A brief history of American strategic defense thought

[fbg1]

Here's a pretty good article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, explaining the evolution of American strategic defense philosophy. It traces the personalities and ideas that have, over the past 50 years, brought us to our current predicament over how to deal with nuclear proliferation and stateless enemies. Unfortunately its conclusion is not nearly as thoroughly detailed as its buildup, like a movie that leaves you hanging. But it's an interesting read nonetheless, tracing the idealogical development of Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, and others.

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/nd03/nd03husain.html

 

[Fred]

Yea decent article, the conclusions are a little baffling, since theres no evidence for it.. only a vague analogy.

But other than that I think its more or less accurate.

I think the great idealistic hope is one day, we won't need neocon ideas of absolute military supremacy keeping the peace. That it would be more of an obvious economic interest.

But unfortunately, even with a fading enemy in communism and fascism we still have to face militant Islam, growing poverty and surging populations. And of course a few remaining territorial disputes. Those are probably the last great challenges left for the triumph of the western way of life and democracy.

Much like science changed the status of the church in the west during the last four hundred years, so too IMO will democracy finally prevail over other competiting forces. I see it as more an inevitability, rather than anything else.

 

[fbg1]

I see it as more an inevitability, rather than anything else.

I think the neocons take the opposite view, and see it as anything but assured. Hence PNAC & co's devotion to using American supremacy while we have it to rid the world of tyrants and tyranical ideaologies and replace them with our open society ideals. It's a huge gamble, considering the apparent resentment and backlash it's causing, so I sure hope that it works.

 

[Willmeister]

But unfortunately, even with a fading enemy in communism and fascism we still have to face militant Islam, growing poverty and surging populations.

Militant Islam isn't the central problem. The central problem is still what it has always been, corruption.

Those are probably the last great challenges left for the triumph of the western way of life and democracy.

Fukayama couldn't have said it better. The Christian missionaries also said this as they brought 'enlightenment' to the savages in the far-ends of the world. The World Bank also had this mentality as it saddled the poorest people in the world with crushing national debts, debts financed so that Western corporations made profits. This 'we know what's best for you', this paternalistic approach to dealing with others is also a major problem. Ataturk in 1920s Turkey had that mentality, as did Congress in India, as did Nasser did in Egypt, and many other places.

Much like science changed the status of the church in the west during the last four hundred years, so too IMO will democracy finally prevail over other competiting forces. I see it as more an inevitability, rather than anything else.

Want to know what's REALLY inevitable? Democracy is now becoming little more than a mechanism to get the key to the treasury. Western democracy is broken at the voter level, especially in North America. Democracy is almost at odds with our consumerist quick-fix instant-gratification society. Democracy can only flourish in a society that reigns in self-interest, and that just doesn't happen anymore. It's about using the position to increase your own material wealth and those who don't usually find themselves alone, dismissed by the masses for their Polyannish views (especially here in Canada).

It's very uncomfortable for the average citizen to self-criticize and instead, first blame the leaders for their failings, and then secondly, either voting for them anyway because they say the system will always be that way, or by not voting at all, which has led to the corporate takeover of government. The voter abandonned the battlefield and left the corporations and special interests the entire field. And then of course we've all then seen voters b*tch about the way things are... I guess no one wants to be saddled with responsibility anymore.

Democracy isn't just walking into a closet and ticking of a vote. They did that in the USSR and a lot of other authoritarian systems. It involves participation and actual work, and frankly, people just won't bother anymore. They prefer to sit on their asses and watch reruns of Temptation Island or call into sports radio and discuss something that ultimately doesn't matter. We live in a self-gratification instant-fix society and if you don't get anything out of your efforts, why bother then? Like I mentioned above, it is self-interest, apathy, laziness, cyncism, call it what you will, these all flow into corruption and that will be our downfall, not this nonsense about 'militant Islam'.

 

[akira888]

...[Kemal] in 1920s Turkey had that mentality, as did Congress in India, as did Nasser did in Egypt, and many other places.

You could also say conservatives and social democrats in the West have this "mother may I" attitude in droves. Not saying they're genocidal monsters like Kemal or Nasser, of course.

Nota bene: Please don't use the fascist term "ataturk," just as you wouldn't use "Der Deutsch Furher" for Hitler.

Want to know what's REALLY inevitable? Democracy is now becoming little more than a mechanism to get the key to the treasury. Western democracy is broken at the voter level, especially in North America. Democracy is almost at odds with our consumerist quick-fix instant-gratification society. Democracy can only flourish in a society that reigns in self-interest, and that just doesn't happen anymore. It's about using the position to increase your own material wealth and those who don't usually find themselves alone, dismissed by the masses for their Polyannish views (especially here in Canada).

Channeling the spirit of Bertholdt Brecht I see. "Democracy" as such is a loaded term that can mean anything. Maybe it's time to rein in "democracy" if people aren't made for it.

For a more thorough critique of "strong democracy" google up Alexander Tytler.

Like I mentioned above, it is self-interest, apathy, laziness, cyncism, call it what you will, these all flow into corruption and that will be our downfall, not this nonsense about 'militant Islam'.

If that was the case then we would be seeing irredentist movements worldwide. I think you are overhasty in dismissing the power of ideas, as well the "societal cycle of growth and decay" (also google up Tytler).