posted
I'd be interested in peoples' take on this. I believe much of the stuff that happened in the last 30 years or so is summarized accurately, but I don't know much about the earlier events, and I also would be interested in alternative viewpoints of the recent ones too. Specifically, if there were "good" reasons for some of the less flattering episodes, I haven't heard them, but would like to.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I know more about the earlier stuff than the more recent stuff, and while I don't specifically have knowledge about every single incident, there are a couple dozen that I recognize, and the rest sound about right.
For the most part, I think a lot of our military actions in the 1800's were good ideas, with the major exception of actions taken against native americans. Fighting pirates and protecting American interests abroad was responsible, and our actions were a hell of a lot better than the Europeans that came before us.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sun Tzu viewed diplomacy as an unbloody (and thus superior) form of warfare. Clausewitz viewed warfare as a bloody (and therefore inferior) form of diplomacy. But the point is great military minds have long viewed Warfare and Diplomacy as belonging on a continuum.
Countries act to expand their power... it's what they do. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the US has as well. Doesn't make it a good thing, though as Lyrhawn pointed out, we've been a lot kinder about it than we could have been... and than most have been.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't take much comfort in the "it could've been worse" viewpoint. Propping up brutal dictatorships and sabotaging elections is bad enough, and also it seems as if we fight a lot of battles by proxy.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't give us much of an excuse for the second half of the 20th century, but be fair: It's not fair to apply 21st century political morality to actions taken a hundred years ago, and especially not two hundred years ago, or more.
Things were the way they were back then, and we, by and large, rose above the actions of the many and really stood for something better. We fought pirates, we protected our citizens, unlike the major European powers (with the exception of the Philippines) we chose not to be imperialists and turned away from colonization.
I don't say anything for what we've done in the last fifty years, and as I said, with the exception of our behavior in the continental US, I think we were pretty damned good in our use of military power aborad, and I'm largely proud of it. We were the good guys.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I also don't buy into the "different times" excuse very well either. I see a lot of room for nastiness in the words "protecting American interests" and while I think it's great to go after pirates, what we really did wasn't to wipe the pirates out, but fight them to the point where they'd leave US ships alone and go after someone else. It's not like we were really doing anything high-minded in protecting our interests.
I contrast things like our record in South America with what we might have done instead, and don't take much solace in that some of our options might've been worse.
I mean, really, Mexico/Texas...Hawaii...Panama...
Well, I guess I see somewhat of a pattern developing and one that we should have learned not to repeat.
The actions of 100 or so years ago keep coming back to haunt us today. Doesn't that give us at least a little pause when contemplating actions today? Like maybe we're setting up our great-grandchildren to even bigger fights?
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Different times" isn't an excuse. You, presently today in 2007, are thinking using the last 100 and 200 and so on years of national experience for your own benefit. American might have screwed up, in your point of view, in the 19th century, but they also didnt have the next 150 or whatever years of American and world experience to draw upon like you do.
In hindsight, of COURSE we can look back and say "well that was stupid," but it's totally unfair to expect our leaders to have known what we know now a century and a half ago. It's unfair to expect them to play by 21st century rules when those rules didn't even exist in the 19th century.
Fighting pirates was for the good of the seas. The Barbary Wars were a shock to the world. Europe was content to pay them off and go on, because that was the order of things. America on the other hand refused, beat them, and forced them into a trade deal where we wouldn't have to pay them tribute. And then we left. We didn't conquer and hold Tripoli. I can't guarantee, but I'm willing to bet that the French, Spanish or British would have held onto it as long as possible. It changed the way the world worked. And that American tradition of freedom of the seas is continued today, as America patrols the sealanes of the world and yes, even continues to fight pirates.
When we destroyed a pirate ship or captured a crew, we didn't give them a new ship and let them go to go plunder the ships of another nation, we put them out of commission. We fought slaver traders in the 1830's, 40's and 50's, just like the British did. Why? Slave traders didn't really help or hinder us, but we did it anyway. We explored the Indian and Pacific Oceans and fought pirates there, for our own interest yes, but for the benefit of all.
I never said we were "high-minded" or acted out of any sense of altruism. We defended ourselves and tried to provide as best for our citizens as we could. I'm not saying we did it for peace and mankind, I'm saying we did it without falling to the levels of Europe, we did it above the standards for the time. You're taking every action and shining a very, very negative light on it, and are assuming the worst.
But more unfairly than that, you're acting as if America, from 1776 onward had a duty to protect and defend 21st century ideals on statesmenship, diplomacy and military action, and that anything less than a defense of those ideals constitutes a failure. That's way, way too much to ask.
quote:The actions of 100 or so years ago keep coming back to haunt us today. Doesn't that give us at least a little pause when contemplating actions today? Like maybe we're setting up our great-grandchildren to even bigger fights?
Sorry but: Duh. Of course the actions of the past should give us pause in our actions today. But then that's part of the point I'm trying to make to you. You say we should act today with all the knowledge of the mistakes that came before us, and at the same time you're attacking past actions, and they didn't even have the benefit of previous experience.
I certainly think we should use past actions as a sounding board for present ones, I just don't think it's fair to look at actions we made in the past without understanding the full context with which those decisions were made.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I'm ignoring the context of past events. I submit that our founding documents and principles are part of that context and we have a history of ignoring them when it suits some expedient purpose. Not all the time, but really, how much prescience does it take to know that propping up dictators is a bad idea? Or ignoring our own laws and principles?
Sticking to first principles may be tougher, and cost us more in the short run, but it's not like the people in the past were ignorant of those things and couldn't have chosen to uphold them.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far as I've read, when the US declared war on Britain in 1812, they had no knowledge at all of a change in British policy, and that didn't erase the (as many as) 6,000 sailors that were take off US ships, or the close to a 1,000 ships actually seized on the high seas between 1805 and 1812.
Impressment was one of the reasons the US declared war, and it was a valid one. Other reasons abound. The British were constantly harrassing US shipping abroad, which harmed our trade with other nations, they supported natives around us and armed them to fight off our settlers, they refused to remove forts and bases that they were supposed to under the Treaty of Paris. They boarded fired upon, and boarded a US warship in something like 1810, I can't remember the exact date, but it was the USS Chesapeake I believe. That would constitute an act of war today.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: I don't think I'm ignoring the context of past events. I submit that our founding documents and principles are part of that context and we have a history of ignoring them when it suits some expedient purpose. Not all the time, but really, how much prescience does it take to know that propping up dictators is a bad idea? Or ignoring our own laws and principles?
Sticking to first principles may be tougher, and cost us more in the short run, but it's not like the people in the past were ignorant of those things and couldn't have chosen to uphold them.
Is propping up dictators your only sticking point? Most of that was in the second half of the 20th century, which I've already said I'm neither addressing or accusing, as I just don't as much about it as I do pre-1950 America.
If you want to do a study on historical military mistakes, and foreign policy blunders that we had to pay for later and STILL pay for in the 21st century, look at Britain. You'll get a lot more out of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Propping up dictators is far from my only "sticking point.
I think if you want earlier stuff, the whole deal with Panama (carving the country out of another country in order to own the canal), and Hawaii (essentially a land grab by a few well-heeled Yanks) are pretty atrocious.
I'm not really trying to make any accusations here, though. I'm more wondering how accurate or spin-laden that site seems to people.
I wasn't really trying to argue the merits of various US military activities in this thread. More like just see if this was an accurate summation. If not, I'd still like to find something brief but similarly broad in coverage through our history.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's got a definite slant, but I wouldn't say they are lying... I don't see anything unfactual. The slant is in the facts they choose to present and the subtle ways they color them. I'd say, upon a very cursory inspection, that it's a nice case presentation of a particular viewpoint.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, well, then I agree with Jim. It's an anti-US foreign policy site (it at least leans that way), by my reckoning, but I don't think there's much outright lying.
The explanation of the War of 1812 on there makes it look like we rushed to war without much provocation, other than wanting to steal Canada and win a pissing match with Britain. It ignores the half dozen REAL grievances we had with Britain, and the fact that we never really even wanted Canada, it was a means to an end. Canada was far more useful as a bargaining chip against Britain than it was for the land, we had plenty of that much closer to home.
It's little lies of omission and skewing of the facts like that, that make me not trust this timeline.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading a few dozen accounts in which they list all the sins of the US-backed side, followed by all the virtues of their opponents, I became incapable of taking the spin seriously. It just made me wonder what they weren't saying about the opposing side.
Still, it does seem like we've done a LOT of screwing around with countries that threatened to become Communist. As a person who really only saw the end of the Cold War, I have trouble thinking of Communism, itself, as being so scary that it's worth some of the alternatives that we've supported to fight it. But I'm betting that at the time, it seemed (at least to some people) like the only thing we could do to preserve our way of life was to fight the Communists at all costs.
At least, that's what I imagine when I try to give these folks the benefit of the doubt ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:After reading a few dozen accounts in which they list all the sins of the US-backed side, followed by all the virtues of their opponents, I became incapable of taking the spin seriously.
Can you give an example? I'm only halfway thru (1926), but it seems like they are very careful to use neutral language throughout. For example, when discussing disputed incidents, they stick to facts ("Congress blaimed the [USS Maine] explosion on Spain") rather than blaming either side. They always cite "protecting American interests" as our justification, which is true by definition. So far there's been little to no value judgement on whether those interests were benign.
I don't see any deification of our opponents, either. In fact, the majority of the 19th century entries cite revenge for anti-American violence as a motive. You could almost come away with the impression that we were never the aggressors, whereas the truth is undoubtedly more complex.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, having finished reading, I see what people are talking about. In the later articles, while they still stick largely to facts, their choice of facts and language reveals obvious bias.
I wonder why they did that? Whatever point they're trying to make, they'd have a lot more credibility if they maintained the same journalistic tone used in the earlier articles. The average American still believes in ideals of democracy and peace, even if our government & military-industrial leaders often stray from that path. Showing Americans the plain truth would be argument enough, I believe (perhaps too optimistically).
Besides, it's not as if the recent entries the site [over]emphasizes are worse than the historical standard set by the more neutral entries. For instance, I've always thought McKinley's foreign policy bore a deep resemblance to Bush 43, a similarity that comes out even in those miniature descriptions. Nor are they different in character. Students of history can easily see through the supposed motives every era of politicians concoct for themselves to the real human constants: power, greed, fear, pride, revenge. As for degree? Horrible as the casualties are in Iraq and Afghanistan (probably >1M before we're done), they'll never reach the horrors of the World Wars or the Native American genocide.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the reviews so far. See...for those things that have happened in my lifetime, I recall them exactly the way that site lists them, so it doesn't set off my "spin" alert in the least.
I appreciate the alternate perspectives on it. Does anyone know of a summary that is less "loaded?"
As for the Communist threat, I lived my entire youth and young adult life under the Communist threat and the Cold War. I missed the first few years of that "war" (never saw the film Duck and Cover but I did have to do the drills).
The fear was nukes on our border, primarily, and a Communist bloc so powerful and rich that they could never be balanced or out-powered so they could get whatever they wanted via threats alone.
In opposing them, and making each of their victories as costly as possible, I think our hope was to forestall their planned takeover of the world.
With respect to Central & South American countries we had the added fear that they would become proxies for Russia replete with missiles that could reach our country with almost no warning.
From that perspective, it makes sense to have done whatever it took to keep the Soviets from propping up their own puppet regimes to our south. And there were no doubt fears (or maybe even proof) that the Soviets were influencing politics and elections down there. Certainly Cuba gave us a poignant example of what we might face if we didn't stop the spread of Communism there.
My take on that whole "episode" with its many varied brutal dictatorships beholden to us is that some very pragmatic men decided that our principles were less important than our safety (after all, what good are principles when you're dead) and decided that assasinations and strange bedfellows were cheaper than the cost of protecting our country from major threats to the south, or having to fight a "hot" war with various Communist states as neighbors.
To be completely honest, though, it's hard for me to hold onto that viewpoint and declare it good and valid. First, there's the whole "principles" thing. That really bugs me. Second, there's the profits racked up by companies that had strong lobbies in Congress at the time and that, effectively, set policy on things like military spending. It was in their best interests to keep the fear of Communism at as a high a level as could be managed. It filled their coffers and kept our country obligated to build ever more advanced weapon systems at ever increasing costs.
Again, I'll admit to some native skepticism over the whole thing. I think "American interests" sometimes came down to commercial interests of one or a few key Senators' buddies. I think we have a history of putting capitalism above democracy. And I think we have one set of rules for us and another set for every other human on the planet.
I have a hard time reconciling any of that with Christianity, Democracy, or humanism. It's as if we act without a guiding philosophy. But then I remember capitalism and think "ah, sure." But then...is that just my native cynicism showing through? Maybe survival and protection of a way of life is the real bottom line for any government and/or people and the ideals really don't matter if you can't guarantee survival first.
But that tells me that any time we feel threatened (or some politician can wrangle enough fear in us) we are going to abandon our principles and go for the quick fix.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great post, Lavalamp. My only critique is your use of "capitalism." Not to be too cynical, but I really think "greed" is a better term. Capitalism makes me think of free markets, competition, trade, and so on. However, the greed-driven wars in our history are just as much an anathema to Econ 101 principles as they are to morality. The sugar racket is the most obvious example. For centuries we've been willing to conquer nations, misallocate billions of dollars, disrupt 3rd world agrieconomies, violate UN & WTO rulings, and refigure our sodas with nasty corn syrup -- all for the benefit of one dinky industry that found itself unable or unwilling to compete in the world economy, but happened to have good political connections.
quote:With respect to Central & South American countries we had the added fear that they would become proxies for Russia replete with missiles that could reach our country with almost no warning.
Understandably so. Nobody likes having a gun to their head.
Of course, we had no qualms stockpiling 5000+ nukes in West Germany. Like you said, the "rules" rarely apply to us.
----
I think we have to make a distinction between cases where we supported a local tyrant -- feeling it the pragmatic geopolitical choice, while holding our nose at the unseemly affiliation -- versus cases where we willingly instigated bloodshed. Our short-lived alliance with Pol Pot is a good example of the former. Everyone knew of his genocidal past, but that was water under the bridge, not our fault. By the 1980s apparently it was worth it to send him a few million bucks if it would put a thorn in China & Vietnam's side. It only lasted a few years, and when he ceased to be useful to our interests, we had no problem [re]branding him "the next Hitler" etc. At no point did we bring ourselves down to his level, at least not to my knowledge.
[for the record, I also put our support of Saddam and al Queda in the late 70s - early 80s into this category. when I bring those things up in debates over present-day policy it's to emphasize the irony of the situation, or because someone is still deluded that US foreign policy stems from righteousness rather than realpolitik. not because I think we made the wrong choices...necessarily]
The Salvadoran death squads are at the other end of the spectrum. A small band of terrorists held an entire country under a reign of fear for a decade, killing tens of thousands...and most of the blame lies at our feet. Inexcusable.
Revisiting these forgotten skirmishes helps us put controversial events in perspective. Was Vietnam more like Cambodia or El Salvador? [one thing I really liked was the split into 1950-1963 vs 1963-1975...it's easy to give very different answers for pre- and post-Johnson policy] What will future people say about Iraq?
quote:But that tells me that any time we feel threatened (or some politician can wrangle enough fear in us) we are going to abandon our principles and go for the quick fix.
Call me an optimist, but the last year or so I've seen signs that Americans are largely cognizant of -- and sick of -- the fear game. Some segment of the population will always be entranced by whatever Red Storm Rising story they're spinning at present, but I think more & more people have simply had enough. If that holds true, politicians will undoubtedly find another button to push, but that doesn't worry me. The bigger question is how long those lessons will be remembered. Maybe every generation will have to experience their own Vietnam. I hope not. Websites like the one under discussion, frustrating as they might be, are one way to prevent that.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
