General Patton
31st July 2006, 10:03
Arrival? I think we are already witnessing the beginning of it. Nope, I am not really excited about the prospect. However, I view it in a pragmatic sense, which is the desire for the survival of my culture, my way of life, and my next of kin. If delivering the enemy a death blow before they, themselves, have that ability is necessary to insure these things, then that is what I am going to support. Based on my knowledge of China, I believe it is. Having said that, I think that a doctrine of preemption is far more practical than the Monroe Doctrine of isolationism.
Theodore Roosevelt recognized the Monroe Doctrine as being antiquated and added his own corollary to open up it up to the possibility that it may become necessary to expand U.S. commercial interests into South America for the purpose of combating European hegemony. The previous world wars further exemplified the fact that it was impossible to remain neutral since our trading partners were coming under fire. Furthermore, it demonstrated that it was possible to launch an attack on U.S military targets from across the ocean. It showed that the potential for destruction was much greater if we ignored the threats and refrained from involvement in foreign political and military affairs. With the end of our autarky in the 1950's we were thrown deeper into the global economy. The threat of communism helped continue to defined our national foreign policy as Eisenhower further eroded our noninvolvement in foreign political matters by developing the Domino Theory. If commerce and free markets necessary for the survival of our economic system were to become compromised by the growing threat of communism then our national security was at stake, and it became appropriate to directly interfere with the political processes of states susceptible to communist influence. This included acts of war.
Now we have the emerging threat of terrorism, where groups try to direct the political outcome of western democracies through intimidation and political violence. Because of the nature of this enemy who are allied with the communists, once again, it becomes necessary to rethink our doctrine of foreign policy and come up with a more practical approach to deal with the potential threat and losses that could be incurred. That is why the United States is moving toward a doctrine of preemption. This is something that I agree with, given the nature of our enemies, and the fact our entire population and the very existence of our society is at stake.
Before, we could count on an enemy to act rationally in the interest of their own preservation. Now, we are up against a nation that has astronomical numbers and has been using fanatics who welcome death and revel in the idea of Yawm al-Qiyamah. The Islamists view the destruction that they want to bring upon the world as simple prophecy, and believe that they will be rewarded for their part in bringing about the end times, as well as the killing of countless infidels. Our enemies have chosen "unrestricted warfare", and have made use of suicidal maniacs in order to accomplish their ends. Furthermore, the masterminds behind all this view their own population as a unlimited resource and as being largely expendable. We must adapt and recognize the challenge that this poses and deal with it accordingly.
Copyright 2006
Theodore Roosevelt recognized the Monroe Doctrine as being antiquated and added his own corollary to open up it up to the possibility that it may become necessary to expand U.S. commercial interests into South America for the purpose of combating European hegemony. The previous world wars further exemplified the fact that it was impossible to remain neutral since our trading partners were coming under fire. Furthermore, it demonstrated that it was possible to launch an attack on U.S military targets from across the ocean. It showed that the potential for destruction was much greater if we ignored the threats and refrained from involvement in foreign political and military affairs. With the end of our autarky in the 1950's we were thrown deeper into the global economy. The threat of communism helped continue to defined our national foreign policy as Eisenhower further eroded our noninvolvement in foreign political matters by developing the Domino Theory. If commerce and free markets necessary for the survival of our economic system were to become compromised by the growing threat of communism then our national security was at stake, and it became appropriate to directly interfere with the political processes of states susceptible to communist influence. This included acts of war.
Now we have the emerging threat of terrorism, where groups try to direct the political outcome of western democracies through intimidation and political violence. Because of the nature of this enemy who are allied with the communists, once again, it becomes necessary to rethink our doctrine of foreign policy and come up with a more practical approach to deal with the potential threat and losses that could be incurred. That is why the United States is moving toward a doctrine of preemption. This is something that I agree with, given the nature of our enemies, and the fact our entire population and the very existence of our society is at stake.
Before, we could count on an enemy to act rationally in the interest of their own preservation. Now, we are up against a nation that has astronomical numbers and has been using fanatics who welcome death and revel in the idea of Yawm al-Qiyamah. The Islamists view the destruction that they want to bring upon the world as simple prophecy, and believe that they will be rewarded for their part in bringing about the end times, as well as the killing of countless infidels. Our enemies have chosen "unrestricted warfare", and have made use of suicidal maniacs in order to accomplish their ends. Furthermore, the masterminds behind all this view their own population as a unlimited resource and as being largely expendable. We must adapt and recognize the challenge that this poses and deal with it accordingly.
Copyright 2006