Honorable Exit From Empire
As any military historian will testify, among the most difficult of maneuvers is the strategic retreat. Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, Lee's retreat to Appomattox and MacArthur's retreat from the Yalu come to mind. The British Empire abandoned India in 1947—and a Muslim-Hindu bloodbath ensued.
France's departure from Indochina was ignominious, and her abandonment of hundreds of thousands of faithful Algerians to the FALN disgraceful. Few American can forget the humiliation of Saigon '75, or the boat people, or the Cambodian holocaust.
Strategic retreats that turn into routs are often the result of what Lord Salisbury called "the commonest error in politics ... sticking to the carcass of dead policies."
From 1989 to 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and breakup of the U.S.S.R., America had an opportunity to lay down its global burden and become again what Jeane Kirkpatrick called "a normal country in a normal time."
We let the opportunity pass by, opting instead to use our wealth and power to convert the world to democratic capitalism. And we have reaped the reward of all the other empires that went before: A sinking currency, relative decline, universal enmity, a series of what Rudyard Kipling called "the savage wars of peace."
Yet, opportunity has come anew for America to shed its imperial burden and become again the republic of our fathers.
The chairman of Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang Party has just been hosted for six days by Beijing. Commercial flights have begun between Taipei and the mainland. Is not the time ripe for America to declare our job done, that the relationship between China and Taiwan is no longer a vital interest of the United States?
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government wants a status of forces agreement with a timetable for full withdrawal of U.S. troops. Is it not time to say yes, to declare that full withdrawal is our goal as well, that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq?
On July 4, Reuters, in a story headlined "Poland Rejects U.S. Missile Offer," reported from Warsaw: "Poland spurned as insufficient on Friday a U.S. offer to boost its air defenses in return for basing anti-missile interceptors on its soil. ...
"'We have not reached a satisfactory result on the issue of increasing the level of Polish security,' Prime Minister Donald Tusk told a news conference after studying the latest U.S. proposal."
Tusk is demanding that America "provide billions of dollars worth of U.S. investment to upgrade Polish air defenses in return for hosting 10 two-stage missile interceptors," said Reuters.
Reflect if you will on what is going on here.
By bringing Poland into NATO, we agreed to defend her against the world's largest nation, Russia, with thousands of nuclear weapons. Now the Polish regime is refusing us permission to site 10 anti-missile missiles on Polish soil, unless we pay Poland billions for the privilege.
Has Uncle Sam gone senile?
No. Tusk has Sam figured out. The old boy is so desperate to continue in his Cold War role as world's Defender of Democracy he will even pay the Europeans—to defend Europe.
Why not tell Tusk that if he wants an air defense system, he can buy it; that we Americans are no longer willing to pay Poland for the privilege of defending Poland; that the anti-missile missile deal is off. And use cancellation of the missile shield to repair relations with a far larger and more important power, Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Consider, too, the opening South Korea is giving us to end our 60-year commitment to defend her against the North. For weeks, Seoul hosted anti-American protests against a trade deal that allows U.S. beef into South Korea. Koreans say they fear mad-cow disease.
Yet, when a new deal was cut to limit imports to U.S. beef from cattle less than 30 months old, that too was rejected by the protesters. Behind the demonstrations lies a sediment of anti-Americanism.
In 2002, a Pew Research Center survey of 42 nations found 44 percent of South Koreans, second highest number of any country, holding an unfavorable view of the United States. A Korean survey put the figure at 53 percent, with 80 percent of youth holding a negative view. By 39 percent to 35 percent, South Koreans saw the United States as a greater threat than North Korea.
Can someone explain why we keep 30,000 troops on the DMZ of a nation whose people do not even like us?
The raison d'etre for NATO was the Red Army on the Elbe. It disappeared two decades ago. The Chinese army left North Korea 50 years ago. Yet NATO endures and the U.S. Army stands on the DMZ. Why?
Because, if all U.S. troops were brought home from Europe and Korea, 10,000 rice bowls would be broken. They are the rice bowls of politicians, diplomats, generals, journalists and think tanks who would all have to find another line of work.
And that is why the Empire will endure until disaster befalls it, as it did all the others.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
22 Responses »
Trackbacks
- An Opportunity : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee
- Pat Buchanan On US Troops In Korea
Entries(RSS)
What about Nato forces in Centra Asia?
The US wants a presence there to have a domineering role in Central Asias oil reserve blocking Russian and Chinese access.
Zbignew Brezinski defined US control of Central Asia to support Europe future energy needs as a primary US policy and has no qualms of using radical islam to do so.
Quotes from The Grand Chessboard 1998:
"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).
“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard
This piece of Pat's is extremely perceptive, and, I think, unanswerable.
Both McCain and Obama will, alas, ignore it.
"Why not tell Tusk that if he wants an air defense system, he can buy it".
I don't think he wants a air defence system, he just wants to grab as much money as possible before the dollar totally collpases! In any event, why would any leader want a "defence" system that, if it works properly, is designed to set off nuclear explosions in or over his own country? (Think about it! What happens when the interceptor missile launched from Poland hits the nuclear missile passing over that country?)
Getting these installations ready will involve massive expenditure on all kinds of infastructure which will take years to put in place. The US economy will have collpased long before it's all finished! Thus, the missiles will never become operational but the infrastructure will be there for the Poles to use for civilian purposes.
Pat's article displays a redundant theme in opinions on both foreign and domestic policy: faced with the most apparent foolishness that in turn produces the most absurd, ridiculous and preposterous policies, we must, with that information alone, determine what is really afoot. And we approach this as though it were all perfectly normal! Am I alone in viewing the entire process as despicable? Why are we totally ignorant of everything and left guessing? Why does everything come about as a result of secret meetings and behind closed door sessions? (consider the creation of the Federal Reserve) Call me an idealist, but isn’t the wisdom of our votes based on being informed? I, therefore, posit that our entire ‘democracy’ is a sham. It’s an illusion to give the masses the impression that they have some power, while meantime some entity or entities lurk in the background controlling everything. And all we see is the outcome – without coherent or believable explanation for this outcome. On this site and others I read posts where everything from the Jews to spacemen is to blame. But the fact is we don’t really know who the real ruling elite are. I think that perhaps the old cliché ‘follow the money’ would prove the most profitable. If we view it as a system to do nothing more than move huge fortunes into the pockets of a few, without regard for anything else, it at least makes some sense. Further, I venture that it is a system purposely put in place by Lincoln.
Polands Brezinski land if it is part of US foreign policy against Russia Poland will have a missile shield in Poland.
We only get bogged down in these foreign adventures because the main stream media promotes them and doesn't ask even basic critical questions.
I thought South Korea would be all to happy to have the US as its military since it doesnt need to invest billions into its military defence and invest it into the country's infrastructure, research grants to help develope new technology to bolster the economy. That why the maximum broadband internet speed in S Korea is a whopping 100MB compared to 25MB in the UK, dont know what it is in the US.
@6MAP
Actually I saw a video of Ron Paul discussing the Federal Reserve but he never explained what the Federal Reserve was, who owns it and why it was created.
He discuss how it introduced billions of dollars of new money into the economy but without any context nobody will know what hes talking about.
Democracy in the original small Greek city states definition doesn't exist.
What we have is an oligarghy who control the news and entertainment, opposition politicians who are members and attend the same political organisations like the CFR, Trilateral commission, think tanks and political financing which we then in turn vote for.
Ron Paul didn't get as much media exsposure as other leading political candidates.
MAP, of course it is a sham to call something democracy when none of us has any influence on what happens. Following the money is probably the best way to figure it out, as you surmise. Of course none of us is informed of how this works. Keeping us in the dark is probably the only way to get people to vote for the kind of men who are offered to us every four years.
James what you say about Korea makes sense, but there are some things money just can't buy. And if those survey statistics Pat refers to are anything by which to judge it looks as if the South Koreans would probably rather spend their own money on the military, if it meant getting rid of us.
7james
I thought South Korea would be all to happy to have the US as its military since it doesnt need to invest billions into its military defence and invest it into the country’s infrastructure, research grants to help develope new technology to bolster the economy. That why the maximum broadband internet speed in S Korea is a whopping 100MB compared to 25MB in the UK, dont know what it is in the US.
I am currently using an internet connection of about 1.5MB here in Mesa, AZ. I know that the common speed in Japan and Korea is 100MB, but here in Mesa the fastest connection I can buy is 7MB at a premium price.
@9Mike Ezzo
Actually I dont know why the US has an active military base in Japan. I remember a few years back the Japanese were angry at the US because soldiers on the base were accused of attacking a Japanese girl.
@10Ronduck
1.5MB thats suprisingly bad.
If the US is the beacon to the world on a mission to spread democratic revolution why does it have run down power plants, slow internet, gang violence, worlds largest prison population and a monopolist 2 party system plus you seem to have a lot of tax on thing wasn't that the purpose of the US revolution in the first place because the UK increased tax on the colonies. Have they ever thought of a flat rate tax system?
I heard in the US theres a fixed amount per month that you can download, go over it and you get charged extra is the true?
I have unlimited downloading, that may have been true during the days of dial-up ten years ago but not anymore. Fiber networks that allow far higher speeds are being built in NYC, but they haven't reached the interior. As such right now I am using an internet connection supplied by my local cable company that costs $50/month.
The gang violence and large prison population are both caused by America's Black population and our illegal immigrants. Look at this and it will provide proof for my claim:
http://www.amren.com/store/color_of_crime.html
I oppose the mission to democratize the world, it is a major waste of my tax dollars.
The US military bases in Japan are a holdover from WW2 and the Cold War. Also, the majority of the Okinawa rapes are caused Blacks in the military.
@12Ronduck
Yes I read the report a while back its very interesting the black on white crime ratio especially against women.
I think it dangerous for US policy makers to allign themselves with radical muslim groups as they see them as a bulwark against potential adversaries like Russia and China we saw how much of a failure that was in the Balkans which we have compounded by the recognition of Kosovo.
I remember reading articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times complaining that Putin is blocking the "democratic" revolutions by supporting the Central Asian countries leaders.
Off course if they did radical muslim groups would have political representation especially the IMU in Uzbekistan.
We only have to look at what happened to Tajikistan after the USSR disolved. Secular and islamist Tajiks fought in a civil war that left as many as 150,00 people dead.
Typing error ment to say 150,000 people dead.
James : Ronduck beat me to it, but that is the story. The Okinawans want our military out of there -- it gobbles up over a large portion of their land and creates noise and crime. The governor of Okinawa screams his head off but Tokyo won't listen to him, probably because it saves money on military expense, although the government here still spends, I believe, a billion dollars a year of Japanese tax money on it. Another problem is that the Okinawans are barely even considered Japanese. So it's a really convenient spot for something undesirable.
Does anybody else find it coincidental that since integration of the military the US has not had a real victory? Grenada was something of a cluster -F, and Gulf War One changed nothing in the grand scheme of things despite a massive self-congratulatory news campaign declaring the opposite. If anything had changed why on Earth did Bush fils return to "finish the job."
Now we have women and homesexuals demanding an end to traditions, and we can expect to lose more wars. The Stupid Left has yet to learn that reality is not Star Trek.
I don't think we will have a solid victory until we find ourselves in a war that is worth fighting.
According to a ghostwritten memoir (A CHARGE TO KEEP) of Bush Jr., that was mentioned in Chronicles (August, 2005), Bush Jr. returned to finish the job because : A) he wanted to have a successful presidency; B) his father had "all this political capital built up...and he wasted it" (by which I assume he means "never assasinated Hussein"); C) "If I have a chance to invade I'm not going to waste it"; D) "one of the keys to being SEEN as a great leader is to be SEEN as a commander-in-chief" (my emphases).
Wayne Allensworth, who wrote the article for Chronicles, surmised that the other reasons would perhaps be -- the pro-Israel Dispensationalist views of Bush supporters, the oil lobby, and the sheer fun of imperial games.
In re: "Few American can forget the humiliation of Saigon ‘75, or the boat people, or the Cambodian holocaust."
What pure hyperbolic bull****. The great majority of Americans have only a vague idea of those events. What's more, they don't care.
By the way, seven of those "US" military bases in Japan are legally U.N. military bases administered by the U.S. for use in any contingency operations in Korea. Otherwise we'd have to pack up and leave, not that such would be a bad idea. And we no longer have 30,000 troops in Korea, though what we have is probably too high a number. Indeed, I agree with many of Buchanah's points. But my question is: Why limit it to defense? What about Puerto Rico. They essentially threw the U.S. Navy off the island in the same year that we spent 22 billion in welfare and matching payments there. Why not relook all our allegedly "imperial trappings"? Let's cut spending and draw lines in the sand. Puerto Rico: You will be independent effective 4 July 2017. But don't worry: Those who wish to retain their American citizaenship can file a statement to that effect and, we presume, continue to reside in the island as expatriate Americans. Nato, you did well. Congratulations! Effective (date) the alliance is terminated. South Korea and Japan: We will be leaving (effective date). But, where's the hole in all this? Where is a new National Defense Act a la 1947? We can't just decide to cut and run, we have to have a vision. What will be the role of the Army in a future with no or very few overseas Army bases? Will it become a weapon that can only be used in situations of declared war or national emergency? Will its contingency operations role be passed to an expanded and resurgent U.S. Marine Corps? How will be break the Air Force down? Will be divide it into wartime available forces and expeditionary forces? Or pass the former to the Army? Will we scrap the war powers act in effect now to provide a clearer instrument that denies the President the power to commit the resources of this country without a duly authorized declaration of war? Lots of questions, Mr. Buchanan. Forget the garbage about Empire. More hyperbole! Let's get to the heart of the matter, which is a question of U.S. Constitutional powers. Only Congress has the power to commit this country to war. But the President has the right and obligation to undertake contingency operations in cases short of war. That nebulous line needs to be defined for once and for all.
@19lirelou
After the cold war we didn't decrease the US's military presence around the globe we increased it installing military bases in the balkans and central Asia as well as an increased presence in the Middle East.
It not like its increased security. In the Balkans we are are aiding islamist narco and sex trafficking terrorists.
None of these foreign military advisors consider ethnic composition of the countries they get involved in like Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran which makes it much harder to leave.
Please, please, please consider a run as an independent.
@21Jay Hutchens
Unfortunately I'm British not American so your constitution bars me from running for president in your country. Thank you for your endorsement.
With your support and people like you I could run for PM of the dull Britannia but I’m to cool for those clowns. The masses wouldn’t accept me. I would be too revolutionary for them to comprehend, to overwhelming for there senses and a danger to the ruling establishment.
If I were to be president all your woes in the US would be resolved in a matter of months. Society would be so synchronised and contented there would be no need for a police force as crime wouldn’t exist.
In the meantime though you should support people like Pat Buchannan.
I fully endorse Pat Buchannan if he decided to run as an independent third party presidential nominee.