Tag Archives: Politics

by

Here’s My Cape – Does Anyone Want It?

This morning’s breakfast conversation centered on the international events headlining the news, and my ongoing attempt to write a thesis on the diplomatic history of the twentieth century. The central theme of the discussion revolved around the notion that great powers prefer a world were there are many large nations rather than many small nations. The conversation also turned to the problems created by superpowers.

When the Cold War ended, many in the United States naively celebrated the idea of being the only superpower. Many believed that being a superpower was better than being one of the great powers, and the opportunity to shed the role of superpower was waived.  Now, after a quarter century of being the sole superpower whether in reality or in myth, a greater comprehension  of the responsibilities and the dangers of being a superpower has developed.

The problem, however, is that when the United States now asks, “Here’s my cape, does anyone want it?” no one steps up to take it.

When Edna Mode, of The Incredibles, said “no capes,” is this what she was really warning us about? Are superpower capes just too dangerous? Should the capes simply be retired and replaced with the plain clothes of diplomacy?

It is with this question on my mind that I return to the realm of history and try for a few hours to shut out the political realities of the day.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . .

FYI: I cannot view, nor do I endorse any of the ads that are shown on my blog.

by

Saith Me… Post-Traumatic Cold War Disorder

I have reached a point when my thesis and the events of the day have brought me to a strange observation. Those of us born before 1980 seem to be suffering from  Post-traumatic Cold War Disorder.

Traumatized by the endless Cold War propaganda and rhetoric of our youth, we can no longer view the world through any lens other than a Cold War lens. Even the slightest hint of turbulence or discord between the USA and Russia sends us hunting for our bomb shelters or our protest signs. We see the world as us or them and begin to verbally attack anyone who does not sound like us as we split the world in two. We even view neutrality as an enemy.

Sadly, this disorder makes us paranoid that the actions of the other side are indicative of their determination to eradicate us from the earth rather than simply a manifestation of their desire to protect their own self-interests. In our race to divide the world, we neglect to see how the other side is acting just as we act. We see only differences and never similarities.

I love studying the Cold War, but I would like to see it remain in the realm of history rather than reignited by those throughout the world with questionable motives. I would love for the Post-traumatic Cold War Disorder to be a thing of fiction and not of reality.

 

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . .

FYI: I cannot view, nor do I endorse any of the ads that are shown on my blog.

by

Reporting the News: a Psychic Creation

I  wish journalists would study more than historical talking-points before tackling foreign policy issues, particularly the effectiveness of intervention wars.

If the history of foreign policy is not their strong suit, bringing in an ‘expert’ would be fine. Bringing in two opposing ‘experts’ would be better, especially if the ‘experts’ were really ‘experts’ and not just the talking heads of the day.

When did reporting the news become nothing more than selling the news? Maybe it has always been that way but there are simply more annoying ways to sell it today.

Propaganda has always had a role in war, and even without governmental encouragement media has spread war stimulating propaganda. It all seems to revolve around having a good story to tell. Sadly, the good story, which spreads like wildfire in the blink of an eye or the click of a share button, can and does affect the public and the officials who in the end create the events that make the news. Reporting the news, therefore, takes on the nature of predicting the future, but a future the psychic has helped create.

It has been fascinating to discover how often propaganda has been shared by the media without the urging of a government. As we swim through the dangerous waters of governmental oversight, we should worry about the other dangerous creature in the water. Drowning may not be what kills us, but rather the sharks feeding off our fear of the water. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . .

FYI: I cannot view, nor do I endorse any of the ads that are shown on my blog.

by

Saith Me… Choosing to be Miserable

Interpersonal connections through various modes and methods, specifically during this past two months, have reminded me of the old saying,

“You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time.”

There is one category starkly missing, some people can never be pleased because they are determined to be miserable.

Regardless of the justifications of misery – temporary or chronic – there is a stark difference between experiencing misery and being miserable.

Wretched, distressful events occur, but it is a choice one makes to become wretchedly distressed by the events. The key factor separating the experience of misery and being miserable is Choice.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . .

FYI: I cannot view, nor do I endorse any of the ads that are shown on my blog.

by

Saith Me… Opinionated and Uninformed

It is amazing how many uniformed people have such strong opinions, and such strong desires to share those opinions.

Under-informed and curious, good combination. Uninformed and angry, not such a good combination.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

 . . . . . . . .

FYI: I cannot view, nor do I endorse any of the ads that are shown on my blog.

by

What will be remembered?

Being fully aware of political spin and propaganda, I am wondering if in the end this letter will be what history records for future generations to study.

Willingness to come together for war, but government shutdown in an attempt to stop a health care law. Where does this leave us and what does this mean for our future? Most importantly, what does this really say about us as a nation?

Reid to Boehner 2013

 

PDF of the letter can be found at the ‘letter’ link and at the following:  harry-reid-letter-to-john-boehner.pdf
by

Intervention versus Peacekeeping

What was I thinking when I doubled up on these two history classes?

Intervention or peacekeeping.

One is good and one is bad. One is wrong and one is right. One should work and one should not.

But there is no consensus as to which is which. Are they not just the same thing with different names?

In the end, are they not simply outside entities imposing a course of action on a weaker, more chaotic entity or region?

Isn’t it all just about the spin which is placed on the action?

Speaking of spin, this makes my head spin and I need a nap.

by

History of Intervention

Over the past few months, I have been studying the history of intervention as part of my pursuit of a Master’s in Military and Diplomatic History. There seems to be two common lessons to learn from the history of military intervention.

First:

There is no “getting it right.” Military intervention forcibly halts conflict for a time but does not end conflict. It always comes back. Inaction will cause many to suffer. Action will cause many to suffer. Therefore, do we intervene and cause suffering in order to stop suffering, all the while simply postponing war for the next generation? Or do we let war run its course and watch a generation die?

Second:

Stopping regional war but risking international world war is not usually worth the price. Unfortunately, no one can figure out when the price is worth paying. When 100,000 die? When multiple nations topple? When the threat reaches your own back door?

 

There is one new lesson being recorded for our posterity even as I post this.

Those who call for war are seldom the ones who fight the war. This is nothing new, but it is being documented in great volume in the news and social media. Armchair warriors cry for a strong stand against tyranny and call it weakness when diplomacy is used. They approve of the jobs created by military buildup but disapprove of paying the bill. They think war is like a game of Risk, a game that when an impasse is reached you box it up and put it on the shelf for the next time you feel like prancing around like a peacock. Being strong means looking strong rather than acting strong.

What we should be learning.

The one thing that history doesn’t seem to teach anymore is the value of stepping back from a fight and trying for peace once again. When this choice is made, if it is made, it is belittled and viewed as a weakness. It, rather than warmongering, is called the cause of future conflict.

President Teddy Roosevelt said “Speak softly and carry a big stick…” But we do not speak softly any more.

Machiavelli advised to be respected rather than loved. He used the word “feared” but his context inferred respected because the Prince should avoid being hated.

The person who always carries a big stick will eventually be hated – hated for acting, hated for not acting, and hated for the threat of the big stick. Sadly, this is the lesson history is trying to teach but a lesson we just don’t seem to be learning.