American power: Necessary for peace and stability?

[More Than A Feeling]

I am writing a paper for my world politics class to answer the above question. My argument is that is, because the primary reason for the continued absence of wars among the great powers is that the structures built during the cold war to create stability (American security guarantees to its allies) are still in force. America is so powerful that it is not threatened by its cold war allies, so it can afford to enforce those guarantees. If those countries started to threaten America by balancing against it, there would still be peace because 1. the presence of nuclear weapons makes it unlikely that there would be a full scale war 2. Those countries balancing against America would not be fighting amongst themselves at the same time.

Our professor made us pick one international politics paradigm to write in, and I chose realism. Opinions of my argument?

[Mountainman]

1. When the supply of oil gets to the point were someone will win

and someone must lose (a zero sum game)and both are militarily strong, like the EU or some Asian grouping vs the U.S., we will not be able to keep the peace since our national defense will be at risk.

I don't see anyone in this country willing to get us off the oil teat that is the Middle East.

[One_Life_To_Give]

2. Yes and No

Much of the world has had peace because of the nuclear standoff. But we have fought several wars by proxy, and inflicted brutal regimes on the world. All to gain a advantage over the other.

For peace the best hope was for Hitler to take over the world. We all would have had peace/stability but been totally controlled. Global tyranny can be good that way.

Conversly absolute freedom for 6 billion people would be anything but peaceful.

[More Than A Feeling]

3. There have always been Great power-minor power wars

We are not unique in that regard. The question is whether there would be more peace or less if America was not so powerful. I argue that there would be less, because without those security guarantees that I mentioned, the European powers would have to fear each other again. The system would become multipolar, the most unstable of all power arrangements. The calculations required to hold that particular system together require a Bismarck or a Metternich, and they have left the building. Miscalculation means war.

[el_gato]

6. I think understanding war

by asking the question of who profits is much more informative than assuming high minded motives on behalf of those in power.

The following quote is a good example:

"I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force – the Marine Corps…and during that period, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism… I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect money in. I helped in the raping of a half a dozen Central Amercan republics for the benefit of Wall Street… I helped purify Nicaragua for the the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American suger interests in 1916. I helped get Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents."

U.S. Marine General Smedley Butler
Two time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Good old Smedly. Makes me proud to be an ex-marine.

Just about the only thing that does.

[el_gato]

4. I may differ on certain points

For one, the American public would not stand for a war that
was high in casualties like the ones during the early 1900's.
If for example the U.S. were to go to war with China the casualty
count would be massive even if no nukes were used. Thus the
usage of the military machine has been primarily for imposing
corporate interests on the third world. This rape of the third
world has been a group effort by France, the U.S., Russia, Brittain,
Germany, etc. Remember it was France that first occupied Viet Nam and
the U.S. was in the business of supporting that colonial effort.
The more recent coup in Haiti was a joint effort by France and the U.S.
So I think the real picture is somewhat complicated.

I do agree that the nuke deterrent is very high. Nonetheless, I do not
think that America is powerful enough to take on a large country that has a modern military without suffering large losses. In an all out war the U.S. could win but not without a very bloody fight. Iraq is a case in point. It is a relatively small and defenseless nation and yet we can't even control that.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. It doesn't seem like public opinion has counted for very much recently.

I agree though, that public opinion wouldn't like it. Likewise, public opinion wouldn't like it in the other country either. Hence, a standoff, and peace among major powers.

[el_gato]

7. Not yet but what happens when we've lost 50,000 people?

VietNam was 60,000 and so far in Iraq we've only lost a little over 1000. Way back during all the wars between the Allies, Germany, and during the effort to destory the Ottoman Empire the casualty counts were huge. Now however, it seems that there is a great reluctance to have that kind of sacrifice.

I think perhaps the cost of war versus what could be gained by those
who profit from it would be too high in a theatre between two modern military forces. We may yet live to see it though.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. Most interesting. I have to get back to writing my paper but...

I do have one final question: What do you think the U.S. would/should do if China attacked Taiwan?

Thank you for this excellent conversation

[BonjourUSA]

11. US army has never been built for war but for striking.

Since WWII the war doctrine is the massive air strike before and the infantry after if it's possible. This doctrine killed many more of French civilians than the German did. And the USA lost "only" about 300 000 soldiers on both battlefieds (Europe and Asia). This doctrine is going on now. The USA have not capabilities to send more than 150 000 soldiers in Iraq where at least 500 000 are necessary. this is one of the reason why we were very pessimistic about this adventure. (the other reason obviously is that it was an enormous bullshit).

The draft couldn't be an imediate solution. In a modern army one fighter needs one soldier for logistic and supply (150 000 soldiers in Iraq doesn't mean 150 000 soldiers on the ground).

Your situation is very weak now; Look the recent North-Korean affair. They decide to stop to talk about nuke and call Bush "the little Hitler". Bush doesn't react, the "negociations" are stopped, the US press keeps silence.... Full stop. If tomorrow a real crisis would happen your army wouldn't have any land capabilities.

At last, I believe Iraq should be your political nightmare in the next months. Let's imagine the best : Kerry is elected, he will ask the UN help. But the UN agreement couldnt be given without a massive leave of the US troops and an Arab (or European) command. If Kerry agrees with, it will the end of your influence over this region and of your direct control on your oil supplies.

let's not imagine the worst, Bush is elected. Because WE (you and us) would be into a black shit. A region with 250 million of angry inhabitants that is very hard to control with only 150 000 or 500 000 soldiers... Even with 1 million.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. You left out the emerging "power" of the 3rd world.

Your equation suggests that only wealthy countries wield military power. I beg to differ. The third world is emerging as a major military power in the face of the United States. Our much vaunted military power is at a standstill against the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nuclear weapons have become obsolete because they are unusable against guerillas. The same may be said for most heavy weapons (tanks, artillary, missiles, etc) against urban guerillas as has been shown in Baghdad, Basra, Faluja, etc.

The ability of insurgents, terrorists, what have you, to target almost anything, anywhere, in the world is not going unnoticed by those who would wish to overthrow American Power.

It is, in essence, the war of the ants against the tarantula.