Comments on: The ocean is becoming wild

By: jomama

jomama — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:57:04 +0000

It seems no major state — or upcoming one — will ever get the idea
that the hubris that yields the bandying about of large military forces is usually
their undoing. That’s not to say that the factors leading to that aren’t
a great part of it.

Coming anarchy indeed.

When will a state emerge that has no such hubris, letting the rest
spend themselves poor? Ah, but such intelligence is not inherent
in force-based systems so we can forget that.

By: IJ

IJ — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:46:49 +0000

Robert Kaplan writes: In a post-George W. Bush America, if we do not find a way to agree on basic precepts, Iraq may indeed turn out to have been the event that signaled our military decline. Preventing that will require continued high military expenditures combined with an unrelenting multilateralismof a sort we have not pursued since the 1990s. But Kaplan seriously caveats high military expenditures: Military power rests substantially on the willingness to use it: perhaps less so in war than in peacetime as a means of leverage and coercion. That, in turn, requires a vigorous nationalism — something that is far more noticeable right now in Asia than in parts of an increasingly post-national West. This leaves "unrelenting multilateralism" as his preference. The President of the US seems now to be following this reasoning - yesterday at the United Nations: The president, who once boasted that the US was strong enough to go it alone, said: "The US is committed to a strong and vibrant United Nations."

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:04:01 +0000

I have to disagree with El Jefe. Defense spending is, first and foremost, SPENDING. The Democrats especially under President Hillary will want to prove they are “tough” on Defense. Spending money on defense will be one way to do that. Defense spending will grow under the next administration, no matter who it is.

By: El Jefe Maximo

El Jefe Maximo — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:45:14 +0000

Given the probable outcome of the next US presidential election (to say nothing of the likely makeup of Congress): I don’t see any possibility that US naval and air forces will receive the refurbishment they so desperately need. Anti-US powers are likely to have things pretty much their own way for awhile. If you’re looking for 1930’s analogies for what’s coming in the US, try a Stanley Baldwin-like view of national defense.

I wonder to what extent this possibility might drive armaments on the part of other powers, particularly Japan ?

By: feeblemind

feeblemind — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:37:14 +0000

Good link. Thought provoking article by Kaplan. But I think the key question is which way the USA will tack? Will the USA see a series of appeasers in the President’s office? Demographics: What happens after the Baby Boomers die off? Which way will the USA go then? Either the USA will continue to stand up to China or they won’t. The smaller players will have to look after their own self-interest in that context.

By: Left Flank » That Old Kaplan Magic

Left Flank » That Old Kaplan Magic — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:57:12 +0000

[...] tackling William James. Style defeats categorization. My Kaplan is not your Kaplan. Just check out Younghusband and Lexington Green on the same [...]

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:53:08 +0000

“…subtlety must guide America’s hand as the only power in the Pacific without territorial desires.”

This should allow us to be the “offshore” balancer in Asia for a long time, much as Perfidious Albion was able to do in Europe, to the perpetual irritation and resentment of the landpowers, scorpions trapped in a bottle who have nowhere to go, while the island power can take to the sea (and air and space) and come ashore at times and places of its own choosing.

BTW, I got halfway through Kaplan’s new book today, and even though I had read a lot of it in the Atlantic, it is terrific.