Frankly, I’d agree with them, though by rationale is rather different. The US can fight wherever it damn well pleases; we have our own fish to fry. We should concern ourselves solely with our own affairs, and those of others only insofar as they imping on our own. If we can “free ride” through the “war on terror”, so much the better.

We should concern ourselves solely with our own affairs, and those of others only insofar as they imping on our own.

Does this mean you’d like to see Canada renounce its NATO membership?

Does this mean you’d like to see Canada renounce its NATO membership?

Yes. NATO is a wave of the past; Western dominance will not last much longer.

von Kaufman-Turkestansky: Thanks a lot dude. I’m writing a paper about this ‘human security’ thing and read somewhere that this was consistent with the so-called ‘traditional peacekeeping mission’ of Canada.

I was wondering if: – this foreign policy orientation has been taken up by Axworthy’s successors in the same enthusiastic way – human security was merely empty rhetoric or not in Canada’s case (like: influence on the military doctrines)

Kenneth,
Canada’s participating in the GWOT is a very good thing for your country, most importantly because it highlighted the decrepit state of your military and the attention it needed. It still needs more attention and the budget still has not been increased nearly enough, but it’s a good start.

Also, this is a fantastic opportunity to get much needed combat experience in order to develop new defense policy and tactics. That’s one of the reasons the French military was initially upset (they don’t seem to be upset anymore) that their government didn’t go into Iraq.

As for your NATO comment, the primary reason NATO is not an effective combat force, other than for peacekeeping operations, is the fact that Europe’s militaries have been systematically defunded and cut. During the Balkans campaigns in the 1990s, the U.S. regularly could not operate with other NATO countries simply because their technology was so old it rended it incompatible with our newer tech.

But don’t allow me to bash NATO too much. It has performed admirably in Afghanistan and I am much more impressed with it than I thought I was going to be. Again, in many cases NATO involvement is a good thing for the countries sending troops because it is highlighting their decrepit military.

Just consider population ratios: if China fully modernizes (and there is no reason to believe it won’t, barring major resource depletion) it would have an economy five times the size of that of the US.

Chinas ascent to global super power won’t be without a rather complicated domestic cost, IMO. Bear in mind China’s foundation is the massive agricultural chunk of her population. China has found economic success through the virtual abandonment of it’s recently traditional Maoist principles. In short, Mao has been shifted (regionally) to the back burner in favor of a more capitalistic approach. That approach has been restricted in an effort to maintain control of the strong majority that do not benefit from it.

It is this strict form that China employs capitalism that may well undo your hypothesis. As the cities grow richer the rural base grows unruly. As such, I would argue that China cannot fully modernize and maintain it’s sovereignty as we know it today. Communism is the bind that ties China together. The further they delve into modernization the looser that bond becomes. The less effective that bond is the more the cultural differences in China will manifest themselves.

The end result could well be a fragmented China, much in the same fashion as that of the late Soviet Union.

subadei,

You are dead-on in your analysis of China… don’t forget the fact that the more industry that China builds, the more difficult it will be for their economy to transition and the more economic bubbles that will form, which will have a huge impact each time one bursts. Nobody has ever seen an economy of such size… the results of just minor bubbles bursting could result in massive instability.

Also, due to their child policy, China has over 100 million men who will never have a woman with whom to procreate with and will never be sexually satisfied. China can easily redirect that sexual energy for strategic purposes. We should not forget about that…

Chinas ascent to global super power won’t be without a rather complicated domestic cost, IMO. Bear in mind China’s foundation is the massive agricultural chunk of her population. China has found economic success through the virtual abandonment of it’s recently traditional Maoist principles. In short, Mao has been shifted (regionally) to the back burner in favor of a more capitalistic approach. That approach has been restricted in an effort to maintain control of the strong majority that do not benefit from it.

It is this strict form that China employs capitalism that may well undo your hypothesis. As the cities grow richer the rural base grows unruly. As such, I would argue that China cannot fully modernize and maintain it’s sovereignty as we know it today. Communism is the bind that ties China together. The further they delve into modernization the looser that bond becomes. The less effective that bond is the more the cultural differences in China will manifest themselves.

China has a strong one party state and the most cohesive culture in the world. It has survived wars, invasions, decline, and the scourges of civilization generally in a way that western states have not. I cannot see China fragmented. There will be growing pains in China, but they won’t lead to an explosion: they didn’t in Japan or South Korea, both of whom modernized with extreme rapidity.

I think it makes a lot of sense”¦ the West must either solidify their position by working more with one another in a pan-Western alliance or else it will fragment into its separate parts and fall. That’s what I fear”¦

I think the West, including Australia, New Zealand, and parts of South America, must get over their petty ideological and policy differences and work towards a global military and trade alliance.

Why? From a purely strategic standpoint, without a common enemy and “great power diplomacy”, it makes little sense to hold together a grand alliance. Every power must go its own way now. Refer to my points about the differing structure of the modern world political structure and the differing nature of a “rational strategy” arising therefrom.

Oh, but there is a common enemy”¦ at least one, and the potential for many more.

Who? And how does it necessitate a cohesive, supranational military structure rather than ordinary run-of-the-mill cooperation? The Soviet Union had the military might to warrant this kind of arrangement; al-Qaeda does not.

Arcane said:

“Al Qaeda is just the most vocal element of a much larger movement. But then there’s China”¦”

Really? China is a threat this week. I heard that someone in Irian Jaya had now discovered a slingshot, so I think we should just go ahead with the “preventive” war doctrine now because in 130 more years they’ll have guns, and then tanks, and then, well, you know…Just invade, in the name of defense, of course, now while we still have a slight advantage. It will probably be cheaper, too. We can then spend the difference that Arcane is worried about going to welfare instead of military on more welfare.
But really, there will be one of several ways to deal with China, the best one being of trying to be as friendly as humanly possible, because it matters not a hoot how much military the U.S. builds up, the numbers are in their favor. Besides, I know many Chinese folks and most all of them are quite friendly. I’ve been to China 4-5 times and have never felt any sort of repression. (I know better than joing a cult like Falung Gong in the first place). And to tell the truth, saw almost no police at all. But, well, you know, they’re communists, and we all know they can’t be trusted.

“Oh, but there is a common enemy”¦ at least one, and the potential for many more.”

He almost sounds as though the potential for getting more was desireable. The goal is not to have any, Arcane, not get more. We should be taking the logical steps to reduce the number, not increase the number. I mean, unless you’re suicidal or something.kb

Eurabia is a trope used by the extreme right to bash Europe’s Muslim populations. It has the classic hallmarks of far-right screeds about filthy, disease-ridden, sexually threatening aliens, with one ethnic group simply substituted for another. In my mind, no-one who invokes the threat of the rising brown hordes can be taken seriously, except as a bigot at one remove from reality.

Kenneth, assuming Osama and pals were using jet liners, they couldn’t have done much damage at all to a nuke plant—just too damn much reinforced concrete.

As to the “what larger movement?” comment, I think there is indeed a significant minority of muslims who view favorably the idea of incorporating the west into “dar al islam”. Bush’s pals, the saudis, certainly endorse this given all the money they funnel into the builing of wahabbist mosques worldwide. Not saying every guy down at the local doner kebab shop is a terrorist, but I think denying the fact that there exists a serious irredentist streak in that community is foolish. This mentality, coupled with present demographics, should give one pause.

Finally, how about some reciprocity from the muslim world—I’ll stop bitching about them throwing up their mosques in the heart of Christendom as soon as a Copt can repair a church in Egypt without first securing a special dispensaton from the government, or as soon as a Jordanian can sell a piece of land to a jew without being subject to life in prison, or as soon as I can even bring a bible into Saudi Arabia without it being shredded at the airport.

various less-than-savoury regimes in the Middle East.

Expound, if you would.

China has more problems than potential. Loyalty to the party is a thing of the past. There were over 80,000 disturbances including some spectacular riots by students last year. China makes underwear not silicon chips. As far as it having a cohesive culture only 50% of the people speak Mandarin.

America has not instituted a draft. We are stretched because we choose to be stretched militarily. Educational system in decline? In survey after survey out of the top 200 universities in the world we numbered from 130 to 140 out of that 200. Six nobels this year for American scholars.
So we are not liked by some people. jelousy!! So What!
a trip to the great wall and meeting some nice Chinese people do not remotely give you an idea of how complicated China is. I have been here a few years and everyday I am learning something new. In the rural heartland there is little hope, just fear and anger. the Party’ program of disposessing peasants and shipping them to the industrialized East to work in sweat factories is a recipe for revolution.
Europe may become Islamasized but I do not think it will be an Islam like we see today. I beleive Islam will reform and be more tolerant of other creeds. I believe it is reformation that Bin Ladin and others hate and fear not the WEst.