope..."
GW Bush: "thinking inside-out", is it only bush administration that would have invaded Afghanistan or any in same situation? probably
But Iraq?
American behaviour overwhelmingly one of a powerful country using its power, so probably it would... US fought so many wars in its history in so few years. Look at last 20-25 years...
Reagan: Liban (embarrassing), then... Grenada!
Bush 1: Gulf War, + "Op Just Cause" in Panama, unjustified and public opinion sanctionned Bush 1 for doing war unjustfully...
Clinton: Kosovo, Somalia
Bush 2: Afghanistan, Iraq
it's kinda the general behavior of the US to wage wars, not just Bush 2.
look at Latin-America... Cold-War, US military presence everywhere USSR was not! USSR was being "paranoiac about being surrounded by enemies because it was exactely so! US moving in where USSR is moving out... US even bringing in NATO former satellites and soviet republics.
we do what we say what we would not do
external situation shapes internal situation
countries in world history that possesses immense power normally behave in using its power, US is doing exactely that.
France, Spain, UK and Rome each had there times and did the same.
Bush administration is "traditional realists" about how state behave on international state: bad states behave badly, good states behave good.
Raymond Aaron quoted.
Kissinger quoted. "legitimate states do legitimate things"
Morgenthau: right to intervene in internal, domestic affairs since it inflluence international affairs: bad domestic policies in USSR has strong influence on state of world affairs.
Franco: indebted to Germany for victory over republicans. But didn't go to war b)w 1939 & 1945, did "good" thing, Spain relatively sparred from destruction of WW2 (yet already scarred by civil war), and Franco regime survived Hitler's Reich by 30 years.
Allende, dully elected. Kissinger charges was that Allende would "unintentionally" make socialism slip out of control out of is hands despite he being a democrat. Therefore, right of US to intervene.
"rogue states" that can't be deterred or contained... Bush "flip-flopping" about Iraq & Hussein: prior 2001 on record about saying Hussein can't do anything and can't go anywhere, he's contained and deterred... than post 9/11, he's rogue and dangerous.
Kaddafy...
US use of nuclear force as "blackmailing" tool in Korea, early 50's....
Nukes as weapon of aggression... how would you use that? impossible strategic use of such a weapon... nonesense... in state context..
but for terrorism context... in state context, gotta have another state to deter, agress...
now terrorist have nowhere to turn to (in terms of countries to grant them asylum)...
3rd piece of puzzle: counterweight to dominant power
balance of power: no material to reconstruct the balance... US vs. nobody...
European Union? everything it needs (population, military might, econoomy) except being a political being effectively... Europe not in fact a state.
China? noticable military spending, but not - and wisely so - into a huge military all-out build-up to position itself yet as a counterweight to the US
"fight, sustain and prevail in a nuke war" - caspar weinberger
Iraq? hahahaha...
US? deterring itself... it's crazy!
nuke much more difficult to line-up than one thinks, regular standing army is expensive to line up... and balancing is hard to do and costly, tricky, hard to find the right moment to comply... forming and reforming coalition, really hard! think about coalitions against Napoleon, so think about coalitionning against the US, ouf!, what a cost that would be...
only option left: unilateralism of the US. this would be so for quite some times.
posted by Jean-Sébastien Lévesque at 9:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home