Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Irrelevant America
Just this weekend I was talking to another American about this, this eerie sense we both have that the United States is becoming irrelevant in a weird way that we would never have foreseen growing up. Josh Rogin describes this in Bloomberg View:
Europe is facing a convergence of the worst crises since World War II, and the overwhelming consensus among officials and experts here is that the U.S. no longer has the will or the ability to play an influential role in solving them.
At the Munich Security Conference, the prime topics are the refugee crisis, the Syrian conflict, Russian aggression and the potential dissolution of the European Union’s very structure. Top European leaders repeatedly lamented that 2015 saw all of Europe’s problems deepen, and unanimously predicted that in 2016 they would get even worse.
“The question of war and peace has returned to the continent,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the audience, indirectly referring to Russian military interventions. “We had thought that peace had returned to Europe for good.”
What was missing from the conference speeches and even the many private discussions in the hallways, compared to previous years, was the discussion of what Europe wanted or even expected the U.S. to do. …
During the first day of the conference, the U.S. role in Europe was hardly mentioned in the public sessions. In the private sessions, many participants told me that European governments are not only resigned to a lack of American assertiveness, they also are now reluctantly accepting a Russia that is more present than ever in European affairs, and not for the better.
I know lots of people here will say, “See? This was Obama’s secret plan all along.” But it goes beyond that. It’s the collective impression people are getting from contact with America — not just our foreign policy but our culture, our political debates, our newspapers, our tourists, our movies. Not negative. Just irrelevant — whether or not this is a rational belief. And it’s not.
This is something I’ve felt in a personal way, though I’ve had trouble describing it. Just a subtle difference in people’s speech and reactions. Most of my life, people have noticed that I look out of place, or heard an accent, and asked me where I’m from. And obviously, all my life I’ve been saying, “I’m American,” and until recently, this has generally inspired some reaction — positive or negative, often strongly misinformed, but almost always some opinion about where America is, what it’s like, who the president is, what Americans are like. Even if the opinion clearly comes from nothing more than watching American movies or listening to American pop music, most people have at least heard of America.
But growingly, I feel as if the conversations are headed this way:
Random Foreigner: Where are you from?
Me: I’m American!
RF: How nice! Where did you learn such good English?
Me: Shouldn’t I be asking you that? Americans speak English. It’s our native language.
RF: [Puzzled.] Really? Oh! Crocodile Dundee!
Me: That’s Australia. America’s in the northern hemisphere. Clint Eastwood?
RF: Is he your prime minister?
Me: Clint Eastwood? Muhammed Ali, Elvis, Michael Jordan, Henry Kissinger … Monica Lewinsky? … Tiger Woods? Michael Jackson? You’ve heard of Michael Jackson, right? Have you heard of Facebook? We invented Facebook … McDonalds?
RF: I’ve never been much of a map person, I’m afraid. Bet this weather’s a shock, eh? Is this the first time you’ve ever seen snow?
Me: No, look, we’re a superpower. Barack Obama, you heard of him? Donald Trump? [RF shrugs apologetically] … Star Wars? Darth Vader, you’ve heard of Darth Vader, right? What about Steve Jobs? Haven’t you ever used a phone?
RF: Oh yes, of course! Do you like the food here? It must be hard to get used to, you’re used to spicier food, I bet. All those nice spices there …
Me: No, wait. You’ve heard of the United States of America, I guarantee it. 9/11? The World Trade Center? Great Satan ring any bells? Man on the moon? The Internet? Tear down this wall? [I’m getting frantic] USA! USA! USA! Come on … racist, imperialist, down with America —
RF: Oh, yes, that was terrible. Nelson Mandela was a great man. You must be proud of him. [thumbs-up gesture] Amandla!
Me: You don’t even hate us? You’ve got to have heard about us. Everyone’s …
Published in Culture, Foreign Policy, General, History, Military, Politics
A global order in which everyone follows the Western way of doings things? That would be a paradise. I do not think it would be a tyranny, since clearly that is not something you can impose on the world – the citizens have to grown into it.
War is going to be the answer for sure. That is all most of the world understands. It only takes one side to have a war, it takes two to have peace.
No, it only takes one side to have a peace. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, & when America used to put the fear of the Lord into people’s hearts, they stayed peaceful. It works, don’t worry about that. It’s just never done anymore–because now it takes two to have peace–& people know better than to play God.
Try telling the Jews in 1939 it only takes one side to have peace.
All peace presupposes there is only one side.
Do you know the famous phrase of Tacitus, They made it a desert, & called that peace?
If you like German humor, the German word for cemetary or graveyard is Friedhof, the house of peace…
Or remember what your Union did to the South to get peace; or what your country did to Japan & Germany. That was peace, too.
You won’t become irrelevant unless you start to think you are. This foreigner is still an admirer.
The Civil War is a great example. The North forced the war, not the South. America would have been more than happy to leave Japan and Germany alone if they were not so aggressive to others.
I will grant you, total and complete defeat of an enemy can lead to peace, as you point out. But really, what that means is one side is now willing to stop fighting, or one side no longer exists.
My point is that you cannot have peace when someone wants to keep fighting. Either they change their mind, or they cease to be. I hope that is more clear.
Sure, but people do not change their mind in war. That’s the whole point of fighting a war, you don’t have to change your mind! You have to change the other guy’s mind.
As for the Civil War, I strongly disagree. The North forced the South into war? Pray explain!
The North invaded the South. As forceful as you can get. It forced the South to fight back.
And people change their mind in war. The British changed their mind in the American Revolution. The South hoped the North would change theirs. If Sherman did not take Atlanta, that would have been very likely, indeed.
Uh, when SC seceded there were U.S. troops in possession of U.S. forts in Charleston Harbor. SC demanded that they leave the now sovereign soil of SC, the U.S. refused and the SC militia fired on Fort Sumpter. Not an invasion but a provocation that could not be ignored by the Union.
I’ll go for the “War Between the States” but not “War of Northern Aggression.”
The North fought until 1864 over the forts in Charleston Harbor?
The North was the aggressor. At any time, the North could have said “We are done” and the war would be over and the CSA would be intact. The South could only win by getting the North to give up. At any time the South said “We are done” they lost the CSA.
I am not sure I understand the push back. Are you both saying that it takes two parties to continue a war?
Just saying that the war didn’t begin with a northern invasion. SC challenged the Union by act of arms. The finding of aggression depends on your interpretation of the act of union, whether the CSA were within their rights to leave the union. Suppressing a rebellion, especially when the rebels shoot first, is not aggression. The Constitution does not have an exit clause or expiration date. There was no intrinsic right to leave the union. Any difference of opinion on the matter was settled at Appomattox.
Back around 2002-2003 when some conservatives were talking carelessly in favor of preemptive war, I pointed out to them the historical example of Abraham Lincoln, who went to great pains not to be the one who fired the first shot. It’s important even to the present day.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union & divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, & the other would accept war rather than let it perish, & the war came.
There was someone who knew how to do nuance. Eat your heart out, Mitch McConnell.
I do not understand what you are arguing with me about. Saying that people were willing to go to war on both sides does not disprove my point at all. Let me restate it this way:
It takes only one side in a conflict to keep the conflict going. Both sides might keep it going, but it only takes one. It takes all sides to maintain peace.
What I am saying is that war is about imposing your will on one’s enemies; their will does not matter, except as it requires crushing. & therefore the other side is only matter to be acted upon, formed or deformed. Any other view seems to me guaranteed to perpetuate war endlessly.
So you agree with my statement above, you are just saying it in a different way.
I’m not sure whether this is a disagreement or a misunderstanding. This is why I offered you a theoretical statement that seems to me to dispel the inevitable obscurities of psychological statements: The relationship of victor to vanquished in war is alike to that between form & matter. If you see things the same way, then whatever disagreements remain as a matter of psychology seem unimportant, certainly not worth a quarrel.
Titus, you’re talking about “winning”. Bryan is talking about “fighting”.
Mr. Male, you may be right–that may be the source of the confusion up to now. Of course, a little clarity is no reason to stop a quarrel–have you read the exchange? It’s pretty good!–but you may be right,