Is a noninterventionist policy viable for the US?

[russ_watters]

I was watching "Mad Men" today¹ and heard a good quote² from Churchill regarding the Munich Agreement:

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/world-war-ii-churchill-quotes.html

1). Yes, I'm still watching. Yes, I'm still undecided.
2). In the show, the quote was less decisive: "you might still get war". The real quote is better for being more forceful.

 

[russ_watters]

In other words, the US military would serve as mercenaries for the EU?

I'm ok with that. At least we'd be getting paid for what we already do.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I was watching "Mad Men" today¹ and heard a good quote² from Churchill regarding the Munich Agreement:

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/world-war-ii-churchill-quotes.html

1). Yes, I'm still watching. Yes, I'm still undecided.
2). In the show, the quote was less decisive: "you might still get war". The real quote is better for being more forceful.

As you said, Chamberlain gave away what he didn't have, and I agree with Churchill. However, while Churchill wanted the US to enter WWII, I don't think he ever said or implied that the US had some moral duty to enter the war. I think we fundamentally disagree on this point regarding the present situation. The EU, as the world's largest economic power has pushed its effete self described moral and cultural superiority too far while at the same relying on the US be its "enforcers" if and when needed. I didn't need the Pew survey to know this, but I'm glad it's out.

I don't see Russian tanks rolling across eastern Europe, but Russia eventually reestablishing its sovereignty over at least the European portion of the former Soviet Union is a possibility in the absence of any consensus among the European states that this must not happen. The lack of that consensus means we must stay out of it.

BTW I'm waiting for Czcibor to respond to my post 30. He proposed that the EU's function is to rebuild after the US "carpet bombing". This is a rather odd post in a thread proposing nonintervention. It would be on topic if the thead was supporting interventions. As it is, it's off topic and IMO uncalled for. If I don't get a response, I'll report it. In fact, I already did since you're PF Staff.

 

[russ_watters]

As you said, Chamberlain gave away what he didn't have, and I agree with Churchill. However, while Churchill wanted the US to enter WWII, I don't think he ever said or implied that the US had some moral duty to enter the war.

I'm not sure he did, but while we didn't send troops until 2 years later, we were heavily involved from the start. It is often said that the war was won by the US manufacturing base and that was heavily engaged in the war effort immediately.

There really wasn't ever any question that the US would enter the war as a combatant (if it lasted long enough), it was just a matter of when and how. So I don't think the moral issue for the US is very relevant here, only the moral issue for Europe.

I think we fundamentally disagree on this point regarding the present situation.

Clearly, but I think you need to do a better job of developing a logical argument for your position. The thread started poorly and didn't get on-point until near the end of the first page, making your key thesis not very well stated/organized yet.

The EU, as the world's largest economic power has pushed its effete self described moral and cultural superiority too far while at the same relying on the US be its "enforcers" if and when needed. I didn't need the Pew survey to know this, but I'm glad it's out.

So what? They're ungrateful, so screw -em? While I can see some merrit in that, I think that we have done and have the power to continue doing so much good, that it is worth the cost (which, moving forward, is pretty small). When hundreds of years from now historians look back on the 20th century, I think that one of the first things they will say is that the world turned a corner after WWII and largely due to US hegimony, entered - by far - the most stable and prosperous era the world had ever seen.

I don't see Russian tanks rolling across eastern Europe...

They already are. The question is, how far are we and the Europeans willing to let them go before putting forth some real effort to stop them.

...but Russia eventually reestablishing its sovereignty over at least the European portion of the former Soviet Union is a possibility in the absence of any consensus among the European states that this must not happen. The lack of that consensus means we must stay out of it.

I think you are wrong about the lack of consensus (only the lack of will to act, and that's a very different thing), but how does that create a mandate that we "must" stay out of it?

BTW I'm waiting for Czcibor to respond to my post 30. He proposed that the EU's function is to rebuild after the US "carpet bombing". This is a rather odd post in a thread proposing nonintervention. It would be on topic if the thead was supporting interventions. As it is, it's off topic and IMO uncalled for. If I don't get a response, I'll report it. In fact, I already did since you're PF Staff.

To be perfectly frank, you're approaching this thread from a position of such deep-seated bias, it is causing you difficulty in even understanding what other people are saying. You are not entitled to just require that eveyone agree with you. You propose nonintervention; he disagrees. You need to deal with that.

Post 30 was slightly tongue-in-cheek (he's not actually suggesting carpet bombing), but the point was that if Europe is unwilling/unable to provide the troops and weapons to do things that it wants to see done, it should at least contribute the money to do the re-building that comes afterward.

My response is that it is a good suggestion/alternative, but history has Europe getting used to that too: The Marshall Plan was all about the US re-constructing Europe after the - largely American - carpet bombing of WWII. After WWII, we were the only ones left who could have done the rebuilding. Today, there is less of an excuse for Europe not stepping up, but now they are taking a "you break it, you bought it" stance. No, it isn't fair, but that's another one of those life lessons my mom taught me: nobody ever said life is supposed to be fair.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Clearly, but I think you need to do a better job of developing a logical argument for your position. The thread started poorly and didn't get on-point until near the end of the first page, making your key thesis not very well stated/organized yet.

I will state my point as clearly and succinctly as I can. You can't establish long term stability by throwing resources at those who will not, for whatever reason, defend themselves. That goes for Iraq, what's left of it, and Europe. Europe will have to work out its own solutions as regards Russia. It is a dangerous situation. I don't think you are suggesting that US forces should directly engage Russian forces on or near Russia's borders.

 

[Czcibor]

BTW I'm waiting for Czcibor to respond to my post 30. He proposed that the EU's function is to rebuild after the US "carpet bombing". This is a rather odd post in a thread proposing nonintervention. It would be on topic if the thead was supporting interventions. As it is, it's off topic and IMO uncalled for. If I don't get a response, I'll report it. In fact, I already did since you're PF Staff.

It seems that you failed to understand my answer, but luckily Russ explained it to you. Hope that's simple enough, because I can't use any simpler language.

Anyway, we had here a Russian paid troll (moderators already reacted). Interesting change in strategy. Now the idea seem instead of trying to put their great leader and great nation in good light (which seems to be up hill struggle), they try to convince people that's not their business, and shall not defend attacked countries. Seems more workable.

I will state my point as clearly and succinctly as I can. You can't establish long term stability by throwing resources at those who will not, for whatever reason, defend themselves. That goes for Iraq, what's left of it, and Europe. Europe will have to work out its own solutions as regards Russia. It is a dangerous situation. I don't think you are suggesting that US forces should directly engage Russian forces on or near Russia's borders.

Because you're doing it wrong. Some people even tried to explain on this forum how it shall be done:

West can give Ukraine as much money as it needs - and for the West, the needed sums will actually look modest. $100 billion? EU just forgave as much to Greece!

And additionally, West can use these money as a stick - Ukrainian kleptocrats have no one else to turn to. Whatever reforms West demands, they will HAVE TO implement.

It will not be "doing ukrainians' job for them", it will be "helping them": Ukrainian public pushes for reforms as hard as it can, right now.

The only problem, how to make Western bureaucrats to appoint a *competent* team to oversee this project? I have no illusions that Western bureaucracy is an *efficient* mechanism. We just saw how US poured about a trillion dollars into Iraq, with almost no visible results.

The idea is to NOT give lots of money at once. Give a little (a few billions), and demand specific changes. If changes do not happen, refuse to give more money until they do. Right now, Ukrainian government will have absolutely no choice but to do what is asked of it. Unlike past governments, they can't possibly turn to Russia, you know :) [if they try to do anything like that, they will probably be caught and executed by angry mobs].

Eventually, if this method succeeds, after many installments, total may end up somewhere in 50-100 billion dollars range. It would be well worth it. Losing Ukraine to Russia would create a far bigger threat than Russia currently is.

(Yes, it was a Ukrainian that called his own gov kleptocrats)
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ukrainian-mess.739067/page-44

Or if you want to read about state building and outsider enforced reforms under peace conditions we have here one Portuguese which would explain it to you:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-report-on-a-sick-man-of-europe-portugal.814756/

 

[PeterDonis]

I think most mothers teach their kids these principles

That may have been true when your and my mothers were teaching kids, but I'm not sure it's still true. Of course it's hard to judge just from media coverage, but the general impression I get is that mothers are now teaching their kids that it's not their job to deal with bullies, it's the school's job. Or at least mothers aren't doing anything to disabuse the kids of that notion, which is what the schools are teaching them.

In other words, the current trend is to centralize dealing with bullies, rather than to decentralize it. I'll leave the analogy with international politics as an exercise for the reader.

 

[PeterDonis]

the rating system was scaled with +2 being an all out victory as in WWII

I would not rate WWII as an all-out victory. One of the key stated war aims of WWII for the Allies was to save Eastern Europe from totalitarian government. At the end of WWII, Eastern Europe was in the hands of the Soviet Union, which by any reasonable measure was a worse totalitarian government than Nazi Germany.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

="Czcibor, post: 5141029, member: 339234]
Because you're doing it wrong. Some people even tried to explain on this forum how it shall be done:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a clarification again. Who's doing what wrong? Anyway, materially supporting Ukraine is not a novel idea and I have no objections. However, Russia can reverse any Ukrainian territorial gains and, if it chooses, launch an all out invasion. What does Europe do then?

 

[Czcibor]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a clarification again. Who's doing what wrong? Anyway, materially supporting Ukraine is not a novel idea and I have no objections. However, Russia can reverse any Ukrainian territorial gains and, if it chooses, launch an all out invasion. What does Europe do then?

I mean for example your way of state building in Iraq. In case of Ukraine both EU and USA did very moderate things both on military and economic level.

Which part of Europe you mean exactly? I guess that somehow moderate amount of Polish military equipment would mysteriously appear in Ukraine. And some volunteers. In both cases my gov would claim not knowing anything about it. Polish ability to fully accept a challenge in a war is based on whether we're going to be backed up by someone strong like USA or Germany + France + UK. In such case I'd expect openly sending tanks with superior air cover provided by that power.

Are you going to blast me for irresponsible behaviour of France or Germany? You know, sounds for me as fair as blaming American for shortcomings of Mexico... Same continent and they are in NAFTA with you...

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I mean for example your way of state building in Iraq. In case of Ukraine both EU and USA did very moderate things both on military and economic level.

As I've been saying recent past US interverventions have been mostly unsuccessful. Maybe Europe could do it better, but I'm not aware of any example.

Are you going to blast me for irresponsible behaviour of France or Germany? You know, sounds for me as fair as blaming American for shortcomings of Mexico... Same continent and they are in NAFTA with you…

I'm not blasting you. I'm blasting Europe for the reasons I've already detailed. I'm also blasting the US for its continuing interventionist mind set while we deal with significant budget shortfalls (which would be illegal in the EU), massive wealth inequality, failing primary and secondary education, crumbling infrastructure, a do nothing Congress. and much more. Your country happens to be a victim of the failure of your western partners. You can't do anything about that, and frankly, neither can the US. Here's why. Putin is "twitchy". That means his behavior is unpredictable. We don't know what he's going to do next, because in all likelihood, he doesn't know what he's going to do next. The best antidote to this is a united and militarily strong Europe. As long as Europe depends on the US for defense and fails to invest in its own defense, there is no reason for them to change their behavior. Having said that, the US is not going to change its policy anytime soon. It will stand with Europe until Europe tells the US to back off and seeks an accomodation with Russia. That will happen if Europe believes there is the slightest chance of a nuclear exchange, even at the tactical level. They will undercut the US and give Russia what it wants because they want to avoid a nuclear conrfrontation at virtually any cost. At least that's my view, having observed European behavior for, shall I say, a long time.

BTW The relationship between Mexico and the US is nothing like the relationships among the EU member states.

[Moderator update: removed bold font.]

 

[SW VandeCarr]

In re reading my above post, I want to be clear that by "Europe" I mean the EU, and particularly as represented by its largest members (by population and GDP): Germany, UK France and Italy. I know Poland and the Baltic States have different views as does a smaller majority of the UK.

 

[mheslep]

Do you think the UN has been successful in preventing wars or aggression?

Since the UN was created in response to a catastrophic world war and not smaller wars or aggression of which there had been many before 1945, it makes sense to judge the UN against the world war standard (zero since creation) and not some vague notion of universal peace, regardless of what UN leadership might say or do. Whenhttps://www.summitlodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/leonardo_dicaprio_un_summit_a_l.jpg I don't expect the UN to be capable of much beyond enabling major world powers to talk to each other before resorting to an armageddon.

 

[mheslep]

It is not fair to claim there are no similarities between the country relationships in the EU and the relationship between Mexico and the US. True, there's no common currency and no central government ala Brussels. But US-Mexico trade volume (exports plus imports) is over $500 billion per year. And it is mistake to think Mexico is universally a poor developing country sharing a border with a universally rich neighbor. The Mexican middle class is about 28% of the population, or ~34 million people which is roughly the size of the population of Canada. By middle class I mean a demographic with a per capita consumption comparable to the middle class in France and the UK.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

It is not fair to claim there are no similarities between the country relationships in the EU and the relationship between Mexico and the US. True, there's no common currency and no central government ala Brussels. But US-Mexico trade volume (exports plus imports) is over $500 billion per year. And it is mistake to think Mexico is universally a poor developing country sharing a border with a universally rich neighbor. The Mexican middle class is about 28% of the population, or ~34 million people which is roughly the size of the population of Canada. By middle class I mean a demographic with a per capita consumption comparable to the middle class in France and the UK.

Show me where I said anything about Mexico's economic status. It is a rising economic power, partly but not only because of investments by US corporations. I would also say that the situation in Europe at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Rome (1958) went much further than the situation with the US and Mexico today.

Besides, this was a mere example. It's really off topic to go into any further discussion of this.

 

[mheslep]

My point was not that there are no differences but that there are many similarities despite your claim of "nothing like". See trade agreements, some demographic similarities, large volume of legal immigration and tourism, cooperation between domestic law enforcement agencies, etc.

 

[Evo]

Closed pending moderation.

 

[Dale]

The thread will remain closed. This is not a social science topic, but a politics topic.