This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
LISTEN TO HENRY HYDE
Published on March 29, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, a ranking member of the Republican Party has in a recent speech made the following observations:
Our Power, then has the grave liability of rendering our theories about the world immune from failure.
But by becoming deaf to easily discerned warning signs, we may ignore the long term costs that result
from our actions and dismiss reverses that should lead to a re-examination of our goals and means.

This statement made in a recent speech has the ring of a tried and tested statesman not a Bushman mouthing innane certitudes about Democracy, Iraq and the so called frontier of Freedom.Hyde is certainly right when he says that USA has reached a point of imperial overreach and it is time to see what the Bush administration has really accomplished. He is on record in the House for pointing out that the Bush strategy in Iraq is wrong and the sooner the Us withdraws from Iraq the better it would be for peace in the region.He had pointed out that US presece in the region is virtually destabalising the region. Henry Hyde a true conservative has finally shown the Bushmen for what they are: AGGRESSIVE MISGUIDED LIBERALS who successfullly packaged themselves as neo conservatives. Francis Fukuyama in his critique off the neo con movement ibn his latest book After the Neocons has mercilessly critiqued the Bush administrations for it all round failure to promote a genuine conservative agenda. The conservative agenda was hijacked by the Bushmen setting back the cause by at least 2 decades.

Henry Hyde and Francis Fufuyama both regad the present war against terror as a mere shadow boxing. The Middle East is not a significant player in the 21 st Century. In fact Al Qaeda never posed any threat to the security and strategic interests of the US and Hyde is right to point out that the threat was used only to mobilise the US population is a wasteful and unneccessary war .

There is one point on which Hyde is wrong. China will notbe the pole around which a new international order is likely to emerge. Chinadoes not have the means on the inclination for the kind of imperoial overreach shown by the USA. The real challenge to the USA will come from Europe. Hyde is certainly spot on when he advocated a more cautious foreign policy. No Empire lasts for ever. Even the US will go the way of the Roman and the Mongol empires.

Comments
on Mar 29, 2006

HAS THE USA REACHED IMPERIAL OVERSTRETCH


Given that the US has not colonised or annexed any territory in the last few decades, I would have to say the answer is "no".
on Mar 29, 2006

There's a lot of problems with this analysis.

First off, the US doesn't have imperial ambitions. It doesn't annex territory, doesn't maintain colonies. It has few costly international obligations. Even Iraq the US coudl choose to leave any time it wanted.

In addition, the United States only spends around 3% of its GDP on defense.  That's trivial by historical standards.

And third, Europe? How does one imagine Europe being dominant in the future? With a declining birth rate, static economies, no, Europe is losing ground as-is.

China will certainly be a major player going forward. But it has a long ways to go still. It has a huge population but much of it is living in a quasi-preindustrial environment.  If we're talking 100 years from now then I think you'll find a multipolar world with the United States, China, Japan, Europe, Russa, India, and other countries all being major powers.

And personally, I look forward to that day. The wealthier other countries are, the more likely they are going to want to support the status quo.  I still think it a pretty sad commentary on the state of the world when only the United States is able or willing to be the world's police force.  In 50 years, perhaps you'll see more multinational cooperation in dealing with threats like Al Quaeda, Saddam's Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.

on Mar 29, 2006
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall Bahu writing an article some time ago stating that it was incorrect to call America an 'imperial" nation. It had to something to do that cast a negative light on us, but it being bahu, I wasn't surprised.

Bahu, hard as it may be to believe, America is NOT an empire. We utilize military power sparingly, and never to manipulate or control other nations. Think about it, Bahu.....compare the US to other imperial entities of the past; Babylon, Egypt, Rome, even Germany, France and Britain.
All of them, military powers that thrust themselves on other peoples with the intention of ruling them all from one capital. How can you seriously lump us into that mix? It's easy; you hate America.
on Mar 30, 2006
Draginol beat me to it. I think the concept of "imperialism" here is misapplied. Were we imperialistic we wouldn't be in the trouble we're in. With the military might we have, we could pretty much sterilize nations and do what we wanted with them.

Europe is doomed at this point, at least in the form it has been. Their only choice is to give up their self image, ebrace the millions of foreigners they've invited in, and accept that their 'white' Europe is gone, no matter how hard they try to ghettoize their immigrants. Once they do that, maybe they can have another surge, but right now the engine for their rebirth is burning cars in the streets and blowing up subways.

China's main problem is energy, displayed by the price of our gas. They are soaking up everything they can get, buying oil companies, and it is estimated their intake is going to double in not too long a time. They are trying to drag 70% of their population from rural peasantry to the 21st century. There isn't enough oil for that in the whole world to do that.

I think Russia is a nation to watch. They are bogged down with corruption and inept government right now, but their oligarchs will give way to corporations eventually, and when that happens they'll be a fierce competitor. India, also, has the potential of doing great things when their current push modernize the rest of their nation bears fruit.

I guess it depends on how far down the road you are looking. Eventually all the third world areas are going to boom. It doesn't take much. South America, Africa. World society is like anything else, nature abhors a vaccuum. Eventually greed will overcome the problems of all these peoples and they'll want more than the poverty and pain they have.
on Mar 30, 2006
More melodramatic silliness. Sorry to snipe, but there's nothing else to call it.
on Apr 02, 2006
I am using the term Imperial in the same manner as does Niall Ferguson in his Collosus. The war in Iraq has become a nighmare for the US military and the political establishment and even Rice admits that thousans mistzakes were made. It would be wrong to say that conquest of Iraq was the only motive but all conquerin g powers justify their conquests using the rhetoric of peace, mission civiltrice and civilization.
on Apr 02, 2006
The war in Iraq has become a nighmare for the US military and the political establishment


In your opinion.

and even Rice admits that thousans mistzakes were made


Welcome to warfare. Point to any war in history that went off completely without a hitch, for any parties involved.



It would be wrong to say that conquest of Iraq


If we were out purely for "conquest", we'd have our boot on those people necks, our guns at their heads, and their oil in our hands. Instead, we're trying to help them set up a free government so we can leave someday.

was the only motive but all conquerin g powers justify their conquests using the rhetoric of peace, mission civiltrice and civilization


Yeah, Alexander, Caeser, Genghis, Napoleon, Hitler, Tojo----they were all great at mouthing the words of peace before they started marching.

Loser.
on Apr 02, 2006
I am using the term Imperial in the same manner as does Niall Ferguson in his Collosus. The war in Iraq has become a nighmare for the US military and the political establishment and even Rice admits that thousans mistzakes were made. It would be wrong to say that conquest of Iraq was the only motive but all conquerin g powers justify their conquests using the rhetoric of peace, mission civiltrice and civilization.


I'm sorry....but can you get "any more" ignorant? Your post is so full of fallicies that it isn't even funny!