From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Wed Jan 09 2002 - 10:30:42 MST
I disagree with what the stated premise is. I believe we have been
preoccupied with not preventing new powers from emerging, but the stand
against communism and pro-Soviet regimes, for good and bad.
If we had wanted to stand against emerging powers, we would have squashed
post WW2 Japan, and its economic burst on the scene (to our national
disadvantage). Furthermore, Nixon and subsequent Presidents would Never have
gone to China or pushed for Most Favored Nations status. Also, you would
Never have seen a peace dividend in the 1990's because we would have built
the Pacific fleet to stand against China. We would have also squashed the
EU/EEC by withdrawing from NATO, the second the Soviets collapsed, thus
re-energizing nationalistic hostilities via Germany, France and the UK.
So what choo talkin; about Williis?
-Moreover the policymakers named in the article were such putzes that its
apparent to most current policy makers what failures these strategies were.
C'mon, Brezinski, and Jame A. Baker the 3rd? What sterling foreign policies
they had! Guffaw!
I suspect that the authors could have re-titled their article
"NeoIsolationism is Never Having to Say You're Sorry."
<<A New Grand Strategy"
By Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne
The Atlantic Monthly, January 2002
For more than fifty years American foreign policy has sought to prevent
the emergence of other great powers - a strategy that has proved
burdensome, futile, and increasingly risky. The United States will be
more secure, and the world more stable, if America now chooses to pass
the buck and allow other countries to take care of themselves.
See http://freedomofpress.tripod.com/atlantic1.html>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:31 MST