In his article, "Is America Entering a Dark Age?", Victor Davis Hanson points out that we have largely lost the vision, boldness and freedom that made our country great.
I knew that China had extended its tendrils far into the U.S. economy, but this is getting ridiculous (not to mention ominous).
This is kind of creepy: "Thousands of tarantulas are emerging from the ground in the San Francisco Bay Area, looking for mates". They might need flashlights.
Maybe they can be housed in the newly-available prison space that Alexandria Donkey Chompers has been talking about: "Cornell Law Prof Encourages Congress to Arrest Trump Allies in NYT Op-Ed".
I haven't formed any hard opinions on the U.S. military presence in Syria, and I know quite a few conservatives believe President Trump's decision to withdraw our troops is a mistake; on the other hand, maybe not, as Kurt Schlichter explains. I invite the comment academy to weigh in (on this, as in all matters).
If the state of Georgia starts offering bounties, I'm there: "Invasive fish that can breathe air, survive on land found in Georgia".
Probably wouldn't happen if they checked their oil from time to time: "Squirrels stash more than 200 walnuts under hood of car".
13 comments:
My theory is that what we did since the collapse of the Soviets, first getting Saddam out of Kuwait, then the follow up. Was like exploratory surgery when you find out how bad the cancer is and whether there can be cure.
Then I supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as self-defense to get Al Qaeda - even if they weren't in Iraq there was a good chance Saddam would give them support based on his behaviour, so a *flanking* strategy (I thought the WMD thing was a red herring). But still exploratory surgery too.
Based on my study of the rise of democracy in India, I even thought making Iraq a ME democracy was worth trying. Again like exploratory surgery when we didn't really know just how bad the outside world was post Cold War. Also we assume people will be grateful like WW2 Europe.
But it looks like the cancer is incurable. So America First (and Australia and so on). Put it down to bitter experience and a harsh world. We had to accept the Soviet rise after WW2 also, which was a very muted victory for us. We did our best.
See all the reasons people give why 'Iraq can't be a democracy' are proved wrong in India - which is as tribal and fractious as anywhere, with mostly non-western, superstitious uneducated voters among the masses. But then democracy in India has since gone weird now too. The whole world is getting weirder.
You may be interested that India and China have had a Cold War over the Himalayas for 60 years, and its heating up. Pakistan is just side issue, used by China to flank India. Now India has done a brilliant flanking of China, investing heavily in Russia's far east to China's north. One day India and China and Central Asia may unite to drive China back to the coast.
That's a very old conflict, nothing to do with the USA who should stand clear and let it play out.
Oops, I meant to say India and Russia and Central Asia will unite against China. They are already very close and have been since China split with the Soviets in the 1950s.
Bruce: My thinking on the subject of intervention largely mirrors your own.
No one seems to have noticed yet how important this is:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-extends-1-billion-line-of-credit-for-development-of-russias-far-east/articleshow/70991706.cms
Democrat Pres hopefuls are so out of date. Trump is a realist, that's what's needed. The global chess board is in play, no one knows the future.
From Kurt Schlichter ...the side that suddenly is all hopped up on war juice – offers nothing but hack clichés to support its amorphous position.
Most of the suddenly hawkish aren't really concerned about the Kurds, or who does what to whom...they just know Orange Man Bad, and have a knee-jerk reaction which is in opposition to anything President Trump does.
If he had announced he was sending in more troops, to help the Kurds, they would bitch about that just as much.
R-man: Undoubtedly true. With Trump, it's a permanent state of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Alas, while I loathe abandoning anyone, Afghanistan and much of the Middle East are beyond saving. Too much tribalism, too much hate, too much blood. I was once an ardent supporter of rebuilding Iraq. No more.
So with much regret and personal conflict, I think that spilling yet more American blood over there is not worth it. I wish it were otherwise. But the world is changing, and not for the better. China, Russia, and other hostile nations will see to that.
Speaking of China ... ... it's best for humanity that the CCP falls, and falls hard.
Bruce, India has been an ally of Russia for years, including the era when the USSR was a false flag for a Russian empire.
The article is important, because it signifies a major shift in the realpolitik of that part of the world. India was a quiet Russian ally, now it's an open ally. That's really interesting because China and India are long standing adversaries. Is Russian a buffer in future conflicts, or something more?
Jeffs, I know that the US has tended to itself as the major target of Chinese expansion, but to me it was always about boxing India in and dominating resources, which both India and China have an equal need for, with their huge populations and rapid development. China became Pakistan's ally in the 50s when they colluded to seize part of the Himalayas which gave China access to Tibet, the 'Aksai Chin'. In 1970 when China sent a warship to aid Pakistan in it's war against breakaway Bangladesh (which India supported), India blocked China's sea passage. Now with bases in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and strong influence in the Maldives India was boxed in.
The Congress Party were progessive and globalist, but in recent elections the Indian nationalist opposition ('BJP') got over 90% of the national vote and Congress was almost wiped out. They are much more proactive now in all directions.
The way I see it China, monomaniacs as they are, have boxed India in to such a degree that India has more to lose by the status quo than by going on the 'attack'. But Indians are very shrewd, maybe more than Chinese. They have growing wealth, Russia needs money, India needs Russia's oil and gas, its a better marriage now than ever.
We saw Russian engineers holidaying on India's beaches in the 1980s, there building nuclear reactors I guess. But yes it goes back at least to the personal rift between Indira Gandhi and Nixon, when she turned to Russia in a big way. Back then Radio Moscow was on shortwave radio half the channels (I was trying to get Radio Australia). When I was in the Himalayas too, I was 20 miles? from the China 'border' and was warned to avoid being seen as a spy.
Russia also fought with China along their border when Mao split, also in the 50s, while the British used Indian grunts to invade China and defend British interests: Chinese Communists told me this actually (I used to get around, maybe I *am* a spy!) China may fear India on their doorstep more than the remote US. Russia is playing cool while welcoming India's investment, but China knows they can not trust Russia. So no I don't see Russia as a buffer at all.
Someone suggested India will unite Russia and Japan, but these two are old enemies, Kuril Islands etc. I was not surprised that Japan seems to be trying to make friends with China. It's like Europe just before WW1, things are in play, survival is at stake. I see China potentially withdrawing from Tibet, Mongolia and the Uighur lands, caught in a pincer between India and Russia. Back to its ancestral coastal lands. It may happen over many lifetimes, or it may be sudden.
India is certainly a major power in that part of the world, Bruce. Your analysis fills in that "something more" quite nicely.
By "buffer", I mean more in a military sense than as a shield. A better word, following from your thoughts, is perhaps "leverage".
Re: China's tendrils getting into the US: This is a bit of good news.
I think the US remaining in Afghanistan is somewhat like the Raj keeping garrisons on India's Northwest Frontier to prevent the tribes sweeping down on the plains again. Yes it seew\m like a forever war; it is. it is like a limes to keep the barbarians in their place, akin to the Roman. If we don't want more jihadists coming at us from there, keep at least a small force on guard.
As for Iraq, remember that our war with the jihadists is an ideological one as well as physical. Their big idea is very attractive to Muslims; conquer the world and strut around lording it over the wretched dhimmis. We must meet their big idea with or ow: liberty and prosperity in the modern world. Iraq was the best place to midwife such a change, But we needed to stick around to help and protect the nascent polity.
Such a project needs consensual government. I do not mean by that necessarily democracy. There are elements of consensual governance in Muslim history. For example, it has long been necessary for for Muslim rulers to consult and satisfy the bazaar merchants. This was a limitation on Ottoman actions over trade in the 18th century and the disaffection of the bazaar merchants played in important role in bringing down the Shah in 1979. Consensual government with a Muslim face, so to speak, is what we ought to encourage. Let them design it, but we would have to be on hand to help, advise, and, if necessary, protect. Obama's dysfunctional diplomacy was part of what stymied this idea.
If our wars with the jihadists seem to go on forever, that is by their choice. In war the enemy gets a vote, and our enemy has no target like the German and Japanese states in WWII. ISIS actually helped us by providing a target that could be taken down by conventional means in their caliphate.
In the larger picture, if we do not craft a world order , support it including fighting, soome one else like China will craft their own, inimical to our inteerests. Dealing with the jihadists is part of that.
Trump is wrong about running out on the Kurds. We owe it to allies, those who have fought beside us, not to abandon them. Trump in particularly owes YPG and SDF. The man who boasted about destroying ISIS owes those who provided the foot soldiers for that victory and took the casualties.
Post a Comment