[lit-ideas] Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:50:23 -0800

I didn't say we are isolationist, Irene.  I said we had a history of being
isolationist.  This is well known.  We have been protected by two oceans and
so thought until relatively recently that we could avoid the European wars.
If you had read the original article you would know that the writer was
assuming the U.S. had imperial intentions.  I point out that our history of
isolationism belies that.  We still have isolationists like Pat Buchanan.
Many wish we could still be isolationist but fewer Americans think that a
possibility.  It certainly isn't a reality.  

 

Your globalization comments have nothing to do with the article or my
comments that I can see, but they sound a little like an isolationist
arguing against globalization; which is an argument I can't take seriously.
I worked at Douglas, McDonnell Douglas and Boeing which is one of the major
corporations in the world.  I know how we make airplanes and missile
systems.  We do the design and make certain critical parts but for the rest
we go out for competitive bids.  Companies around the world would build
parts to our specifications.  It doesn't make any difference in terms of
quality if a part was made in the U.S., Spain, or Italy if the
subcontractor's standards met our requirements, but it does make a
difference in price.  Competitive bidding allows a manufacturer to hold
costs down.  Much of the benefit is past on to the consumer.  

 

I don't see the U.S. as "liming along" in any respect.  From everything I've
read, and I read a lot, we are still the most successful economy as well as
military.  

 

Lawrence

 

  _____  

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 10:50 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

 

Lawrence, I re-read your post and have some comments:  basically, your
position is that we're isolationist.  That is a position that is not valid
anymore.  It died out with Reagan.  Today the reality is globalization.
There is a global upper class and a global middle class (the poor don't
count in economics; the middle class is the engine of capitalism.)  The
global upper class is composed of Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, Saudis,
French, Germans, Russians, Australians, English, Japanese, Brazilians, etc.,
probably even including Chinese.  The middle class is worldwide, in
countries such as China, Brazil, Russia, India.  

 

Until now, the preeminent middle class of the world was in the U.S.  Today,
however, middle classes are rapidly increasing in places like China, etc.;
the middle class in the U.S. is on the wane.  The global upper class, the
elite of the world, needs the U.S. because the U.S. has a nice military to
defend their interests.  To do this they invoke "national interest".   Hence
the oil wars of the 21st century (run to the hills, Saddam has WMD!).  The
U.S. of today is limping along sustained by military Keynesianism in terms
of weapons production (the third of a trillion dollar a year figure doesn't
take into account the stuff buried in "energy", etc. as pointed out in the
article).  Except for its military and heretofore purchasing power of the
middle class, the U.S. is becoming irrelevant.  Nearly all manufacturing is
done overseas; jobs are increasingly exported from this country overseas by
Bill Gates, Dell, Wal-Mart, Citibank, and on and on.  Nations exist to
support the aforementioned global elite.  If you don't believe it, just look
around your house and find something manufactured in the U.S.  Let me know
what you find.  

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  Helm 

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: 3/23/2006 11:39:20 AM 

Subject: [lit-ideas] Englehardt, Cold Warrior in a Strange Land

 

If this guy is a military historian, I feel sorry for the people who took
his classes.  One can intuitively know he is all wet by three facts.  1) He
implies weve got wall-to-wall troops covering the planet but we by no means
have the largest army on the planet.  We didnt have enough troops to do
engage in an overwhelming invasion of Iraq.  Rumsfeld was faulted for not
using more troops, but notice that there werent troops standing by with
nothing to do.  Notice that our existence troops had to serve two and three
tours.  Did they serve these multiple tours while zillions of Marines lived
it up on Okinawa?  

 

2) The U.S. has a history of isolationism.  We never used to have much of a
military and we paid for it more than once.  We were ill-equipped in WWI and
cover the ill-preparation with the fact that certain units fought well,
especially at Bealleau Woods.  But after that war to end all wars we
disarmed, through our weapons away, and so were in no position to deter
either Japan or Germany.  Youd think we would have learned from that, but
we were anxious to disarm after WWII once again.  Englehardt hints at that
when he speaks of the rapid rearmament beginning in 1947, but I enlisted in
the USMC in 1952 and we had nothing but WWII weapons.  If we had started
rearming in 1947, it wasnt with any weapons that were handed down to the
Marines.  However, during the Cold War we did learn our lesson and resolved
never to disarm agai n.  It is about that that Englehardt complains.  

 

3) Englehardt describes the trillions of dollars we spend on defense but
then says that our weapons arent particularly good, and that other nations
have built better ones.  These two criticisms of the Pentagon are
essentially contradictory.  I worked with people in the Air Force who wanted
us to consider how the latest scientific discoveries could be turned to
military use.  Not all of them were, but there were very smart people at the
Pentagon asking all the right questions.  A huge variety of studies were
authorized and any new weapon had to not only prove its effectiveness but
compete of a line-item in the military budget.  What other nations could
match this procedure?   If a nation happened to build a weapon that was
better at some particular action, it probably wasnt because we hadnt
thought of it.  It was pro bably because we had thought of it but decided on
a different approach.  Englehardt is taking a cheap shot and I cant help
but wonder why he is taking it, this hippy want-to-be who wishes he had
joined the anti-war movement?

 

Five more points:  1) I wonder what sort of a military historian he was if
he doesnt know that the Pentagon is supposed to war-game all potential
threats to the U.S.  He is appalled and surprised that the Pentagon did
this.  Im appalled and surprised that he didnt know this.   He seems an
isolationist at heart.  He has the mindset that would have us surprised by
military attacks and threats again and again. 

 

2) Having just read a book by a better military historian, Bevin Alexander,
I know it is now common knowledge that we cant win a war where we invade
and successfully stay in a weaker nation that is hostile to us.  The
guerrillas of a weaker nation can always wear down and outlast a stronger
nation.  It can be said by way of explanation that we thought we would have
popular support in Vietnam, that there was a way to win the hearts and
minds of the South Vietnamese, but our enemy was better at that than we
were.  We fought the North Vietnamese with the same tactics the French used.
We hadnt learned a thing from their defeat, but we have since.  Better
military historians than Englehardt have taught us the lessons we needed to
learn. 

 

3) When I was in the Marine Corps we led rough lives.  After Vietnam, the
draft was dead; so the alternative was to attract people into the military.
Pay, living quarters, base facilities became much better.  You didnt need
to join the military to fight.  You could join to get an education.  This is
a recent occurrence (since the 70s).

 

4) One of the most prolific and visible historians arguing that the U.S. is
an empire is Niall Ferguson.  Ive read some of his books and heard him
speak on C-Span.  I think there is nothing wrong with our being an Empire if
that is what we are, but right after arguing that we are an Empire, he
spends the rest of the time describing how we are doing everything wrong
from an Imperial standpoint.  The fact is we are not an Empire.  The very
term doesnt fit the modern situation.  It is from an earlier era when there
were kings and emperors.  You dont have kings (at least not working kings)
or emperors in the modern world and it serves little purpose as far as I can
see to invoke a term from an earlier era.   Perhaps it would have died out
had Lenin not written Imperialism, the highest form of Capitalism.  But as
Andreas has mentioned we now have globablism, the IMF, and the World Bank.
Not only that, the predilection of the average American citizen is still
that of an isolationist.  He wishes things could be as they once were when
we could leave all those war-like Europeans to their own wars as long as
they left us alone.  

 

5) In order for the U.S. to be an empire, the people of the U.S. would have
to have an Imperial mindset (as a majority once did in Imperial Britain),
but that is never likely to be the case.  Witness for example Bushs recent
speeches.  He realizes that the majority of the people in the U.S. dont
understand what he is doing in Iraq.  They dont understand for two reasons,
1) the Media hasnt provided a balanced view of the situation in Iraq, and
2) Bush hasnt explained his strategy well enough.  He knows there is a
minority that is dead-set against him.  He wouldnt bother giving speeches
to those people, but the majority who in another era might have an
Imperial-mindset is another matter.  In this era these people are
isolationists at heart.  They want to be convinced that their security is
going to be improved by what i s going on in Iraq.  Bush is now explaining
that to them and I suspect his approval rating is going to climb.  We may
have weaponry suitable for an Empire, but we dont have the heart or the
people for it.  

 

Lawrence

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2006