As the scale of the economic crisis becomes clear and comparisons to the Great Depression of the 1930s are tossed around, there is a very real danger that America could succumb to the feeling that we no longer have the luxury of worrying about distant lands, now that we are confronted with a “real” problem that actually affects the lives of all Americans. As we consider whether various bailout plans help Main Street as well as Wall Street, the subtext is that both are much more important to Americans than Haifa Street.
One problem with this emotion is that it ignores the sequel to the Great Depression — the rise of militaristic Japan marked by the 1931 invasion of Manchuria, and Hitler’s rise to power in Germany in 1933, both of which resulted in part from economic dislocations spreading outward from the U.S. The inward-focus of the U.S. and the leading Western powers (Great Britain and France) throughout the 1930s allowed these problems to metastasize, ultimately leading to World War II.
Is it possible that American inattention to the world in the coming years could lead to a similarly devastating result? You betcha.
Kagan sees the problems we face.
We will get over the current economic situation just like people who are basically healthy will recover from a bad cold if we don’t meddle with the free enterprise system that has given our country such great wealth.
However, if we do not maintain a consistent and effective foreign policy that is backed up by a military capability that is capable of making that foreign policy credible, then we will be at the mercy of nations and world-wide religious/ideological movements that will try to diminish or destroy the United States.
This is where the ‘rubber will hit the road’ regardless of what some politicians try to tell us.
Don’t worry, we’ll be universally loved once The One is installed in the Oval Office. Our security will be assured once he sits down at a big love-in with Mahmoud, Hugo, Raul, Vlady and Jong-Il.
“Once [Obama] sits down at a big love-in with Mahmoud, Hugo, Raul, Vlady and Jong-Il” —Jeffersonian [#2]
Not likely, even though GW Bush (1) has peered admiringly into Vlady’s soul and (2) just formally certified that Jong-Il does not sponsor terrorism.
Jeffersonian [#2]: If Obama becomes president, what would it take to convince you that he is not a dangerous radical? Or do you have your mind made up?
I’m always open to new data, I. All Obama needs to do is reverse course on just about everything he’s promised to do, from enacting protectionist legislation to larding up that bastion of corruption, the UN.
[blockquote]Not likely, even though GW Bush (1) has peered admiringly into Vlady’s soul and (2) just formally certified that Jong-Il does not sponsor terrorism. [/blockquote]
A – one of Bush’s more idiotic pronouncements
B – no terrorism, just a penchant for launching missiles over Japan and threatening our West Coast. If he manages to hit Brentwood, all is forgiven.
Obama has made it clear that he wants to quit engaging in cost-ineffective diversions like Iraq and focus back on Afghanistan and Bin Laden.
[blockquote]Obama has made it clear that he wants to quit engaging in cost-ineffective diversions like Iraq and focus back on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. [/blockquote]
If it was up to Obama, we wouldn’t have implemented the surge, we would have pulled out of Iraq by now and we’d be watching the resulting conflagration spread across the Middle East. Pull out too soon now, and it will still happen. How “cost effective” will that be?
True, we need to elbow aside our largely ineffective allies in Afghanistan and eliminate the Taliban once and for all. Our multilateral approach there has been a failure.
Jeffersonian #8, instead of the surge, Obama would have diverted troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens Tuesday and after.
And, #9, we would have seen a resulting collapse in Iraq. QED.
Let’s hope Obama if he finds himself engaged in the Middle East doesn’t try to do the same stupid stunt pulled by Bill Clinton in Viet Nam.