Posted: May 05, 2017 6:49 pm
Galactor wrote:Weaver wrote:
Yes, we have the world's largest military, and we use military force, and threats of force, to accomplish our national goals.
But that doesn't mean we ALWAYS use military force, or the threats of force, in pursuit of our national goals - as evidenced by things like NAFTA, which was negotiated entirely without any suggestion of the use of force if we didn't get what we wanted. And there are many, many other examples as well - because, although we have the world's largest military (in terms of projectable power and actual strike and combat ability) the world is a big place, and we simply cannot be everywhere at once - or even threaten to be.Weaver wrote:
Really? Like the kinetic strikes we carried out against Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program?
Oh, wait - we didn't use any kinetic strikes there - we TALKED to them, and got them to sign a treaty.
Let's get the goalposts put back whence they came.
I am quite sure that a non-military strike was not necessary with the NAFTA agreement. And of course not everything requires immediate posturing.
But the proposition that the US sat around the bargaining table with Iran and had a friendly chat and TALKED to them and got them to see sense (what silly little Arabs they must have been) is a deeply dissatisfying one.
I still cannot grasp the analogy of the NAFTA agreement with the US talking to the Iranian regime. These were utterly different trajectories.
Of course, the US doesn't ALWAYS use direct force. At it's disposal, however, is the long history of its willingness to do so, understood by all, should threats arise to its economic hegemony which also means, unfortunately for those in its immediate vicinity, success in socialist-economic endeavours where it might transpire that such social political systems, have widespread benefits for large sections of the society. It would have been a disaster to the ruling classes if the average citizen would have seen how nice a social political system actually could be.
If only Cuba were to have been so suppliant in its commercial position, the US would never have had to punish it and blacken its name for so long. If they were as willing and ready as the Mexicans and Canadians, there never would have been a missile crisis. So for me, the analogy goes no-where.
A bit off topic all of this.
The Iran nuclear agreement was the culmination of decades of sanctions and both direct and indirect talks. We used no military force to drive them to the table.
NAFTA was a direct counter to your claim that we always, everywhere, have displays of military force involved in our geopolitical influence operations. It simply isn't so.
I don't argue that the US does not use its military, including subtle and direct shows of force, to influence our discussions with others - that's part of what a military is all about (read von Clausewitz). But we do not always, necessarily, use our military in that way.