Empires seem to deploy their powers to the maximum, desisting only when they no longer have the wherewithal. We may soon be reminded that it was American decline that put Mr. Trump in a position to set American foreign policy in the first place.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (68)
sorted by:
I do think he's right that it's not weak, though. And, as you know, I hate the move. But it's not weak.
You're also correct, though, that the people being called "so called right-wing" are just actually being consistent and, I'd argue, much more in line with actual American interests. It's crazy to say they can't be real rightwingers if they don't blindly fall in line with Current Thing.
I might even dispute that. Is 'the biggest guy in the neighborhood' tough or weak if he throws a kid to the wall? You could make the case for either. In terms of states, the best way to win is to win without fighting. Using force means you couldn't do that. Is this cope? Maybe.
But what he said was 'weakening'. Does this weaken the US? I can make a much better case that it does, though of course, I'm not a soothsayer. Of course, dag puts an impossible standard for what qualifies as "weaken". Unless Trump is dragged before a tribunal by other actors, the US was not weakened by this. By that standard, no action ever weakened the US.
I'll admit it's too soon to tell, that's for sure. Sadly, while far from a certainty, I'd say it's likely things to to shit in Venezuela, and it seems the US is insistent on being involved there, so we'll get dragged in. So it might end up being a weak move after all. But if it actually gets pulled off smoothly, it's pretty strong.
To dag's point, it would be throwing a weak kid to the wall, and daring all the other big guys in the neighborhood to do something about it...and they don't. Sadly, that's strong. You can say it's pathetic too, but it's a strong move. And it improves the US's position to try to force other kids to fall in line without needing to be thrown against the wall. Again, as you know, I hate the bullying. But, at least at present, I don't view it as weakening America's position...at least in the short term.
I guess, longer term, it's a weak move, since not every president will behave like this, so we're making America more hated on the world stage, and then we'll go back to being weaker...so the other big guys will be more inclined to bully us.
It's a copout, but I can see it going either way. And I certainly wish it hadn't been done at all.
I'm not sure what people are expecting. What is pulled off? If Trump can take their oil? He claims they've agreed to it. I can't imagine Venezuelans being happy that their oil is now being stolen by a country that abducted their president, even if they hated him. Seems like a recipe for massive blowback.
I'm not resolved on the question myself. But I like to advocate for the devil because everyone thinks it's strong (and maybe cope, who knows). So here's a question: what is stronger, the US keeping control over its Western allies by diplomatic and economic means during the Cold war, or the Soviet Union doing by, if you will, throwing them to the wall during things like the Prague Spring? In a sense, the Prague Spring crushing is very strong, but it revealed that the USSR couldn't control its own backyard without resorting to military means.
I can see why you would think that. Maybe it will happen, it might even be likely in the short term. Hell, apparently the Iraq War intimidated the Iranians enough to reach out and ask for an unprecedented deal that the Bush admin rejected out of hand.
In the long run, I would think that the other states would start measures against US influence, and perhaps move closer to China, in order to prevent this from happening to them. I also think that this isn't as easily pulled off in a country that isn't a coastal shithole with a collapsing economy, isolated diplomatically, hated by most neighbors, run by a guy who allegedly received only 1/3 of the vote in the last election, so the intimidation factor for other countries is minimal.
Even if they all did, and this was successful. This requires constant vigilance. People will try to get out under the 'arrangement' as much as they can, since it is very much to their detriment. They'd probably balance against the hegemon in a way that they're not doing now.
Ain't that great? You will be what we are now.
I just mean, if it's actually limited to just changing the leadership, without devolving into revolution or other shit. Which, again, I worry about. Just like Iran, Venezuela isn't 'over and done with' or anything. It's a constant threat of escalation and dragging us further into the mess we never should have been in in the first place.
Yeah, we're talking about American foreign policy here. :(
Like you, I'm also mostly just playing Devil's advocate. I don't think it's necessarily a weak move, is my point, but it should still be condemned as an absolutely scummy move. Also one that, at the very least, weakens our image. Because it's total bullshit thuggery.
Many already have, and that's a good point. While it might be strong and intimidating in the short term, it is going to make some foreign entities look much more kindly toward something like BRICS. Not many of the European powers, though, since they have massive Russia Derangement Syndrome.
I'm coming around. I think you're probably more right than dag, or me trying to test that position. It's probably a strong looking move, that is weakening in the meta or long term sense.
The more I play through both sides, the less strong it looks. Because, even if I wanted to be expansionist, I don't think America has what it takes at the moment...and definitely not enough to do so consistently. Ironically, maybe if we had a king or something. But "democracy," combined with waning world power, isn't really a good setup to try to reinstitute imperialism.