This opinion assumes (falsely) that the rest of the world likes US/western leadership. It isn't 1947 anymore. Things have happened.
NATO might seem like "the greatest security agreement in history" to the western commentariat, but to many in Asia and Africa it's a blunt imperial instrument. Our "critical engagements" in Afghanistan and Iraq shattered regional stability, created ISIS, resulted in widespread terrorism against Arabs, and worse. If you look at the most hardline Islamist governments in the Arab world, they were put there (or received essential support) from the US government, because totalitarian Islamists make regions stable for resource exploitation. For example, the US was the superintendent of Afghanistan when it was producing 90% of the world's heroin, and most of the poppy was being grown in US-controlled regions. Huh. This kind of thing is lost on the American public, but you'd be living under a rock if you didn't know it as an Arab.
I haven't even touched on the dollar regime that forces countries to buy US debt in order to finance international trade, which is routinely weaponized against people who don't advance US interests. In numerous cases, the sovereign favored by locals has been iced out in favor of brutal hardliners that allow private western interests to exploit their labor and resources. Take a close look at the Korean War for a rather stunning example.
The smart play for the US is to acknowledge an emerging multipolar world, treat sovereign nations as equals, and look after its own interests. We will likely choose the path of the Romans: cling to hegemony even as the empire crumbles from overextension and burgeoning resentment.
Why LP is serving up these multiple warmongering hit pieces is a conundrum. Authors don't even stick around to engage in the comments.
I think LP should require them to state whether or not they were in favor of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Anyone who was in favor has permanently disqualified themselves from ever commenting on US foreign policy, IMO.
This opinion assumes (falsely) that the rest of the world likes US/western leadership. It isn't 1947 anymore. Things have happened.
NATO might seem like "the greatest security agreement in history" to the western commentariat, but to many in Asia and Africa it's a blunt imperial instrument. Our "critical engagements" in Afghanistan and Iraq shattered regional stability, created ISIS, resulted in widespread terrorism against Arabs, and worse. If you look at the most hardline Islamist governments in the Arab world, they were put there (or received essential support) from the US government, because totalitarian Islamists make regions stable for resource exploitation. For example, the US was the superintendent of Afghanistan when it was producing 90% of the world's heroin, and most of the poppy was being grown in US-controlled regions. Huh. This kind of thing is lost on the American public, but you'd be living under a rock if you didn't know it as an Arab.
I haven't even touched on the dollar regime that forces countries to buy US debt in order to finance international trade, which is routinely weaponized against people who don't advance US interests. In numerous cases, the sovereign favored by locals has been iced out in favor of brutal hardliners that allow private western interests to exploit their labor and resources. Take a close look at the Korean War for a rather stunning example.
The smart play for the US is to acknowledge an emerging multipolar world, treat sovereign nations as equals, and look after its own interests. We will likely choose the path of the Romans: cling to hegemony even as the empire crumbles from overextension and burgeoning resentment.
Well said, thanks.
Why LP is serving up these multiple warmongering hit pieces is a conundrum. Authors don't even stick around to engage in the comments.
I think LP should require them to state whether or not they were in favor of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Anyone who was in favor has permanently disqualified themselves from ever commenting on US foreign policy, IMO.