tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267597063062817567.post6860850507843024332..comments2023-12-24T00:14:00.742-06:00Comments on Cup O' Joel: Is the Army Thinking About Bacevichian Isolationism as 'Grand Strategy'?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267597063062817567.post-74101141642293441942010-09-17T23:53:11.679-05:002010-09-17T23:53:11.679-05:00As long as it is understood that we have evolved b...As long as it is understood that we have evolved beyond any future Grand Strategy that would stifle the dynamic rationale behind operations such as Iraq, I'm all for it. And, you know, the cold war is not over. The players are changing, and it's less evident who they are from day to day, but posturing over, for instance, a nuclear Iraq, is part and parcel of the permanent global threat of nuclear war. Missing this will be fatal. <br />I'm all for tempering US projection of global power (or the illusion of said), and I'll probably support a draw down if it starts to happen. But higher gasoline prices will be the least of our worries when our influence is replaced - or displaced when momentum kicks in. I'm just saying. I'm all for it ideologically. But realistically, it will cost us. Or our grand children.DOTDOThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16960965978489650636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267597063062817567.post-21856370689588902082010-09-16T15:11:02.920-05:002010-09-16T15:11:02.920-05:00I'm kind of surprised that a guy teaching cour...I'm kind of surprised that a guy teaching courses in military history could pave over, for example, the Spanish-American War, which was pre-World War I and got us involved in the Philippines and Guam, where, um, we still have troops also. In fact checking Wikipedia you can find any number of 19th century military actions in the Pacific (the Second Opium War, the Samoan Civil War and others) not all of which were fought in the name of free trade.<br /><br />The fact is, it takes what appears to me to be quite a bit of tongue-twisting to pretend that the United States hasn't been throwing its military weight around pretty much since it clawed its way free of Great Britain. Changing that might be a good idea, but doing so would hardly constitute some return to a previous policy.Chris Rywalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15766746064219235983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267597063062817567.post-76974190186948168442010-09-16T14:54:47.284-05:002010-09-16T14:54:47.284-05:00Well, it puts in question the whole idea of "...Well, it puts in question the whole idea of "international rivals," really. If we're not projecting power abroad so much, there's a reduced -- though not eliminated -- chance for friction.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14753052418658482508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267597063062817567.post-56941137553282998442010-09-16T14:50:25.884-05:002010-09-16T14:50:25.884-05:00I would actually be very much in favor of such a p...I would actually be very much in favor of such a policy. The biggest hitch I see is that it would mean divesting the US of whatever influence it has in the Middle East. <br /><br />In a lot of ways, that would be a good thing. But it would require us as a nation to get comfortable with the thought that we may not have the access we want (need?) to the Mid East oil, and that our international rivals (China & India) most likely would have that access.FletcherDodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00870340800475532887noreply@blogger.com