Why We Fight

[mkreku]

Just wondering if anyone but me saw this documentary about why the government of the US start so many wars? (It was shown on swedish national TV a few minutes ago)

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/

 

Very good and thought provoking piece of film. I just wish more people would see it. It was much better (less opiniated) than Fahrenheit 911 (although not as humorous) and tied together a number of different views and destinies in a clever and subtle way. I've always thought the problem with Moore's movie making is that he provokes the opposition to the point where there's no longer a debate, just a bunch of name calling and mud throwing. Eugene Jarecki (director and writer of Why We Fight) uses a less obvious in-your-face method, but still manages to bring across his (and Eisenhower's!) points in a clear and precise manner that might help build a debate instead of destroying it.

 

Anyhow, see it if you get the chance.

[Cantousent]

Even if you disagree with the premise, there's something to be said for, at the very least, entertaining the idea. I'm as proud an American as the next guy and considerably moreso than most. Still, we do have a strong compulsion in the United States to maintain a military edge. Is it good national policy? Maybe it is. On the other hand, it might not. No matter what, it can't hurt to keep looking at the issue. Should we keep vigilance against those who threaten our nation? Most certainly. Should we apply equal vigilance when assessing ourselves? Yes.

 

At any rate, these are legitimate policy questions.

[Volourn]

I think it should be obvious why the US is so aggreisve in their foreign policy - it's how they got their dependence. Unlike us Kanadians who got our 'independence' handed to us a silver platter, Amerikans had to spill their blood to gain their independence from the Brits. In fact, I think Kanada's peaceful journey independence is owed a lot to the Brits learning from the War of Independence, and they didn't want a repeat.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The United States' aggressive foreign policy is easy to understand, for anyone who's played Civilization. If you've got a massive army, it is so tempting to use it. It becomes an option in all kinds of situations.

 

As for why US governments feel the need to have such a large military, that's very complex. I'm afraid I haven't seen the documentary, but I guess it's a combination of lots of factors, one of which is that large institutions (like a health or education service) have a tendency to expand. The question is whether the US will be willing to give up its conventional military advantage in order to invest more in maintaining its technological advantage.

[Cantousent]

It might not be either/or, though, Steve.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It might not be either/or, though, Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's true, though both are getting increasingly expensive. One important factor will be how US public opinion responds to continuing casualties in Iraq. The newspapers here say that support for the war is waning in response to the death toll, but then they've been saying that for over a year. We could go back to the post-Viet Nam days when Americans are very reluctant to see their troops sent overseas, in which case a large conventional military is useless. On the other hand, the US may feel that had it not had such a vast military this time, Iran and North Korea would have been even more troublesome because they would have known that the US lacked the resources to deal with two problems at once.

 

US military spending looks perfectly legitimate when you view it compared with the threats and responsibilities the US faces. It only looks excessive when you remember that the US' responsibilities have arisen precisely because it has such a large military, and when you see that other countries survive and prosper without one.

[213374U]

As for why US governments feel the need to have such a large military, that's very complex.  I'm afraid I haven't seen the documentary, but I guess it's a combination of lots of factors, one of which is that large institutions (like a health or education service) have a tendency to expand.

Er... not to be raining on your party or anything, but hasn't the US military budget been reduced in the last years?

 

 

US military spending looks perfectly legitimate when you view it compared with the threats and responsibilities the US faces.  It only looks excessive when you remember that the US' responsibilities have arisen precisely because it has such a large military, and when you see that other countries survive and prosper without one.

You can look at it both ways. Military dominance is probably one of the factors that has brought the US to a position of global supremacy, but obviously not the only one. A strong arm is needed to defend a superpower, and that has always been the case through History.

 

Sure, it's possible to survive and prosper without a large military, or even without a military at all, but those will never be a superpower and they will always have to depend on those who do have strong militaries for defense.

 

"Peace through superior firepower"

[Cantousent]

This is where we disagree. At some point, other countries prosper with a military precisely because the United States has one. The question is degree. How large does our military need to be to face challenges today?

 

I'll take, for instance, Sweden, which is a rich nation judged by a variety of criteria. It has managed to well without the need for excessive military spending. However, it did benefit from the shelter provided by the military of others.

 

Furthermore, if the United States didn't have a large military, then other nations, perhaps even Sweden, would feel compelled to ratchet up the percentage they spend on their militaries.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Er... not to be raining on your party or anything, but hasn't the US military budget been reduced in the last years?

Not to my knowledge. Do you have figures? In any case, even if it's falling, it's still something like a third of total global military expenditure.

Furthermore, if the United States didn't have a large military, then other nations, perhaps even Sweden, would feel compelled to ratchet up the percentage they spend on their militaries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not so sure. If the US didn't have a large military, Sweden would need one to protect it from who? The Russians, I suppose. But the Russians mostly have a large military to protect themselves from the Americans and the Chinese. Disarmament in parallel would be possible, and I think the Russians would welcome it because of the cost savings. I'm not advocating getting rid of the military entirely (I'd like to, but that's a whole separate argument for another day) - I think most countries want to keep a military for prestige, and Russia more than most because of its superpower past.

 

The idea that 'We have a bigger military than them and them, therefore we are safe' should have died on September 11 2001.

[Dark Moth]

Er... not to be raining on your party or anything, but hasn't the US military budget been reduced in the last years?

Not to my knowledge. Do you have figures? In any case, even if it's falling, it's still something like a third of total global military expenditure.

Furthermore, if the United States didn't have a large military, then other nations, perhaps even Sweden, would feel compelled to ratchet up the percentage they spend on their militaries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not so sure. If the US didn't have a large military, Sweden would need one to protect it from who? The Russians, I suppose. But the Russians mostly have a large military to protect themselves from the Americans and the Chinese. Disarmament in parallel would be possible, and I think the Russians would welcome it because of the cost savings. I'm not advocating getting rid of the military entirely (I'd like to, but that's a whole separate argument for another day) - I think most countries want to keep a military for prestige, and Russia more than most because of its superpower past.

 

The idea that 'We have a bigger military than them and them, therefore we are safe' should have died on September 11 2001.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To answer your first question, we are. The Pentagon, if you remember, announced that it would be closing bases across the country to save money. That's one major thing I can think of.

 

For your second statement, you make it sound like the U.S. would just attack Russia on a whim (I'm not saying that's what you meant). If you look at conflicts in our past, pretty much all of them have been motivated by some sort of need. And, being the world's superpower, sometimes feel like we have to do things ourselves (more on that below) In Vietnam, we were so deathly afraid of communism that we felt we had to stop it from spreading. In the War on Terror, we felt that we had to do something to stop terror and likewise save lives (although Iraq is becoming a problem). We didn't attack Afghanistan because we felt like it, we were lashing back after the 9/11 attacks.

 

And being the world's only superpower, some countries have even come to rely on us for certain issues. When Liberia was undergoing revolution recently, many countries were chastising us for not sending aid (as in military aid) to that country. Many of those same people were yelling at us for being in Iraq. So it can get complicated, to say the least.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Its a heavy sin to enter into a discussion without reading up on the material discussed. I will aquire this documentary ASAP.

 

 

Mkreku> S

[Cantousent]

Whatever you think of the United States, we don't keep a military for prestige. We keep a military because we see enemies. Sometimes, those enemies might not be real, but sometimes they are.

 

Moreover, if the western Europeans and the US didn't have a strong military, all sorts of unsavories would be coming out of the woodwork. I agree that disarmament might work, but I don't have a rosy picture of it.

 

Anyhow. disarmament sounds related to the topic under discussion as it is.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The Pentagon, if you remember, announced that it would be closing bases across the country to save money.  That's one major thing I can think of. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may be right. On the other hand, just because you close bases to make savings in one area doesn't mean that you're reducing expenditure overall. I have no idea where to go for these figures, and a quick google didn't reveal anything except extreme anti-Bush sites whose figures I'd be suspicious of.

For your second statement, you make it sound like the U.S. would just attack Russia on a whim (I'm not saying that's what you meant).  If you look at conflicts in our past, pretty much all of them have been motivated by some sort of need. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It always is. We always think we are acting out of need. 'We are peace loving people, and when we go to war it is reluctantly, and with a heavy heart. However, the other side goes to war because of their nefarious intent, and aggressive nature.' The problem is that the other side thinks exactly the same. The Russians believed that the US wanted to exterminate their way of life, just as the US thought the same of the Russians. Every nation is guilty of this to a certain extent - I wouldn't single out the US by any means.

[mkreku]

Mkreku> S

[SteveThaiBinh]

If everyone saw the documentary first and entered the discussion later, it would be great and it would lead to a much more nuanced debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would indeed be wonderful all to sit down and watch this documentary, but as you say, that's not an option. All we can do is discuss the related issues to the best of our ability and knowledge. If you feel that the documentary offers a useful new perspective, then perhaps you could give us a brief summary?

[Kaftan Barlast]

No, they just sent it as a stand-alone movie. It started 21.15, running parallell to The Godfather, part 2 and Die Hard (for the billionth time). I'm glad I chose the right movie to watch.

 

 

There'd better be a rerun soon or Ill bite my legs off for missing it... nope, no reruns. "#

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"It started 21.15, running parallell to The Godfather, part 2 and Die Hard (for the billionth time). I'm glad I chose the right movie to watch."

 

No, you didn't.

[mkreku]

It would indeed be wonderful all to sit down and watch this documentary, but as you say, that's not an option.  All we can do is discuss the related issues to the best of our ability and knowledge.  If you feel that the documentary offers a useful new perspective, then perhaps you could give us a brief summary?

I've tried that in a previous thread (I am sure EnderWigging remembers it) and it didn't work at all. My english vocabulary is far too limited for me to be able to explain my views in a non-flammatory way (it seems), but I thought the documentary was so good that I'd love to start a discussion about it anyhow. With a little luck, someone intelligent and with proper knowledge of the english language will walk by and pick up the gauntlet.

[mkreku]

"It started 21.15, running parallell to The Godfather, part 2 and Die Hard (for the billionth time). I'm glad I chose the right movie to watch."

 

No, you didn't.

I know, that's my favourite Godfather.. But I've seen that movie a couple of times already. It was a tough decision to make, I'll admit.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well, just from the basic standpoint there are two major reasons why a western goverment engages in non-defensive military action abroad

 

 

1. To secure economical interests in the region

 

2. To secure political interests in the region to ensure a more prosperous economical climate that domestic companies can benefit from.

[Cantousent]

Mkreku> S

[julianw]

I am glad at least that one of the most democratic countries with a great Constitution owns the strongest army on earth.

[metadigital]

Was the film about the use of military for all global players as they embark on realpolitik, or was it simply an analysis of the US and it's foreign and military policy?

 

I know the US has over 500 bases around the world (like those ones in Egypt that Bin Laden wanted them to remove, and lo! they are being willingly extirpated: so much for the war on Bin Laden ).

 

I also know that the current US military is the direct result of the lack of preparedness of the US in the Global War 1914-45; instead of the twelve-plus months to train volunteers from scratch (ideally it requires 24+ months), the policy since the forties has been to maintain a fighting force capable of two-theatre combat.

 

The Cold War was a nightmare for the entire Earth's population; the only way to end it peacefully was for one power to win the arms race, unquestionably.

 

That has had many, many ramifications; I fail to see the human species living without conflict, however, and the best way to keep the peace is prepare for war.

 

I strongly suspect that the World's only Hyper-Power (for that is what the US is) will indeed be caught in another Cold War; China and India are approaching their once-unassailable commercial dominance (China is set to surpass the US GDP in 2050), which won't cause a war on its own, but combined with the Chinese realpolitik, and a renewed Russia under a de facto Tzar (much like China seems to be), I can see nothing to avoid it.

 

How do you survive as a country? If you've got the answer, then there are a lot of people waiting to hear from you.

 

Don't forget: defence is the first duty of a government, there is not much point in paying taxes and then having your house burnt down by invading soldiers.

[metadigital]

I am glad at least that one of the most democratic countries with a great Constitution owns the strongest army on earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There needs to be three pillars for society: Executive, Legislative and Judicial Power. They need to be seperate and equi-powerful.

 

It doesn't hurt to have a free press for a democracy, either. And a libertarian society, based on the notion that the individual is more important than the society, unless that individual is harming the society. (And therein begins the debate to determine what is reasonably meant by all those terms ... )

 

Liberia has the US constitution. The exact same one. The problem is the legalities cannot be interpreted and enforced, so warlord bandits run riot.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I strongly suspect that the World's only Hyper-Power (for that is what the US is) will indeed be caught in another Cold War; China and India are approaching their once-unassailable commercial dominance (China is set to surpass the US GDP in 2050), which won't cause a war on its own, but combined with the Chinese realpolitik, and a renewed Russia under a de facto Tzar (much like China seems to be), I can see nothing to avoid it.

 

 

 

The end of the world occured pretty much as we had predicted it, too many people, not enough resources to go around. The details are trivial and pointless..

 

 

Nuclear Holocaust by 2050! Yay!!