The Golden Rule, The Monroe Doctrine, and U.S. troops on foreign soil

[Jacobtm]

The Golden Rule, do unto others as you'd have others do unto yourself, is a pretty basic one of most ethical systems, including Christianity, which I guess most of you follow.

The Monroe Doctrine states that the United States will not tolerate foreign military presence in the Americas.

And yet, the United States maintains military bases around the world.

Surely we wouldn't tolerate Chinese military bases in the Caribbean, yet the only part of the world without significant U.S. military presence is central/southern Africa.



We talk of Iran being a threat to us, but it should be clear to anyone looking at that map that Iran, Russia, China and practically every non-African country is surrounded by the United States military.

Being surrounded is justly seen as threatening by many.

Do you believe it is just to maintain military bases like this? Would we accept China doing the same? What is the difference between our doing it and China doing it?

[Joe Republic]

Why do you assume that the Golden Rule is, or has ever been, a core principle of US foreign policy?  International relations has always been about becoming more powerful than other countries, and then throwing your weight around once you get there.  It's not like the US is the first to do so in history.

[politicus]

Why do you assume that the Golden Rule is, or has ever been, a core principle of US foreign policy?  International relations has always been about becoming more powerful than other countries, and then throwing your weight around once you get there.  It's not like the US is the first to do so in history.

Sure, but some countries - like Japan and Germany - choose not to "throw their full weight around" and they are doing just fine. So the question is also if it is in the best interest of the US to use so many resources abroad.  
Also there is the good old security dilemma. If you have a big military and bases all over the world other great powers feels threatened and increase their military spending and then you have to spend even more on the military to counter them.

[Joe Republic]

Sure, but some countries - like Japan and Germany - choose not to "throw their full weight around" and they are doing just fine.

Um, yeah, that's because they both already tried that before, and failed miserably...

So the question is also if it is in the best interest of the US to use so many resources abroad. 
Also there is the good old security dilemma. If you have a big military and bases all over the world other great power feels threatened and increase their military spending and then you have to spend even more on the military to counter them.

I never said that what I described was a good or sensible set-up, but it's the reality nonetheless.

[politicus]

Interesting map but the 2007 in the title is a bit odd since the last US military personnel left Iceland at the end of September 2006 after the closing of Keflavik Air Base. It would be interesting to see an updated map from 2012.

Also the map includes NATO countries like Denmark and Norway, where the US (as well as other NATO members) can use military facilities in wartime if they come to assist in the defence of those countries - but not otherwise. I am curious about how many of the "military facilities" around the world, that the US can actually use as part of an offensive.

Sure, but some countries - like Japan and Germany - choose not to "throw their full weight around" and they are doing just fine.

Um, yeah, that's because they both already tried that before, and failed miserably...

Yes, but it is possible to learn from their example. I don't believe that countries inevitably must pursue a certain foreign policy - like trying to dominate others to the best of their ability. They have a choice. Old school neo-realism a la Kenneth Waltz is simply wrong in it's deterministic approach.

[Vosem]

Do you believe it is just to maintain military bases like this?

Of course.

Would we accept China doing the same? What is the difference between our doing it and China doing it?

Of course we wouldn't, and the difference is that we can use our existing authority to stop the Chinese from doing so, but the Chinese cannot do that to us.

You've got your priorities all wrong. You want to arrange peace in the world. Stop all war, la-di-da. There will never be peace. War is a fundamental part of human nature. We have seen chimpanzees engaging in what is basically war. So long as you can't get rid of war (and you can't), the reasonable thing to do is to ensure the good guys win the war.

Your own movement was set up in the 1950s by Soviet secret police (though, for some perverse reason, it has continued walking on, like a zombie, long past the collapse of the USSR).

[Silent Hunter]

The Monroe Doctrine states that the United States will not tolerate foreign military presence in the Americas.

IIRC, the Monroe Doctrine is actually about "European" military presence.

[Jacobtm]

You've got your priorities all wrong. You want to arrange peace in the world. Stop all war, la-di-da. There will never be peace. War is a fundamental part of human nature. We have seen chimpanzees engaging in what is basically war. So long as you can't get rid of war (and you can't), the reasonable thing to do is to ensure the good guys win the war.

Your own movement was set up in the 1950s by Soviet secret police (though, for some perverse reason, it has continued walking on, like a zombie, long past the collapse of the USSR).

I don't belong to any ''movement''.

You are basically right, that you can't get rid of war. Yet humanity has experienced less and less war as time has gone on.

The United States invites wars at an unecessary rate by inciting people all around the world, which is unwise for our own national security.

The United States spends inordinate amounts of money maintaining its military abroad, which does not make us more secure, but rather incites more people to attack us.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot, in a very expensive fashion, by maintaining such an empire.

Our chickens will come home to roost as our economic ability to maintain such an empire dwindles, and the world becomes stronger relative to us. We will rue our arrogance, but I guess now it's impossible for people with a hard-on for war to see now.

[Yelnoc]

You are basically right, that you can't get rid of war. Yet humanity has experienced less and less war as time has gone on.

I'll bite.  Can you back that assertion up?  Because I can think of a number examples of ancient periods of peace, but Pax Americana has been nothing but war, punctuated by a few decades of peace here and there.

[Jacobtm]

You are basically right, that you can't get rid of war. Yet humanity has experienced less and less war as time has gone on.

I'll bite.  Can you back that assertion up?  Because I can think of a number examples of ancient periods of peace, but Pax Americana has been nothing but war, punctuated by a few decades of peace here and there.

Well of course, America has caused many many wars since it has risen to prominence. The idea isn't that America is a great force for peace, not at all. The only idea is that the wars that are currently going on are killing fewer people than the wars of centuries past. And that non-war violence has also decreased. This isn't to say that we should stop trying to advocate for peace, or that the work is done, just that there has been a general trend towards more peace. Which doesn't mean that more violence can't break out in the future.

Reason had an interview with the Neuroscientist Steven Pinker who's research asserts basically that violence has been declining, from pre-history, from early modern states, and even from the 20th century. Here's the crux of your question addressed:


''reason: I was at a conference a while back where I outlined your thesis briefly to a panel of fairly distinguished political scientists and economists. They rejected it out of hand, retorting, “The 20th century was horrible. Millions died.” Why is it that most people tend to believe violence is increasing?

Pinker: Well, millions died in centuries before the 20th. People confuse a data point with the trend. They remember the horrific episodes of violence in the 20th century, but one occurrence is not a trend. And despite universal predictions that World War I to World War II was just the beginning of a sequence where World War III would be even worse, World War III didn’t happen. And in fact, from the spike of the Second World War, there’s been a historically unusual period of peace among developed countries.''

Some other selected quotes:

''By examining collections of ancient skeletons and scrutinizing contemporary tribal societies, anthropologists have found that people were nine times as likely to die violent deaths in the prehistoric period than in modern times, even allowing for the world wars and genocides of the 20th century. Europe’s murder rate was 30 times higher in the Middle Ages than it is today. ''

"The rise of states 5,000 years ago dramatically reduced tribal conflict."

"you find that with the first states in the transition from hunting and gathering to settled ways of life, violence goes down, and in the consolidation of kingdoms during the transition from medieval times to modernity, rates of homicide go way down."


http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/11/the-decline-of-violence/singlepage

Here is a youtube interview with Pinker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c__XWMsz4aU&feature=player_embedded

[Silent Hunter]

Excellent points, Jacobtm. One should also remember the vast increase in world population since 1900.

[Vosem]

Let me break this up into chunks.

You've got your priorities all wrong. You want to arrange peace in the world. Stop all war, la-di-da. There will never be peace. War is a fundamental part of human nature. We have seen chimpanzees engaging in what is basically war. So long as you can't get rid of war (and you can't), the reasonable thing to do is to ensure the good guys win the war.

Your own movement was set up in the 1950s by Soviet secret police (though, for some perverse reason, it has continued walking on, like a zombie, long past the collapse of the USSR).

I don't belong to any ''movement''.

You belong to a group of people who really fundamentally believe that America should not intervene in international affairs (these people particularly deplore the war in Iraq) for her economic well-being. I would classify this group of people a "movement." But I don't really know you or your opinions well enough to judge.

You are basically right, that you can't get rid of war. Yet humanity has experienced less and less war as time has gone on.

Humanity has not experienced less and less war as time goes on. There was a very sharp drop in warfare during the year 1945, when nuclear weapons were first introduced into the equation; now, great powers cannot fight each other because they are guaranteed to lose. (If you're guaranteed to lose, you're not going to fight a war). Wars between lesser nations, and wars between great powers and lesser nations, have kept right on going.

The United States invites wars at an unecessary rate by inciting people all around the world, which is unwise for our own national security.

The United States spends inordinate amounts of money maintaining its military abroad, which does not make us more secure, but rather incites more people to attack us.

First off, I want to point out unnecessary has two 'n's in it. Next, I'm assuming you're logic goes something like this: military spending --> incites people --> creates wars --> bad for national security. Assuming by 'national security' you mean the risk of invasions or terrorist attack, this is clearly wrong: the only possible way to invade the (lower 48) US states is via Canada or Mexico, neither of which are particularly incited against us; and note that the trend of terrorist attacks against the US (by foreigners, who were presumably incited by all of our military spending) was one which began to accelerate in the '90s, when we were at peace, but since it reached its peak on 9/11, it seems to have dropped off rather suddenly -- almost at the moment when that peace ended and we went to war. I'll agree it's pretty preposterous to suggest wars protect against terrorist attacks, but the data seems to disagree with you as well.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot, in a very expensive fashion, by maintaining such an empire. Our chickens will come home to roost as our economic ability to maintain such an empire dwindles, and the world becomes stronger relative to us. We will rue our arrogance, but I guess now it's impossible for people with a hard-on for war to see now.

I would disagree that we're maintaining an empire at all, but assuming you're referring to the US military presence around the world, they're largely positioned in a way so as to either protect stability (Georgia, South Korea, Egypt); protect our economy (Persian Gulf); or they're just there because we've never bothered to remove them (western Europe).

Here is a handy map of US presence worldwide in 2007; note that we're somewhat smaller now (though not much): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_the_world.svg