Great Powers and Their Neighbors
Benjamin Friedman makes an excellent point:
Commentators of all stripes seem to assume that Russia’s move into Georgia was driven by its increasingly autocratic nature. (This is reminiscent of Kennan’s argument back in the X article that Communism made the Soviet Union prone to aggression, which he later regretted.) It is worth considering whether this is a misperception. A powerful body of political science argues that states’ foreign policy actions are driven mostly by their circumstance and interests, not their regime type or the personality of the leaders. Regime type and personality affect how states interpret their circumstances, but maybe not as much as we tend to think. The United States is not particularly tolerant of seemingly hostile states in its near abroad either, whether they are democracies or not.
This is not — not — to justify Russia’s behavior. America’s treatment of its neighbors in Latin America has often been criminal, just like Russia’s treatment of its neighbors. But to look at the fact that Russia mistreats its neighbors as a symptom of domestic dysfunction or a precursor to a campaign for world domination is way off-base. Consider what would happen if the government of Cuba, under the mistaken belief that it had backing from Moscow and Beijing, decided to launch a military attack on Guantanamo Bay.
57 Responses to “Great Powers and Their Neighbors”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 13th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
man, have people really forgotten grenada, ‘83?
August 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Far be it from America’s pundits and public intellectuals to suggest that rational discussion of foreign actors based on a reasoned analysis of those states’ apparent interests take precedence over the puffing of grand themes which those same people want to strut around pushing.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
What does democracy even mean in any of these instances?
Russia holds elections, but Putin stays in power.
Iran holds elections, but the Mullahs stay in power.
The US holds elections, but the corporations stay in power.
I get the feeling that “democratic Georgia” means “willing to let BP have a pipeline there”.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Consider what would happen if the government of Cuba, under the mistaken belief that it had backing from Moscow and Beijing, decided to launch a military attack on Guantanamo Bay.
Cue insufferable picking apart of analogies in 5, 4, 3, 2…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
This attitude goes beyond just treatment of neighbors. There are plenty of people who believe that removing Ahmadinejad from power would somehow halt Iran’s nuclear program. The reality is that Ahmadinejad is wildly unpopular and his aggressive stance on the nuclear issue makes him MORE popular in Iran. If Iran were a perfect democracy, the pace of nuclear development would continue and maybe even increase. And for good reason: Iran could supply 30% of its electricity needs for the next 150 years with the uranium it possesses. The rest of the world can supply the currently existing nuclear reactors for about 100 years with the known uranium reserves of the world. Nuclear power in Iran is not just some crazy idea thought up by crazy leaders. It’s a rational policy. And rational leaders would pursue it.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“argues that states’ foreign policy actions are driven mostly by their circumstance and interests, not their regime type or the personality of the leaders.”
Well I think the Iraq war goes a long way toward discrediting this position. Anyone here think we would have invaded and occupied Iraq if Gore had properly taken office?
August 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Of course, a regime’s “interests” are not some objective fact there waiting for smart regime’s to be figured out. Rather, they are what the regime takes them to be and that’s pretty heavily dependent on the type of regime it is and the nature of its leaders.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Isn’t it sad that you have to say this:
.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
The U.S. has never made any foreign policy mistakes, and you must be a Communist for making such a suggestion.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
The Cato dude links to Bay of Pigs, but that was a long time ago – during the Cold War – when has the US recently undermined a democratic country?
I remember 60 Minutes running a show on the rumors that the CIA tried to orchestrate a coup against Hugo Chavez, but it was never confirmed.
The Cold War is over.
But I do wonder how democratic Georgia is. Under most measures it’s objectively better than Belarus.
Russia objectively rates Belarus as “better” than George. This is “understandable” given Russia’s security concerns? Not to me.
Is there democracy apart from being pro-West, pro-Europe or are there just spheres of influence and nothing else?
I think there’s a position between the nutty neocons and the other extreme of making excuses for Russia.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Stirling Newberry said as much, at one point.
.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Why was Choicepoint™ in Mexico, breaking Mexican laws?
.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
And since the people making up the regime are often ignorant and/or crazy, their notion of the ‘national interest’ can easily result in stupidity and madness. We’ll skip Hitler: but what were the Japanese ruling circles thinking when they attacked the US, with an industrial might ten times theirs? What was Paraguay’s leadership thinking when it declared war on Brazil, Argentina, _and_ Uruguay?
Why did European states insist on acquiring backward, pestiferous colonies that lost money?
August 13th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
IIRC that it would scare us into leaving them alone.
How often have people assumed that a short, sharp shock would spook someone into doing X, only to find they’d motivated a new enemy?
.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I get the feeling that “democratic Georgia” means “willing to let BP have a pipeline there”.
Actually, that is what “pro-Western” means. “Democratic” means “and this is not at all like us ‘liberating’ Iraq”.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The “criticizing America means you’re defending American antagonist X” thing really has to go. Really.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The Right is just hyping this up as Hitler II in order to re-fight the Cold War. They think they can scare voters into buying their hawkish doomsday policies just like in the ’80’s.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/
August 13th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
It’s been less than a week, yet the fact that Georgia was the initial aggressor seems to have fallen down the memory hole. Now, Russia’s response may have been greatly disproportionate, but it didn’t start the war.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Anyone here think we would have invaded and occupied Iraq if Gore had properly taken office?
I have vague memories of Bill Clinton saying he longed for an excuse to invade. And, IMO, given the pre-9/11 dynamics, the US was faced with a considerable loss of face WRT Iraq: Saddam Hussein was still in power, the embargo was falling apart, no-fly-zone enforcement was becoming increasingly problematic, …
So, I think there’s a fair chance that Mr. Gore would have done the same.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
The Cato dude links to Bay of Pigs, but that was a long time ago – during the Cold War – when has the US recently undermined a democratic country?
Are you serious?????
2004: US is reportedly behind the ouster of democratically-elected Haitian president Aristide.
2002: US is reportedly behind the failed coup to oust democratically-elected Venezuelian president Hugo Chavez
2001 – present. US is reportedly involved in a host of clandestine efforts to undermine the democratically-elected government of Iran.
1981-1990: US undertakes a long serious of covert and overt actions to overthrow the democratically-elected Sandanista government of Nicaragua, including but not limited to arming and training the Contras and mining Nicaraguan harbors.
1973: CIA is involved in the Coup overthrowing democratically-elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende
1960: US is involved in the coup overthrowing democratically-elected president of the Congo Patrice Lumumba
1954: US is involved in the coup overthrowing democratically-elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman.
1953. US is involved in the coup overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Iran and re-installing the Shah.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Apparently Bush was fine with the military coup in Thailand a couple of years ago when he found out about the plans beforehand. Bush also cut off aid to the Palestinians when Hamas won elections there. He also backed Israel bombing Lebanon in the middle of its democratization.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
The point isn’t just that the Russians possess strategic interests in South Ossetia in Georgia. Rather, I suspect the more important point is that there are Russians in South Ossetia and other parts of Georgia. Russians are nationalistic, and the government’s domestic strength depends in part on the degree to which it is seen as capable of protecting the interests of all Russians, including those abroad. The Russians claim their intervention was motivated by a desire to prevent a “genocide” of Russians in the Georgian crackdown on the breakaway South Ossetia. That may be a willful exaggeration; but it may also reflect the actual fears and perceptions of many Russians.
It is hard to frame an analogy that would resonate with Americans, since the the United States isn’t ringed by a former empire or the ghost of a former American super-state. peopled in part with “ethnic Americans” who moved into those lands during the previous imperial era.
The Gunatanamo analogy is imperfect, because we are mainly talking there only about a basing issue. Instead, suppose Puerto Rico, whose people are US citizens, declared independence of the US. Suppose most Puerto Ricans renounced US citizenship, but a significant minority on the northern coast of the island from Aguadilla to Arecibo held tight to their US citizenship, and continually sought closer and semi-autonomous relations with the US, maybe even declaring themselves independent. Suppose Puerto Rican attempts to squelch these semi-autonomous moves were occasionally oppressive, and prompted numerous appeals to Washington by the US citizens living in Puerto Rico, looking for support from their American brothers and sisters. Recall that many of these people would still have large numbers of relatives of Puerto Rican ancestry living in the US. Suppose the young government of Puerto Rico, perhaps justifiably concerned about their territorial security and unruly Americans living on their northern coast, even launched a military crackdown on the breakaway region. Would the US be able to resist coming to the aid of its stressed fellow Americans?
August 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
2001 – present. US is reportedly involved in a host of clandestine efforts to undermine the democratically-elected government of Iran.
Yeah they have elections, but they kick all the moderates off the ballots, and ultimately the Supreme leader has final say on on all matters.
Some on the so-called anti-war left have weird ideas of what constitutes democracy. Is that they just hate the US so much that any oppenent is automatically “not that bad”, like Saddam Hussein.
He’d get 99% of the vote. Was he democratically elected? Huh smart guy?
You can be against war with Iran or war with Russian not be a complete idiot.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
There’s a lot of historical examples suggesting that internal liberalism and external aggression go hand-in-hand. The Athenian Democracy coincided exactly with the Athenian Empire. The Roman Empire added very little to the territory of the Roman Republic. The young French Republic conquered the Low Countries, the Rhineland, and Italy, and invaded Egypt (and, of course, started the Napoleonic Wars). As a young democracy, the United States committed genocide against the American Indians and seized a transcontinental empire. In the 19th century, the most liberal countries in Europe–Britain and France–were also the most imperialist.
There’s a number of potential explanations for this. The people are more likely to support war if they get to share in its spoils. Governments that use less repressive violence at home are free to use more violence abroad: militaries configured to oppress their own people are rarely good at fighting other militaries. More abstractly, there’s probably something to Carl Schmitt’s idea that political cohesion depends on an alliance of Us against Them–whether They are internal (e.g., Spartiates versus the Helots) or external (e.g., Athens versus Sparta).
August 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Kent:
Are you serious?????
2004: US is reportedly behind the ouster of democratically-elected Haitian president Aristide.
2002: US is reportedly behind the failed coup to oust democratically-elected Venezuelian president Hugo Chavez
2001 – present. US is reportedly involved in a host of clandestine efforts to undermine the democratically-elected government of Iran.
1981-1990: US undertakes a long serious of covert and overt actions to overthrow the democratically-elected Sandanista government of Nicaragua, including but not limited to arming and training the Contras and mining Nicaraguan harbors.
pretty weak list. Cold War ended in 1989-91 and all the ancient history is cold war related. In Pakistan we thwarted democracy and backed Musharraf b/c of war on terror (cold war type excuses given). Same Uzbekistan.
re: “democratic” Hugo and Haiti, sure wasn’t out in the open like Georgia and Russia.
reported, reportedly. Are they widely accepted?
So yeah I’m serious. I guess in your mind the fact the Cold War ended years ago changes nothing. You’re seriously ignorant.
August 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Dan,
That’s not bad, but I’m not sure how ethnicity plays into this – apparently there really aren’t (ethnic) Russians in S Ossetia – wikipedia claims 2/3 ossetian, 25-30% georgian, gives no number for russian, but probably quite small. Abkhazia appears to be 10% russian, 20% Georgian, 45% Abhkaz.
August 13th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Christopher Hitchens : Peter K :: Marty Peretz : James Kirchick
If Hitch decides he’s no longer a hawk, Peter K will declare that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
August 13th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
PeterK #23
Custom aside, I think it’s pretty strange to call the US a democracy if that term means “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (Webster-Merriam).
50% of people don’t vote, generally. Don’t blame the victim! There are structural reasons for this: the built non-representative structure of the Senate, the way congressional districts are drawn, the electoral college, as well as a host of local factors.
Non-structural factors: The legislative agenda is more determined by non-representative interests than by popular will (this formulation anticipates the rejoinder: “weird Washington priorities and agendas result from gridlock of contested agendas”. I don’t think that analysis has much weight.) The most dynamic aspects of government are marked by a unique disconnect from popular representation: foreign policy, environmental, property and economic (de)regulation, and wealth transfers. On the local level this has been especially true: Yglesias writes informativley of the way localities develop w/r/t zoning issues. Relatedly, the public is effectively disenfranchised by a corporatized public information system that advocates for the least democratic tendencies of our polity.
In the US, a democratic republic is an urgent public good to be achieved, not to be assumed in the face of the aforementioned realities.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
PeterK #25,
Haiti and Venezuela are clear-cut cases. The national elections of Aristide and Chavez were “out in the open”.
I believe this thread also mentioned the election of Hamas in the occupied West Bank and Gaza -undermined by the US-.
Give me post-Cold War counter-examples of the US supporting a democracy that presented a political challenge to its hegemony.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Matt,
I’d be curious to see how you can be both a realist and a liberal internationalist. I realize that your book was mostly about the politics of foreign policy, but your response to the Georgian crisis seems to be 100 percent realist. Where’s the internationalism?
I guess I would like to see a post on how one could apply the discussions in your book to the current crisis. If the answer is, “Apply a reasonable cost-benefit analysis of American interests,” then I must admit that your book just became a lot less interesting (this is actually a worry I had reading, and your response seems to have borne that worry out).
August 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
The US holds elections, but the corporations stay in power
Somewhat reminiscent of the “no matter who you vote for a politician/lizard wins”, but still quite stupid. I recall General Motors and U.S Steel being dominant corporations of the past that nobody thought would go away, while Google (founded by immigrants) just popped on to the scene when everyone was saying Microsoft was invincible.
Hans Herman Hoppe has also argued that democracies are more prone to warfare. He’s not a political scientist, but there is one who used that idea for part of his phd thesis.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
It’s entirely true that “the corporations stay in power”. Nobody ever said it had to be the SAME corporations. Total straw man argument.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Were the differences between China under Mao and today’s leadership, or between Nixon and JFK, or Stalin (killing as many as possible) vs Yeltsin (freeing his people), really even mostly because of the needs of their times? I think not. I think it’s just one factor in the mix, especially since there no single, agreed-on guide to what countries need and how to deal with various circumstances.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Er, ML, in THIS timeline, Democratic Athens was around far beyond either of its imperial periods, the French Republic was, of course, not a republic but a dictatorship, ALL the European countries worked on Empire except the Netherlands, who were too small (the British were just more ept), You ARE actually right about the United States taking over its continent (like most big European and Asian and African countries wanted to do as well), and about the Roman Empire, but in fact the Roman Empire sent out many, many expeditions to conquer things; they had lost their edge.
No, liberalism just makes for more capable government (Bush is strictly minor-league vs. royal screwups) (read a history of some royal family and you’ll see). So if empire is a goal, the liberal version is likelier to be acquired faster and last longer and be easier on its inhabitants – e.g.,vs the Spanish Empire, which killed tbe conquered inhabitants tbat plagues left in record time by massive abusive slavery. And if your liberal govt is hacked, like in Rome, you’re going to have the problems of illiberal govt from then on. Well, except that Athens was too arrogant to run empires. Also, liberal goverments improve their ethical standards over time (like Britain abandoning Imperialism voluntarily) much faster than illiberal ones.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:34 am
This is not — not — to justify Russia’s behavior.
It’s never a good sign when you have to make a statement like this. It reminds me of “I’m not a racist, but . . .” which is a sure sign that something racist is about to follow
August 14th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Jon Kay:
Er, rather embarrassing mistake on my part regarding the Athenians: That should have read “The *rise of* the Athenian Democracy….” However:
My comment on the Roman Republic was not meant to imply that the Roman Empire was was not warlike; it certainly was. However, the Romans had already conquered nearly all of their empire under the Republic; this is impressive both as a display of expansionist tendencies and as a military achievement, and it says something about the Republic.
Note that I confined my remarks on the French Republic to the period before 18 Brumaire. Now, if you want to argue that the First Republic, in all its forms, was “not a republic but a dictatorship,” feel free, though I feel this takes rather too narrow a view of the term “republic” and rather too broad a view of the term “dictatorship.” In any event, I don’t intend to argue that the First Republic was a happy little polyarchy; it wasn’t. It was, nevertheless, significantly more liberal than the old regime, and was perceived as such, and still initiated a major European war before this liberalism revealed itself to be anything other than the real deal.
Note, likewise, that I confined my remarks on European imperialism to the 19th century, when the (successfully expansionist) experience of the British and the French stands in stark contrast to the experience of all the other European powers.
The argument at the beginning your second paragraph (”liberalism makes for more capable government”) is true as far as it goes, for certain values of “more effective.” The liberal state’s capacity for raising revenue, for instance, certainly makes for a much more effective war-making capacity (North’s argument). This is one of the many possible explanations for the apparent phenomenon of “liberal war” (if one wants to be snarky); nevertheless, it’s far from clear that it’s the whole story.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Sorry for the strong language, but I am shocked and disgusted that given the lives lost this week, the great man Kennan’s last major statement on this topic has not been quoted:
n February 1997, Mr. Kennan wrote on The New York Times’s Op-Ed page that the Clinton administration’s decision to back an enlargement of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to bring it to the borders of Russia was a terrible mistake. He wrote that “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era.”
“Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking,”
We began reaping what Clinton/Albright sowed in 1999. Only now are we beginning to realize this.
Not to put an overly russo-centric spotlight on recent events, though.
The Caucasus tinderbox proved a beautiful opportunity for Republican politicos. The plan agreed upon by Rove and our fellow US citizen Saakashvili on July 12 in Yalta is unfolding brilliantly.
Just last night FL Senator Martinez issued his resounding endorsement of McCain as Commander in Chief given current cirucumestances.
Operation O (Ossetia/Obama): brilliant – just like Iraq.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Coup d’etats are NOT the same thing as invading a country and bombing civilians.
Are you “progressives” really this historically ignorant?
Russia almost overthrew a democratically elected government by war!!! That ain’t the same thing as the CIA trying to influence the internal politics of some banana republic.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Lyle
Coup d’etats are NOT the same thing as invading a country and bombing civilians.
It is not and thus I will remind you of Kosovo, Afganistan and Iraq. Thanks God, Iran hasn’t happened yet. The US has invaded and/or bombed these countries and their civilians, however much it tries to use pompous words like “establishing democracy”.
Russia almost overthrew a democratically elected government by war!!! That ain’t the same thing as the CIA trying to influence the internal politics of some banana republic.
1. A “banana republic” can have a much more democratic regime than the US. But just because it doesn’t fallow your country’s rules doesn’t mean it is not democratic. The US has determined its own meaning of democracy and is trying to force the world to adopt it.
2. Claim about democratically elected president in Georgia not based on the news you are fed and the brainwashing you go through, but by going to Georgia and asking them. I believe Georgia would have been a much more advanced country if it had a wiser president truly democratically elected. To your information, Mr. Sahakashvili has been pushed by the US and has not been elected as such. It was the same classical “blah-blah” revolution (this time called “white rose”).
3. You forget that it was Georgia which fired first.
Just FYI, a small historic fact: South Ossetia and North Ossetia used to be one nation before Stalin’s decision to pass on the South Ossetia part of land to the Republic of Georgia. Ossetians are not Georgians, not Russians. They are a distinct nation with their own culture. After the break-up of Soviet Union, south and north Ossetia people wished to reunite. And here is when their wish smashed into the thik walls of politics. Not just Russian or Georgian politics, but also those of the West.
Before claiming someone ignorant make sure you do know all information that will let you form an objective, unbiased opinion.
And to be honest, I think there would have been much more peace in the world if the US would focus on itself, rather than getting into other countires lives. Spreading democracy is not when one country forces its opinion, view and values on another country and uses all possible means for that. It is when each country and its people have the right to choose their own way of development, even if very different from the US’.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Sara,
Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t democracies at the time the U.S. invaded them, however. The U.S. was actually already at war with Iraq. It’s also obtuse to compare Georgia to the likes of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Taliban’s Afghanistan. They simply aren’t one in the same. Just War theory was rational enough for any country to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein has been one of the most progressive things the United States has ever done. So too with the Taliban.
Georgia’s quasi-democractic state simply isn’t as morally abhorrent as Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.
It also doesn’t matter that Georgia started this mess, by bullying South Ossetia… it does matter that Russia threatened to destroy Georgia and it does matter that Russia bombed civilians on purpose.
When did the U.S. ever bomb Iraqi or Afghani civilians on purpose?
Kosovo,was also, like, about ethnic cleansing. What in the hell is not progressive about stopping genocide? What pray tell? What?
Fuck the Taliban, Fuck Saddam Hussein, and Fuck Serb Nationalists!!!
August 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Russia did not threaten to destroy Georgia and it was Georgia who bombed civilians first.
As for when the US “bombed civilians on purpose” – if you use air power on a civilian neighborhood with the known fact that collateral damage will occur, you are bombing civilians on purpose. The US does it daily in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Stopping ethnic cleansing? What do you think the Georgians were doing in Ossetia?
Get a clue.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Richard,
Russian troops are still not out of Georgia. And they did approach the Georgian capitol. So, yes, they almost overthrew the democratically elected government of Georgia. They didn’t just stay inside of South Ossetia or that Aberejrdfdlkf.
And exuse me but America does not not kill civilians on purpose. Don’t you dare fucking inuslt your own brothers and sisters in arms for the United States. Mistakes happen in war, nobody denies that… but it isn’t the same thing as deliberately killing innocent civilians which Russia has clearly done. They fucking bomb elderly people in apartment buildings. The Georgians might also be guilty of this, so fuck them too if they did but threatening a democratically elected government with obliteration through war is wrong, wrong and more wrong… and not like anything the U.S. has ever done in recent years.
It’s amazing how little “progressives” care about actual people. You guys would rather see a people genocided if it means you can ’stand up’ in contra to Bush and the “neocons”. God you people are spiteful and murderous.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
ML:
STILL wrong on Athens – Athens did more DECLINING during its imperial periods because it often had worse leadership. Napoleon was more liberal in the sense that Stalin was more liberal that Hitler – nothing to do with freedom or democracy atall. He hacked his constitution. What does the record of a man who seizes power have to do with the democratic historical record?
I think you’re being a trifle naive how bad royal and dictatorial rule often were. Imagine if the situation in Iraq had happened here, too, with military and police order effectively ceasing to work for a long time. That happened alot. Imagine if we had to put up with Bush ’til his death. Imagine if only 1/3-1/2 of the rulers were up to their jobs. Imagine if being Bush’ buddy was the ONLY way to start ANY kind of enterprise atall. Imagine if you had to bribe half the world to do ANYTHING, if the ways into decent education and the middle class were strictly limited. Imagine if half the male youth were regularly killed by military expeditions lead by people who got their positions by birth or by people like Napoleon.
Under those circumstances, it’s hard to conquer much, and it’s much harder still to keep turf when your descendants will war over it and stupidly misrule and weaken it and lose it to neighbors and invading tribes, like the Roman Empire did. I mean, think, all that hard work by Caesar wasted
when the Empire couldn’t hold onto Gaul, or even Rome.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Jon Kay: Please learn to read. I have said nothing about Napoleon (indeed, twice now I have deliberately excluded Napoleon from my discussion of the First Republic). I said nothing about the relative “rise” or “decline” of Athens in any of its imperial periods. I have certainly made no normative claims about authoritarian government (and certainly none about “royal and dictatorial rule”).
August 15th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Lyle
Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t democracies at the time the U.S. invaded them, however. The U.S. was actually already at war with Iraq. It’s also obtuse to compare Georgia to the likes of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Taliban’s Afghanistan. They simply aren’t one in the same. Just War theory was rational enough for any country to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein has been one of the most progressive things the United States has ever done. So too with the Taliban.
It also doesn’t matter that Georgia started this mess, by bullying South Ossetia… it does matter that Russia threatened to destroy Georgia and it does matter that Russia bombed civilians on purpose.
It would have been very funny to read these lines it it weren’t so sad and terrible. Propagandistic machines work to well to hope that humanity will be intelligent inough to stand above it.
Whether there was Saddam or not, the fact remains that the United States has purpously bombed Iraq. Maybe I should remind you also of the fact that the US did so based on falsified justifications of biological weapons and contrary to the international community’s disagreement. So, yes, whether you want to accept it or not, the US did a very similar thing, except for some reason for the US it is ok to do such things.
Secondly, Russia did not bomb civilians and your judgements are solely based on the news the US media provides. The latter is very much one-sided. Try to listen not only to CNN and read not only WSJ, but also European media (british, french, german) and also Russian ones. Then you might learn to read between the lines, to see the real picture.
This war is not about Georgia’s democracy and all the bull-shit you are fed over the US news needs to be ignored. Open your eyes, this is war between the US and Russia, veiled under the “democracy” slogan for power over the Caucasus region. It has been, is and will be strategically important and control over it is important to either of the two. Would I ever believe that the war over Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan was spark by these two small countries which have been quite well living in peace for 70 years? Not for a second. It was very well sparked by the West in the same “struggle for democracy” bull-shit to get control over the territory – political control, not terriotorial.
And as long as people take a side like you justifying own acts and blaming others, there will be wars. Congratulations to the US propagandistic machine – it’s brainwashing is done so deeply that most of the people in the US have lost the ability to think for themselves. And I claim this not on mere emotions. I used to live in the States and I was astonished at the disability of people to filter what they are fed everyday by newspapers, TV and other brainwashing machines. Afganistan and Iraq were the perfect cases which showed how the stupidified masses followed a complete bull-shit without giving any thought to it. I have fought for a while against this debating, arguing, trying to make at people at least in my close circles to use their brains – I understood, that the brainwashing is done too deep to be able to change it.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Lyle:
And exuse me but America does not not kill civilians on purpose. Don’t you dare fucking inuslt your own brothers and sisters in arms for the United States. Mistakes happen in war, nobody denies that… but it isn’t the same thing as deliberately killing innocent civilians which Russia has clearly done. They fucking bomb elderly people in apartment buildings. The Georgians might also be guilty of this, so fuck them too if they did but threatening a democratically elected government with obliteration through war is wrong, wrong and more wrong… and not like anything the U.S. has ever done in recent years.
This is an emotional outburst based on what the media has fed you, not a logical judgement based on facts.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Lyle Says:
Fuck the Taliban, Fuck Saddam Hussein, and Fuck Serb Nationalists!!!
This reminds me of a joke. A little boy comes to his dad ans sais: “Dad, I know what is needed to have peace all over the world”. “What?” – asks the dad. “The good guys should get armed and kill all the bad guys”
Peace & wisdom to humanity
August 15th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Let’s reduce the invective here, but Saraswaty has a point about the US media. In foreign affairs, at least, you people over there get very one-sided coverage (the mid-East is the worst for obvious reasons, but it applies everywhere). US citizens have about as much chance of finding out what’s really happening in the world from their media as citizens of the USSR did.
I highly recommend that when there is a dispute you go looking for coverage in a country that has no dog in the fight – in this case the BBC.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
We have bombed Iraq… and justifiably because of Saddam Hussein. But we did not, nor would we ever, target civilians on purpose.
The fact you imbecilic ‘progressives’ can’t admit this is beyond the pale.
It’s just plaing insulting to your own military.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Also the intelligence on WMD in Iraq was not falsified. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD. German intelligence specifically reported to U.S. intelligence that he had WMD.
If you read foreign newspapers you’d know Der Spiegel wrote a cover story on this.
Get educated ‘progressives’.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:16 am
ML,
.
Whoopsie! But it’s so much more fun to respond to what I imagine than to what you actualy write
Lessee…on Athens, you wrote “…The Athenian Democracy coincided exactly with the Athenian Empire. …” and then corrected with “Er, rather embarrassing mistake on my part regarding the Athenians: That should have read “The *rise of* the Athenian Democracy….” So, it looked to me like you were trying to correct to “The rise of the Athenian Democracy coincided exactly with the Athenian Empire,” which is what I was grumbling about.
I think I see what you’re getting at on France now. I’ve never felt it’s fair to blame the First Republic or even Napoleon for the wars declared against them by fearful monarchies. I DO think it’s fair to blame Napoleon for most of the fighting after the Peace of Amiens. Conquering Egypt, for example, was Napoleon’s choice.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:19 am
Everyone has to go here at least once.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Hello Guru, what entice you to post an article. This article was extremely interesting, especially since I was searching for thoughts on this subject last Thursday.
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
buy viagra online
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 8th, 2009 at 4:12 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!
viagra