![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
~
When Monk went to the well for his next non-fiction book a couple of weeks ago, he winced when he picked up James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet, thinking perhaps he had gone too far in collecting books on Dubya and the War on Terror. (He still has Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack in the stack of delivery boxes!)
However, seeing how the book is not likely to become more enticing over time, especially if optimistic wishes come to pass and Kerry wins in November and the Vulcans fall out of power, Monk decided to stick with it and get some value for his purchase. And he is glad to be delving deeper behind the scenes of our foreign policy.
The excerpt below is Mann's characterization of the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which is a report that the Pentagon puts out as it's statement of goals and purposes. Wolfowitz, one of the Vulcans, was the architect. The Soviet Union had collapsed the year before, which was the primary object of Pentagon planning. The 1992 DPG sets out a new purpose for the U.S. military...
___ ___ ___
"The main point shouldn't be to block rival powers, but rather for the United States to become so militarily strong, so overwhelming that no country would dream of ever becoming a rival. America should build up its military lead to such an extent that other countries would be dissuaded from even starting to compete with the United States. The costs would be too high, America's military technology would be so advanced, its defense budget so high that no one else could afford the huge sums necessary to embark on a long-term military buildup that, even if successful, would still not catch up to the United States for thirty years or more. Thus the United States would be the world's lone superpower not just today or ten years from now but permanently."
-- James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans
When Monk went to the well for his next non-fiction book a couple of weeks ago, he winced when he picked up James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet, thinking perhaps he had gone too far in collecting books on Dubya and the War on Terror. (He still has Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack in the stack of delivery boxes!)
However, seeing how the book is not likely to become more enticing over time, especially if optimistic wishes come to pass and Kerry wins in November and the Vulcans fall out of power, Monk decided to stick with it and get some value for his purchase. And he is glad to be delving deeper behind the scenes of our foreign policy.
The excerpt below is Mann's characterization of the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which is a report that the Pentagon puts out as it's statement of goals and purposes. Wolfowitz, one of the Vulcans, was the architect. The Soviet Union had collapsed the year before, which was the primary object of Pentagon planning. The 1992 DPG sets out a new purpose for the U.S. military...
___ ___ ___
"The main point shouldn't be to block rival powers, but rather for the United States to become so militarily strong, so overwhelming that no country would dream of ever becoming a rival. America should build up its military lead to such an extent that other countries would be dissuaded from even starting to compete with the United States. The costs would be too high, America's military technology would be so advanced, its defense budget so high that no one else could afford the huge sums necessary to embark on a long-term military buildup that, even if successful, would still not catch up to the United States for thirty years or more. Thus the United States would be the world's lone superpower not just today or ten years from now but permanently."
-- James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-20 06:34 am (UTC)From:We heard a lot of shock and awe in Iraq and the US had a convincing early victory...but it was a 3rd rate military they conquered and with problems at that. Nations that present serious threats to us are not exactly shaking in their boots now.
Sort of all the more reason to be skeptical of us. Even before this was articulated, I think the world has suspected us of wanting permanent lone superpower status. Vulcans see that as to be desired but as with the Olympics what it sets you up for is failure when you're the clear leader of the field. Everybody is out to get you, literally. Which brings up the need for cooperation and international equality...the security and well-being of the group is not tied to US dominance, but in the US being taken down a notch and everybody else lifted up to a place of importance on the world stage.
Rice today is calling for less American criticism of Iraq. Which would be all well and good if Americans trusted their President. But this administration fails to realize that they've lost that respect and trust. With no WMDs in Iraq and the mess we're in, the public gets the sense we've been hoodwinked. If things had gone more like Iraq I, it might be a different story. But this Iraq looks more like a Vietnam-esque challenge to our global authority brought on by our own President. Exactly why war records are suddenly important.
The post-Cold War plan is interesting...just was reading last night in my current non-fiction of how politics shifted to domestic policy under Clinton largely ignoring foreign affairs. Or at least the public was occupied and not focused on international issues. Sad because that was the time when we most needed organization for the new world order. But it also gave the Vulcans time to plot their schemes for America. One wonders if a Kerry administration might be just what the doctor ordered for catching us up...better late than never. He seems perfectly suited for a well-balanced foreign and domestic agenda.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-20 10:50 am (UTC)From:"When Democrats held the White House, they turned up the economic treble. When the Republicans took over, they turned up the military bass."
They are reading from the same page, seeking to maintain and perpetuate American power. And I really don't think that we will be voting for leaders who want to take America down a peg - just not natural or realistic.
The question is to try to restrain the hubris, such as that manifested by Bush's hamfisted diplomacy going back to the very beginning, even before 9/11.
And you may be assured that America is still quite respected and even feared for its military might, even if it is hated.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-20 07:33 pm (UTC)From:But I dunno about respect and fear for our might. Honest respect is one thing. But I think respect from fear is always bad...because when we look subpar as we did in Iraq it makes us more vulnerable as the fear seems unfounded. Iraq certainly proved that a military with even moderately first rate weapons and training could give us a run for our money. We're not as mighty as we think...which is scary to me. Determined enemies not only hate us but may choose to come after us harder now that they see we are weaker than thought. And, of course, we've stirred the hornet's nest to boot. I'm not sure what can save us on the foreign policy front anymore. Laying low would probably be the best bet, but A) it would be hard given our prominence around the globe B) Americans have too much swagger anyway from Bush to your normal Joe. Which puts the solution probably out of reach because it is too higher order thinking for Americans used to that imperialism. As a friend of mine the other day said on another website, "I don't think imperialism is such a bad thing." All I can do is shake my head and let him go back to watching Hannity.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-20 08:47 pm (UTC)From:Yes, but when Clinton was in power, it wasn't like they took that much away from the Pentagon either, for all the talk about a peace dividend. It was also during the Clinton Administration, that there was much talk of the US being the "indispensable nation."
As between Democrats and Republicans, it's only a question of degree. In spite of the Leftist criticism, there is an effective consensus that our fortune depends on a powerful America. This is what Kerry runs on as well.
I think you compare America against some ideal. But I think you have to look at the actual alternatives. I think it is fortunate that America was more powerful than Soviet communism. I think it's fortunate that these Islamists don't have this kind of power.
Our alternative is not some world where we are all equal and happy; it's an alternative where we are dominated.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-21 06:20 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-08-22 07:43 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-08-23 10:38 am (UTC)From:Life is always a struggle, but not all of them are necessary. That is the "perfect state" to aim for, I think. A fight with your sister, for instance, being far different than poverty, war, crime, etc..