The multipolar tool kit

Article suggests that Obama take hints from the U.S. political system:

"A. Allies are the political 'base.'

"B. Bargains are the coin of the realm.

"C Checked power is safe power."


A. means cultivating one's allies. B. means the willingness to make trade offs when negotiating with other countries. C. refers to balance of power.

As I recall, a measure of decline is whether a civilization is able (and willing) to defend itself.

The idea that decline is defined as the failure to push around other countries is simply the conceit of an authoritarian personality.

If a culture does defend itself, I would examine other factors, such at economic vitality and cultural exuberance.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

As I recall, a measure of decline is whether a civilization is able (and willing) to defend itself.

I have questioned said willingness on our part, from time to time, since the 70s, and still feel that the verdict on that question is still out. Has Iraq done what Vietnam almost did, and killed off (or at least severely wounded) our willingness to even defend ourselves from attack on our own soil? After all, if we are no longer willing to defend ourselves, then no amount of troops, defenses, or weaponry will make us able to defend ourselves.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I have questioned said willingness on our part, from time to time, since the 70s, and still feel that the verdict on that question is still out. Has Iraq done what Vietnam almost did, and killed off (or at least severely wounded) our willingness to even defend ourselves from attack on our own soil? After all, if we are no longer willing to defend ourselves, then no amount of troops, defenses, or weaponry will make us able to defend ourselves.

Our incursion into Afghanistan has not become controversial like Iraq has. Probably because it was an attempt to directly strike back at those who attacked us. It was, at root, a defensive reaction.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

As I recall, a measure of decline is whether a civilization is able (and willing) to defend itself.

The idea that decline is defined as the failure to push around other countries is simply the conceit of an authoritarian personality.

If a culture does defend itself, I would examine other factors, such at economic vitality and cultural exuberance.

When America was at the peak of its power fifty years ago, it was taken for granted that, whether on the playground or in international affairs, one did not start the fight - but stood always ready to defend yourself. Starting the fight was the earmark of a bully - and a coward. That was the credo of the earlier generations up through the GI and on into the Silent.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I have questioned said willingness on our part, from time to time, since the 70s, and still feel that the verdict on that question is still out. Has Iraq done what Vietnam almost did, and killed off (or at least severely wounded) our willingness to even defend ourselves from attack on our own soil? After all, if we are no longer willing to defend ourselves, then no amount of troops, defenses, or weaponry will make us able to defend ourselves.

There may have been many reasons to intervene in Vietnam and many reasons to intervene in Iraq and I'm sure many people at the time thought those were good reasons. However, self-defense they weren't. Not unless you define self-defense as "They MIGHT hurt us some time in the future." Which in my day was considered equivalent to "Old Man Scrooge has a shotgun! We saw it! Let's mob his house and burn it down before he shoots one of us!"

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Our incursion into Afghanistan has not become controversial like Iraq has. Probably because it was an attempt to directly strike back at those who attacked us. It was, at root, a defensive reaction.

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the moment the last troops leave Iraq, our incursion into Afghanistan, and continuing involvement there, will become controversial. Certain voices in the media and academia will move Heaven and Earth to make it controversial, hoping to thus delegitimize any future attempt to directly strike back at anyone who attacks us. After all, anyone who attacks us is (or should be) automatically recognized as being in the right.

Those "certain voices" are likely to be voted down in a genuine case of self defense. It's human nature.

As I recall, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 even Eric Meece was willing to strike back.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I have questioned said willingness on our part, from time to time, since the 70s, and still feel that the verdict on that question is still out. Has Iraq done what Vietnam almost did, and killed off (or at least severely wounded) our willingness to even defend ourselves from attack on our own soil? After all, if we are no longer willing to defend ourselves, then no amount of troops, defenses, or weaponry will make us able to defend ourselves.

Doubt it. Obama is quite hawkish about Afghanistan, despite the screams of outrage from the "Naive Pacifists" and "Blame America Firsters", as are the majority of Americans, myself included.

I just hope you're right, or America's days are indeed numbered - and the clock is ticking.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I just hope you're right, or America's days are indeed numbered - and the clock is ticking.

It's a saecular winter - we always think America's days are numbered, or Western Civilization's. or the World's, during such. But yes, the clock is indeed ticking. One hopes Obama can keep the lid on Afghanistan, but I'm totally convinced he will try.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

I just hope you're right, or America's days are indeed numbered - and the clock is ticking.

Calm down! Western Civilization is in a time period similar to Graeco-Roman Civilization during the Age of the Gracchi, not the Severian Age like you seem to constantly suggesting.

I've read a book called Empires of Trust that says that the US and the American people are acting very much like the Roman Republic and it's people during the 2nd Century BC.

Originally Posted by Odin

Calm down! Western Civilization is in a time period similar to Graeco-Roman Civilization during the Age of the Gracchi, not the Severian Age like you seem to constantly suggesting.

I've read a book called Empires of Trust that says that the US and the American people are acting very much like the Roman Republic and it's people during the 2nd Century BC.

Gracchi? Well, I keep thinking, the Clodii. FDR was Tiberius Gracchus. But other than that,yes. I agree.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I disagree, somewhat. The World Wars and Cold War were, in my estimation, contemporary (in the Spenglerian sense of the word) with the Punic Wars of Classical history. The Kennedy brothers compare with the Gracchi, Nixon with Sulla, Bush II with Pompey (substitute the "war on terror" for the campaigns against the Cilician pirates). The Western Caeser is due to arrive sometime during the next Crisis. If history rhymes -- as it tends to do -- he will complete the transition of the United States from republic to empire and then pass abruptly from the scene, leaving his heirs to solidify the new imperial system and inaugurate a resurgence of American global power. I expect that a truly universal Western empire will emerge during the Crisis of 2100 (comparable to the emergence of the Pax Romana during the first century AD), that it will peak about a century later, and then will begin to decline steadily, terminating with the crackup of the first planetary government sometime in the 26th century.

I'm not sold on the individual comparisons at present. But I do agree that our nation bears some striking similarities to Rome's republic in its final decades. It wouldn't surprise me if our nation is now entering the crisis that will sweep aside the final remnants of our once-free republic and usher in a new line of Caesars in some form or another. The Caesars might not be exclusively American, though -- we might be looking at continental unions like the E.U. operating under a reformed-U.N. global government.

In any case, I hope that this won't happen. But the possibility worries me terribly.

I don't see the E.U. as taking us over or as the nucleus of a planetary government until the next Crisis or its aftermath. What I see is a more cohesive E.U. as a strictly European entity, vis-a-vis the revived Russian sphere of influence (now, I really think, 1T) and the Islamic world, which is rattling sabers at both of us. Certainly we'll never get China or the Islamic world in a one-world government of any sort with us!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I don't see the E.U. as taking us over or as the nucleus of a planetary government until the next Crisis or its aftermath. What I see is a more cohesive E.U. as a strictly European entity, vis-a-vis the revived Russian sphere of influence (now, I really think, 1T) and the Islamic world, which is rattling sabers at both of us. Certainly we'll never get China or the Islamic world in a one-world government of any sort with us!

Possibly China - if China is the DOMINANT POWER ruling over such a one-world government.

But if you people who insist that the present parallels the late Hellenistic Age rather then the Third Century are right, then we're not an analog of the Roman Republic at any stage - we're the Republic of Carthage, with a Carthaginian future in store for us by no later than 2100. China would be the Roman Republic. Europe and Russia would be the Macedonian/Greek successor states of the (short-lived) Alexandrian Empire. Latin America would then be Numidia, long oppressed by the Carthaginians but now about to break free and ally itself with Rome (China) against their oppressors. Africa and South Asia would be those parts of the former Alexandrian Empire where Macedonian/Greek rule had already broken down. (The Islamic World as an equally fragmented but nonetheless very dangerous Parthian Empire.)

(Betcha didn't know that Carthage was also a republic - in fact, a commercial republic, to crib VKS's favorite term for the US.)

Oh, yes. But Carthage was not a continental power. It was a thin strip of seacoast with desert behind it. They lived off trade, protected by their navies. Compare Carthage to other naval powers like Ancient Crete, Modern Britain and Japan, and as far as resources go they were way behind even these islands. This is why they wanted Spain so badly. Possible ATL: they get to Spain and dig in deep enough that Rome expends a lot of its resources trying unsuccessfully to dig them out.

Continental powers are a whole different story. Rome, though it began as a peninsular city-state, had the resources of all of Italy - later all of Europe - that it could draw on (or how Julius Caesar got so rich, robbing the Gauls.)

Continental powers today: Russia, China, the United States, and the E.U. Latin America is too disunited and its biggest, most central nation, Brazil, is also the odd nation out. Africa is also disunited at this time and divided into Anglophone and Francophone nations - many of whom are split along tribal or religious lines. Now, I can see some great African unifier arising late in this century or in the 22nd, but - naah, we're Rome in the Dying Republic Saeculum. We've had our Punic Wars, as both Germany and Japan can testify.

This does not, of course, pretend to deal with the late century's possible spacegoing powers. Or those of the 22nd.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Oh, yes. But Carthage was not a continental power. It was a thin strip of seacoast with desert behind it. They lived off trade, protected by their navies. Compare Carthage to other naval powers like Ancient Crete, Modern Britain and Japan, and as far as resources go they were way behind even these islands. This is why they wanted Spain so badly. Possible ATL: they get to Spain and dig in deep enough that Rome expends a lot of its resources trying unsuccessfully to dig them out.

Though we do have the resources and expanse of a continental power, we have always tended to think and act more like the maritime powers you mention. Even today, along both coasts, the continental interior of the US is often referred to somewhat contemptuously as 'flyover country'. Also, the pattern for settling the 'last West' between 1840 and 1890 is telling: we settled (secured) the West Coast first, then moved inland from there and from the Mississippi Valley.

Assuming we do survive this 4T reasonably intact, I suspect we'll have become more of a truly continental power than we are now - in outlook as well as in area and resources. After all, we'll probably end up having little choice in the matter.

(BTW: Although Japan is geographically a maritime power, a case can be made for it's leadership from 1895 to 1945 having pursued a primarily continental strategy, aimed mostly at a then-weak China, while expending no more resources on the Pacific than they thought they could get away with, for solely defensive purposes.)

This does not, of course, pretend to deal with the late century's possible spacegoing powers. Or those of the 22nd.

Part of me is inclined to say, almost on a knee-jerk level, that we absolutely HAVE to be one of those spacegoing powers. Whether we will be, though, is at best questionable at this point.

One reason we settled the "last West" last is pretty clear if you live here. There's a term from that era, "The Great American Desert" that says it all. And some of that settlement is being undone as people abandon the prairies or turn to such things as buffalo ranching.

For an excellent comparison and contrast of Continental vs Maritime powers, I would recommend 'History and the Sea: Essays on Maritime Strategies', edited by Clark G. Reynolds.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Possibly China - if China is the DOMINANT POWER ruling over such a one-world government.

But if you people who insist that the present parallels the late Hellenistic Age rather then the Third Century are right, then we're not an analog of the Roman Republic at any stage - we're the Republic of Carthage, with a Carthaginian future in store for us by no later than 2100. China would be the Roman Republic. Europe and Russia would be the Macedonian/Greek successor states of the (short-lived) Alexandrian Empire. Latin America would then be Numidia, long oppressed by the Carthaginians but now about to break free and ally itself with Rome (China) against their oppressors. Africa and South Asia would be those parts of the former Alexandrian Empire where Macedonian/Greek rule had already broken down. (The Islamic World as an equally fragmented but nonetheless very dangerous Parthian Empire.)

(Betcha didn't know that Carthage was also a republic - in fact, a commercial republic, to crib VKS's favorite term for the US.)

Whenever I see Americans speculating about a Chinese superpower, I recall similar prognostications from the 1980s about the imminent global dominance of Japan. China is about to fly apart at the seems, and for pretty much the same reason Japan tanked during the early '90s. I expect civil war and political disintegration in China within five years. The country will not recover as a unified power, as by the time the violence subsides, large, centralized states will be a thing of the past.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Possibly China - if China is the DOMINANT POWER ruling over such a one-world government.

But if you people who insist that the present parallels the late Hellenistic Age rather then the Third Century are right, then we're not an analog of the Roman Republic at any stage - we're the Republic of Carthage, with a Carthaginian future in store for us by no later than 2100. China would be the Roman Republic. Europe and Russia would be the Macedonian/Greek successor states of the (short-lived) Alexandrian Empire. Latin America would then be Numidia, long oppressed by the Carthaginians but now about to break free and ally itself with Rome (China) against their oppressors. Africa and South Asia would be those parts of the former Alexandrian Empire where Macedonian/Greek rule had already broken down. (The Islamic World as an equally fragmented but nonetheless very dangerous Parthian Empire.)

(Betcha didn't know that Carthage was also a republic - in fact, a commercial republic, to crib VKS's favorite term for the US.)

But Carthage wasn't culturally Graeco-Roman, it was Syriac. Latin America is comparable to Hellenized Asia Minor. Canada, Australia, and NZ are comparable to the Magna Graecia. The modern Middle East is comparable to the Middle East of about 200 BC, with the various US-backed strongmen and monarchs equivalent to the post-Alexandrian kingdoms. Iran is Parthia (some things never change...). So our Carthage would be... Russia?

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Whenever I see Americans speculating about a Chinese superpower, I recall similar prognostications from the 1980s about the imminent global dominance of Japan. China is about to fly apart at the seems, and for pretty much the same reason Japan tanked during the early '90s. I expect civil war and political disintegration in China within five years. The country will not recover as a unified power

China is a Universal State whose fall is long overdue, it's equivalent to the whole Roman Empire surviving intact until 800AD.

Originally Posted by DaveGarber1975

I'm not sold on the individual comparisons at present. But I do agree that our nation bears some striking similarities to Rome's republic in its final decades. It wouldn't surprise me if our nation is now entering the crisis that will sweep aside the final remnants of our once-free republic and usher in a new line of Caesars in some form or another. The Caesars might not be exclusively American, though -- we might be looking at continental unions like the E.U. operating under a reformed-U.N. global government.

In any case, I hope that this won't happen. But the possibility worries me terribly.

Toynbee dates the breakdown of Graeco-Roman Civilization with the start of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC. IMO the West's breakdown was the French Revolution (more precisely, when Prussia and Austria decided to invade in order to restore the Ancien Regime.). This puts us at a time roughly equivalent to sometime around the 2nd Punic War.

Originally Posted by Odin

Toynbee dates the breakdown of Graeco-Roman Civilization with the start of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC. IMO the West's breakdown was the French Revolution (more precisely, when Prussia and Austria decided to invade in order to restore the Ancien Regime.). This puts us at a time roughly equivalent to sometime around the 2nd Punic War.

I put our equivalent of the Second Punic War back around the time when I was a toddler.