Sunglasses that don't scare people

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

I just came across this presentation on international military strategy. For those who'd rather read than watch, here's a glossary.

 

I'll refrain from editorialising and wait with posting any opinions after there are a few comments. Just wondering what people think.

[METAL]

I think I am too busy to post things about that.... I have more interesting things to do... *cough*, *cough*

 

anyone makin' wallpapers?

Edited June 21, 2007 by METAL

[Spacko]

Well I thought it was very interesting, and certainly a good idea in principle. Pertinent, too, in this day and age.

 

Thanks for the link!

[{GD}Independent]

Truly fascinating, Goo. Thanks.

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

After the situation in (former) Yugoslavia, I got the feeling that a pattern was starting to emerge for those kinds of interventions. The US doing the asskicking and the rest of NATO (Europe) doing the peacekeeping stuff.

This idea, now, seems further away than ever. And the reasons for this were only touched upon in the presentation I linked to, even though they are more important and controversial than the rest of what he says. He favours pre-emptive warfare, but he doesn't say what factors these decisions should be based upon. He also suggests the G20 as a platform for this, but never says why. Why not the G8? NATO? The UN? Or even the Bilderberg group? If you're going to let the ghost of pre-emptive warfare out of the bottle, then accountability should be the number one concern. Otherwise you're simply talking about empire, and then there's no need for his sysadmin force at all. There's also his dismissal of the ICC for the traditional forces, suggesting he's perfectly fine with them committing crimes. He may have separated the two forces, but he should realise that the acts of the first can make things much harder for the second.

Barnett also supports unilateralism. He thinks the US can and should do it all, which is makes the same mistakes they're currently making all over again. Many of the economists behind the rebuilding of Iraq, are the same who advised Boris Yeltsin in privatising the Russian economy. When that failed, their conclusion was not that their ideas were wrong, but that they simply hadn't been drastic enough. Then Iraq came and they did it more drastically. And failed again. Barnett is making that mistake again; thinking it's not the ideas that are wrong, it's simply the execution. Which brings me to values.

When Barnett talks about 'pops' army' and 'mom's army', he's basically talking about masculine and feminine values. And of this, the US has the first, but lacks the latter. Americans are good at the first thing, not just because they have the money, but also the culture and willingness to do it. The American language has the phrase 'kicking 'donkey'' - other languages don't. This mindset also hinders them in doing the sysadmin thing. That's where you need a different mindset. A mindset that is prevalent in Europe.

When talking about a future European army, nobody talks about an army in the American sense of the word. Europe realises all too well that the age of empires is over and that the battlefields are ruled by the guerilla handbook. When Europe talks about a future army, you see phrases like this:

"The primacy of law

Above all, Europe should speak up for the notion that relations between states and individuals

should be governed by law. The war of "all against all" that once governed domestic politics still

exists in many parts of the international arena. But just as violence has been tamed by law

domestically, and now also regionally through the EU, so it can also be tamed internationally."(Javier Solana)

A future European army will be more like a peacekeeping, humanitarian force than a traditional army. They will seek a legal framework through international institutions, like the UN, before any action is taken. It will be much more suited to become (at least the basis of) Barnett's 'mom's army' than a reorganised US army.

The framework for that is already in place - NATO. But there's a number of obstacles that need to be taken if the US and EU are to ever come together again after the rifts of the recent years. And those are the ones I mentioned at the start that Barnett hastily seemed to skip over - unilateralism, pre-emptiveness, accountability. It will take at least until the next American president for that to change.

[{GD}Independent]

Sonic Goo' date='Jun 22 2007, 10:51 PM' post='73058']

Why not the UN?

 

 

 

Do you *honestly* not understand that the sole purpose of the UN is to oppose the USA at all costs? Barnett was clearly not a Bush fan, but he was certainly a patriot. No patriot is going to place any sort of US interest in the hands of the incredibly corrupt UN.

 

Sonic Goo' date='Jun 22 2007, 10:51 PM' post='73058']

 

There's also his dismissal of the ICC for the traditional forces, suggesting he's perfectly fine with them committing crimes.

 

No, no, no. Your logic is wrong. Just because he doesn't like the ICC (and what sane American would?) doesn't mean he's ok with our troops committing crimes. If you look at the last couple of years, you'll see that we're all too happy to prosecute our troops ourselves, thank you very much. We have no interest in subjugataing ourselves to a court that doesn't hold our Constitution as its guidebook. What soldier would fight for his country if he might face some Kangaroo court just for following orders?

[RXS]

This pretty much sums up our feelings on the UN

[METAL]

This pretty much sums up our feelings on the UN

There is no UN.

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

Do you *honestly* not understand that the sole purpose of the UN is to oppose the USA at all costs?

 

So at what point has the UN needlessly opposed the US? Looks more like the other way around. If you mean the Iraq issue - turned out they were quite right, didn't it?

 

what sane American would

 

So what's wrong with the ICC? And what's so good about self-regulation?

 

This pretty much sums up our feelings on the UN

From the article in question:

If you think—as the media and the left do in this country—that Iraq is a God-awful mess (which it’s not), then try being the Balkans or Sudan or even Cyprus or anywhere where the problem’s been left to the United Nations.

 

ROFL Hey, I've got an idea! I go on holiday in Yugoslavia or Cyprus and you go on holiday in Iraq. The survivor gets the dead guy's money. Deal?

Edited June 23, 2007 by [TNT] Sonic Goo

[RXS]

Sonic Goo' date='Jun 23 2007, 07:19 AM' post='73078']

ROFL Hey, I've got an idea! I go on holiday in Yugoslavia or Cyprus and you go on holiday in Iraq. The survivor gets the dead guy's money. Deal?

Deal, and I get to pick where in Iraq.......

 

Lets just hope the troop surge makes a positive impact on the situation over there (although for some reason, I suspect you are rooting the other way).

Edited June 24, 2007 by RXS

[[TNT] Sonic Goo]

Deal, and I get to pick where in Iraq.......

 

I was thinking more of a trip around the country. I do Slovenia, Kroatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia and you do Basra, Baghdad, Ramadi, Kirkuk. Hiding in a hotel in the Green Zone wouldn't give you a good idea of what's going on, now would it? That's like McCain acting all surprised he can walk around Baghdad safely - with 10,000 soldiers around him and Apaches overhead.

Edited June 24, 2007 by [TNT] Sonic Goo