[Nakura]

I agree that Islamism probably would've happened no matter what - the seeds were there very early in the 20th. I don't think America would be a target for those groups if not for our own foreign policy.

You've advocated for interventionism on tactical grounds which, I think, is an argument that's undone by the history of our attempted interventions in the past 100 years. I'm not sure why you're bringing Vietnam into this (The Act of Killing covers the slaughter of dissidents in Sumatra, which occurred under a US-backed regime).

The Islamist movement likely wouldn't have grown as big without Operation Ajax, and the anti-American sentiment wouldn't be as strong, but I think it would still be there. Qutb and others have long written of the horrors of secularism in America and Europe, and how they go against fundamental "Islamic values." A confrontation between Islamists and the West would seem to be inevitable.

There is also the case of Israel, which America (and to a lesser extent Europe) has long defended, and even established. Even if the United States hadn't provided support for the Israelis in Six-Day War (though we had been supporting them beforehand, albeit to a lesser extent), the fact that the United States and Western world established Israel in the first-place was a cause of some contention. Though technically the British were initially opposed to the idea, and the Jewish/secular settlers had to fight a bloody war for their own independence from the British and Islamists.

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between you and I is that you believe any and all forms of intervention are inherently evil and doomed to fail. I, on the other hand, believe that in a select few cases, intervention is justified and that the end will outweigh the means. We have plenty of examples of successful nation-building, such as Japan and Western Europe following World War II. Or if you want to get more academic, look to Canada (1837), Hawaii (1893), the Philippines (1898), Taiwan (1945), South Korea (1945), Italy (1948), Colombia (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and the Yugoslav Wars (1990s), to name a few.

I just feel that dismissing interventionism and regime change completely out of hand would be foolish. Just as dismissing peaceful cooperation and negotation out of hand would be foolish. There is no simple fix to every problem in the world, a strategy that works in one situation, may not necessarily work in another; and vice-versa.

I mentioned Vietnam, in response to Joshua's post.

Twilight Struggle is a really good board game though.

Twilight Struggle is great, should you ever find yourself in or near St. Louis, we'll have to play together.

[Grizzly]

It should be worth noting, before hostilities escelate, that the OP was originally part of WHIYL and probably would not have gained as much traction as currently if it had not been split. As a result, this is a bit different from the threads that we had a few months ago.

I mentioned Vietnam, in response to Joshua's post.

With the risk of sounding harsh, I would find it convenient if you'd recognize me and GB as completely seperate persons and tune your responses with that in mind.

[Lorric]

It should be worth noting, before hostilities escelate, that the OP was originally part of WHIYL and probably would not have gained as much traction as currently if it had not been split. As a result, this is a bit different from the threads that we had a few months ago.

Yes. There really is no topic. This thread is just happening on it's own, so I don't think The E should be telling Nakura what the topic is "supposed to be". And when has there ever been something like that, topics change into new things from the original discussion all the time. It's not like Nakura started it with the topic title it now has. I think it was just your typical lighthearted WHIYL post.

[General Battuta]

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between you and I is that you believe any and all forms of intervention are inherently evil and doomed to fail.

I think interventions targeting social problems without good causal maps are doomed to fail. Your list of successful nation-building tactics is, uh, really questionable. Hawaii? The Philippines? Grenada? Panama? Many of these were debacles; others we can't take credit for.
 

There is no simple fix to every problem in the world, a strategy that works in one situation, may not necessarily work in another; and vice-versa.

I can get behind that.

Twilight Struggle is great, should you ever find yourself in or near St. Louis, we'll have to play together.

You know what else is a good game?

[Nakura]

It should be worth noting, before hostilities escelate, that the OP was originally part of WHIYL and probably would not have gained as much traction as currently if it had not been split. As a result, this is a bit different from the threads that we had a few months ago.

I mentioned Vietnam, in response to Joshua's post.

With the risk of sounding harsh, I would find it convenient if you'd recognize me and GB as completely seperate persons and tune your responses with that in mind.

Yes, yes of course. My apologies, Joshua, I suppose I got caught up in my post and forgot to address you separately, or at the very least quote your post and start a new paragraph. You aren't sounding harsh at all, my friend, your concern is indeed a valid one.

[Grizzly]

such as Japan and Western Europe following World War II. Or if you want to get more academic, look to Canada (1837), Hawaii (1893), the Philippines (1898), Taiwan (1945), South Korea (1945), Italy (1948), Colombia (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and the Yugoslav Wars (1990s), to name a few.

Hmm. In the case of WW2, the conflict was already ongoing, and the US intervention mainly involved pumping massive amounts of money into already existing nations at that point in time.

The reason I brought up Vietnam and Afghanistan is because you mention "Drug Cartels", which seem to operate in a similar manner as the Vietcong and the Taliban (heck, the Taliban IS a drug cartel at this point). If you are so heavily opposed to Vietnam, why would you then suggest intervention against these drug cartels?

[Nakura]

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the difference between you and I is that you believe any and all forms of intervention are inherently evil and doomed to fail.

I think interventions targeting social problems without good causal maps are doomed to fail. Your list of successful nation-building tactics is, uh, really questionable. Hawaii? The Philippines? Grenada? Panama? Many of these were debacles; others we can't take credit for.

A social problem, as in the one I mentioned in the OP? I believe I mentioned in my OP that combatting the drug cartels with force is only a small part of the intervention. We would help rebuild Mexico's political system and rebuild their economy. Social problems generally arise from economic problems. Not to mention drug liberalization would cut the cartels off from their primary income source.

Hawaii is now a first world, democratic state, and a proud member of the Union. The Philippines are one of our closest allies in the Pacific and hold the United States in high esteem; though the transition to independence could have gone a little smoother. Post-invasion Grenada and Panama have both ranked fairly high in most international indexes, such as the Democracy Index, Human Development Index and Freedom in the World.
 

Twilight Struggle is great, should you ever find yourself in or near St. Louis, we'll have to play together.

You know what else is a good game?

Paths of Glory, or so I hear. I've been meaning to pick that one up as well. However, I get the feeling you were about to say something else, so by all means, enlighten me.

[General Battuta]

Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.

No the good game is FreeSpace 2.

[Nakura]

such as Japan and Western Europe following World War II. Or if you want to get more academic, look to Canada (1837), Hawaii (1893), the Philippines (1898), Taiwan (1945), South Korea (1945), Italy (1948), Colombia (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989) and the Yugoslav Wars (1990s), to name a few.

Hmm. In the case of WW2, the conflict was already ongoing, and the US intervention mainly involved pumping massive amounts of money into already existing nations at that point in time.

The reason I brought up Vietnam and Afghanistan is because you mention "Drug Cartels", which seem to operate in a similar manner as the Vietcong and the Taliban (heck, the Taliban IS a drug cartel at this point). If you are so heavily opposed to Vietnam, why would you then suggest intervention against these drug cartels?

The Vietnam situation was an entirely different one, or at least, I view it that way. Here was a clear-cut case of newly formed (though largely unrecognized) government that was wholly willing to work with and ally themselves with the United States. The Vietminh went to great lengths to appease the United States and President Truman (not to mention his predecessors), but we refused to listen to them, due to a failure in intelligence. We thought that the Vietminh were under the control of Joseph Stalin and that they were just a minor organization that didn't have the support of the people. On the contrary, Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh broke off relations with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union, and had the support of the majority of the population. Socialism aside, many of the values expressed by the Vietminh, such as self-determination and political freedom, were in-line with American values; the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence even directly quotes and references the American Declaration of Independence.

The Mexican drug cartels on the other hand are a group of criminals who completely go against everything this nation was founded upon; and there is no place for them in society. In addition, the Mexican government has asked for America's assistance in putting these criminal gangs. The cartels do not have widespread public support, in fact, they are vilified by most Mexican communities and the Mexican government.

[Nakura]

Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.

No the good game is FreeSpace 2.

I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them. They almostcertainly wouldn't be a developed first world state, United States state and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, if not for the United States. There isn't any indicator that they would be any different from the countless other pacific islands. And if the United States hadn't liberated them, even if it was for our own interests, another power likely would have.

As for the Philippines, I do admit that thing scould have been handled better early on. In fact, things might have even been better off if we assisted the First Philippine Republic. However, we have no idea what would have happened. If we never liberated the Phillippines in the first place, they would have remained in the hands of the brutal Spanish for countless decades (until the Spanish Civil War, at least, and likely past that). If we recognized the First Republic, there is a good chance that the Philippines would have descended into chaos, as the First Republic arguably lacked the stability to control a country as large and divided (religiously and politically) as the Philippines. And this doesn't even take into account Japanese imperial ambitions to annex the Philippines, plans that likely would have come to fruition much sooner if the Philippines was unde Spanish or First Republican control.

[Grizzly]

Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.

No the good game is FreeSpace 2.

I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them. They almostcertainly wouldn't be a developed first world state, United States state and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, if not for the United States.

Being an US state is not necessarily a good thing, or at the least not something that should be considered on the same level as the other two things you have mentoined there.

Also, I think it's completely fair to consider the possibility of Hawaii being a popular tourist destination regardless of it being or not being an US state. Same with it's first world status.

The Mexican drug cartels on the other hand are a group of criminals who completely go against everything this nation was founded upon; and there is no place for them in society. In addition, the Mexican government has asked for America's assistance in putting these criminal gangs. The cartels do not have widespread public support, in fact, they are vilified by most Mexican communities and the Mexican government.

Alright, very well put!
How do they differ from the Taliban?

[Nakura]

Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.

No the good game is FreeSpace 2.

I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them. They almostcertainly wouldn't be a developed first world state, United States state and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, if not for the United States.

Being an US state is not necessarily a good thing, or at the least not something that should be considered on the same level as the other two things you have mentoined there.

That's your opinion, but in terms of standards of living and personal freedom, they are certainly better off as an American state, as opposed to say, Fiji (or most other pacific islands for that matter).

The Mexican drug cartels on the other hand are a group of criminals who completely go against everything this nation was founded upon; and there is no place for them in society. In addition, the Mexican government has asked for America's assistance in putting these criminal gangs. The cartels do not have widespread public support, in fact, they are vilified by most Mexican communities and the Mexican government.

Alright, very well put!
How do they differ from the Taliban?

There isn't really much difference. Their methods and tactics are identical, but their aims are different; one wants to install an Islamic theocracy, whereas the other wants to make money and enslave women/children.

I don't ask this to be disrespectful, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

[Grizzly]

I edited that post a fair bit Nakura, sorry about that, but how about the other points?

[Nakura]

I edited that post a fair bit Nakura, sorry about that, but how about the other points?

No need to apologize.

I'd wager that the only reason Hawaii is a first world state, is because America annexed them. Most scholars would argue that they wouldn't even be a popular tourist destination, certainly not on the scale that they are, if not for being a state. Being a state, they open themselves up to being a major tourist destination for most Americans, it also makes traveling to Hawaii much easier than traveling to most other pacific islands, as passports and other information isn't required. Being an American state, most people around the world are reassured that Hawaii is stable and not prone to crime or civil unrest, which makes people think that the island chain is safe.

I'd even go so far as to say that most people wouldn't even be aware of Hawaii's existence, if not for it being a state; it would likely share the same status as Kirbiti. Without having the tourist industry, massive amounts of aid from the American government and the trading opportunities that being a state grants it, I see no reason why the island chain would be a developed, first world country if not for American aid. The atoll has no natural resources to speak of, and what sugar they did have would have been pillaged by Europeans and/or the Japanese, just like they were prior to American liberation.

[General Battuta]

Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.

No the good game is FreeSpace 2.

I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them.

I can only imagine some alternate universe British aristocrat declaiming that way about the colonies. I've got to call this a fundamental difference of worldview. And Christ, overthrowing a government in the name of your own business interests isn't exactly 'liberating'.

Notional counterfactuals don't excuse past mistakes. You consistently invoke this notion that these states are better off because they have specific material or security benefits, but self-determination and freedom from foreign invasion - even invasion meant to pre-empt other forms of imperialism - is arguably a deontologically critical right for any people.

This is all kind of tangential from the original point, which is that your original post claimed we had much clearer causal maps than we actually do for interventions in general. (watch the wire)

e: You're talking about Hawaii as a 'first world state' (no native Hawaiian has ever had the chance to build a first world state) whose status as a tourist destination for Americans is the pinnacle of potential achievement for Pacific island nations. A lot of these people would prefer to fail on their own terms than to be conquered and assimilated. I'm not sure whether to call that kind of reasoning triumphalist or fascist.

[Luis Dias]

Just colonialist.

[Nakura]

Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.

No the good game is FreeSpace 2.

I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them.

I can only imagine some alternate universe British aristocrat declaiming that way about the colonies. I've got to call this a fundamental difference of worldview. And Christ, overthrowing a government in the name of your own business interests isn't exactly 'liberating'.

Notional counterfactuals don't excuse past mistakes. You consistently invoke this notion that these states are better off because they have specific material or security benefits, but self-determination and freedom from foreign invasion - even invasion meant to pre-empt other forms of imperialism - is arguably a deontologically critical right for any people.

This is all kind of tangential from the original point, which is that your original post claimed we had much clearer causal maps than we actually do for interventions in general. (watch the wire)

e: You're talking about Hawaii as a 'first world state' (no native Hawaiian has ever had the chance to build a first world state) whose status as a tourist destination for Americans is the pinnacle of potential achievement for Pacific island nations. A lot of these people would prefer to fail on their own terms than to be conquered and assimilated. I'm not sure whether to call that kind of reasoning triumphalist or fascist.

Really this whole discussion is little different from the question of whether or not  Manifest Destiny was good? It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is living as a hunter-gatherer and becoming one with nature, then you will probably argue that it wasn't good. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is uniting humanity under a common banner and ideals, and then taking to the stars as an intergalactic great power, then you probably think it was a good idea.

We could sit here and argue all day about what might have happened if the United States never expanded beyond the Thirteen Colonies. What would the World Wars have been like if America didn't exist? If the Allies still won both wars, then what would have stopped Stalin and the Soviets? Would the liberal revolutions in France, Latin America and Europe have come to fruition? Would the new world order (NATO, UN, EU, WTO, free trade, etc.) that the United States created have still been formed? Would humans have invested so heavily in space exploration, if not for the United States?

We don't know what the world would have been like if the United States never expanded it's borders. We can't objectively decide whether or not it was a good thing to do or not, because it's a loaded and entirely subjective question. All we can do is look at what happened and decide whether or not we think the world is a better place, thanks to America or not. I can't answer that question for you, for any of you,  but I believe it is. I believe that, while we may have stumbled and made a few mistakes, overall the world is a better, more peaceful place, due to the actions that our forefathers have decided to take. And that, at the end of the day, is all that matters.

[Scotty]

Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.

No the good game is FreeSpace 2.

I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them.

I can only imagine some alternate universe British aristocrat declaiming that way about the colonies. I've got to call this a fundamental difference of worldview. And Christ, overthrowing a government in the name of your own business interests isn't exactly 'liberating'.

Notional counterfactuals don't excuse past mistakes. You consistently invoke this notion that these states are better off because they have specific material or security benefits, but self-determination and freedom from foreign invasion - even invasion meant to pre-empt other forms of imperialism - is arguably a deontologically critical right for any people.

This is all kind of tangential from the original point, which is that your original post claimed we had much clearer causal maps than we actually do for interventions in general. (watch the wire)

e: You're talking about Hawaii as a 'first world state' (no native Hawaiian has ever had the chance to build a first world state) whose status as a tourist destination for Americans is the pinnacle of potential achievement for Pacific island nations. A lot of these people would prefer to fail on their own terms than to be conquered and assimilated. I'm not sure whether to call that kind of reasoning triumphalist or fascist.

Really this whole discussion is little different from the whole "was Manifest Destiny good?" It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective.

It's only "subjective" because one side made off like bandits (the United States) and the other side died of disease (everyone in the way).

[General Battuta]

Really this whole discussion is little different from the question of whether or not  Manifest Destiny was good? It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is living as a hunter-gatherer and becoming one with nature, then you will probably argue that it wasn't good. If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is uniting humanity under a common banner and ideals, and then taking to the stars as an intergalactic great power, then you probably think it was a good idea.

No - profoundly no. This is a strawman and a false dichotomy. Look, I can do it too: If you think that the hallmark of human civilization is subjugation and territoriality in the name of self-interest, that the only law is the hegemony of force, then you will probably argue it was good. If you think that the hallmark of civilization involves bettering the human condition so that we can reach the stars as an intergalactic 'great power' (and God help us if that comes to pass on your terms) then you probably think it was an awful idea.

We don't know what the world would have been like if the United States never expanded it's borders. We can't objectively decide whether or not it was a good thing to do or not, because it's a loaded and entirely subjective question. All we can do is look at what happened and decide whether or not we think the world is a better place, thanks to America or not. I can't answer that question for you, for any of you,  but I believe it is. I believe that, while we may have stumbled and made a few mistakes, overall the world is a better, more peaceful place, due to the actions that our forefathers have decided to take. And that, at the end of the day, is all that matters.

I'm with you until your final sentence, which is a profound act of moral abjection, a sweeping, high-handed dismissal of the mere possibility of any contrition or regret in the name of a self-justifying utilitarian calculus that cannot even be falsified. If you want to recognize the good America's done without engaging in myopic triumphalism, you need to attend to the damage we've done, listen to the people we've hurt, and consider how to avoid those same mistakes in the future.

In your retreat from your original claims you've passed through a brief and hopeful territory of nuance, but this latest argument just advocates slapping a padlock on the ship's wheel and holding course through a sea of corpses. Certainly, the US has done good. That good is not inextricably tied to our historical evils in a zero-sum calculus. We could have done better. Abandon that and you turn into some kind of strategic Buckaroo Banzai: however well we're doing, well, there we shall remain.

We began this discussion talking about how intervention requires better causal maps. This is exactly what I'm talking about: we must avoid the decision to believe that 'that's all that matters', to decide that figuring out how to deploy our tools better is not worthwhile and that we have no responsibility to our own past mistakes.

[Nakura]

Long term outcomes in Hawaii and the Philippines aren't something we can take credit for - they were certainly causally entangled with our patronage, but you can't dismiss what happened first: revolt, atrocity, and unilateral colonial imperialism. We exploited both of those cases for our own ends with ruthless disregard for their own internal structures. It's conceivable that they (like many other nations we've interfered with) would be better off without our attempts to convert them into strategic assets for our own plans.

No the good game is FreeSpace 2.

I respectfully disagree with you. Hawaii couldn't hope for a better fate than what became of them.

I can only imagine some alternate universe British aristocrat declaiming that way about the colonies. I've got to call this a fundamental difference of worldview. And Christ, overthrowing a government in the name of your own business interests isn't exactly 'liberating'.

Notional counterfactuals don't excuse past mistakes. You consistently invoke this notion that these states are better off because they have specific material or security benefits, but self-determination and freedom from foreign invasion - even invasion meant to pre-empt other forms of imperialism - is arguably a deontologically critical right for any people.

This is all kind of tangential from the original point, which is that your original post claimed we had much clearer causal maps than we actually do for interventions in general. (watch the wire)

e: You're talking about Hawaii as a 'first world state' (no native Hawaiian has ever had the chance to build a first world state) whose status as a tourist destination for Americans is the pinnacle of potential achievement for Pacific island nations. A lot of these people would prefer to fail on their own terms than to be conquered and assimilated. I'm not sure whether to call that kind of reasoning triumphalist or fascist.

Really this whole discussion is little different from the whole "was Manifest Destiny good?" It's not really a question one can answer, because it's subjective.

It's only "subjective" because one side made off like bandits (the United States) and the other side died of disease (everyone in the way).

Do you really think that anywhere else in the world is much different? Do you think that humanity started out with the national borders and ethnic groups that it has today? All throughout history tribes and groups have destroyed and annexed other groups. Whether you live in Sweden, America or China, it makes no difference.