Yesterday I polished off Zbigniew Brzezinski's geopolitical work The Grand Chessboard, which calls for an American dominance of Eurasia and thus, by proxy, the world
( Read more... )
Empires are not just won, they are also lost in Eurasia.
What Obama should ask himself, especially after the last decade, instead of digging up old hawkish geostrategists nationalistically fiddling with the World Island (doesn't it feel very 20th Century?) is if there is anything truly worth winning remotely sensible to gamble for compared to what is extremely likely to be lost.
One point in his favor--and where he certainly parts ways with the Republican Party at large--is that he considers France important. Every bit as important as Germany and even Britain. He says that France could be and should be a friend of the United States.
The reasons he seeks French friendship, however, are a bit dubious, as you can guess. He thinks that each of those three countries controls a certain sphere of influence in Eurasia (he includes part of Northern Africa in the French sphere as well), and that by bringing France into our corral we'd naturally bring that French influence under our own too.
Geostrategy is nationalist geography. To me, it is about as valuable as a scientific and sensible way of thinking about man's relation with the rest of the world as nationalist genetics or nationalist history is. It is deeply disturbing if Obama is into that mess, few "scientific" fields are as intrinsically dangerous and have had so profound evil effects as nationalist geography.
One point in his favor--and where he certainly parts ways with the Republican Party at large--is that he considers France important. Every bit as important as Germany and even Britain. He says that France could be and should be a friend of the United States.
Bush was getting along just fine with Sarkozy, last I looked ...
And how long has Sarkozy been in power? Overall, for the past two decades, the Republican strategy in Washington has been to try diminishing France in favor of Britain and Germany. If he winds up pulling one major thing that Bush doesn't like, I suspect the GOP will return to that platform.
is if there is anything truly worth winning remotely sensible to gamble for compared to what is extremely likely to be lost.
What are we likely to lose, and -- if we let Al Qaeda alone -- how will we stop them from hitting us again, and harder? And what about Iranian backed Shi'a terrorists? Just because we leave them alone is no reason to imagine that they will leave us alone.
What are we likely to lose, and -- if we let Al Qaeda alone -- how will we stop them from hitting us again, and harder? And what about Iranian backed Shi'a terrorists? Just because we leave them alone is no reason to imagine that they will leave us alone.
Wasn't that last what Al Qaida was supposed to say?
Sorry, your question, as phrased, doesn't make any sense. My direct answer would be "No," but I suspect that you meant to phrase it differently.
The Grand Chessboard has nothing to do with fighting terrorists, or leaving them alone. It was an outline for a global strategy on how to completely dominate Europe and Asia politically, economically, and over control of resources.
old.style empire politics, stuff that's "worked" - more or less - for a long, long time (for th'British, for the U.S., for others...).
i don't really believe we can choose against oligarchy (theoretically, sure...). but there is, presently, a choice of sorts between America's traditional "liberal internationalism" and this radical Wilsonian "democracy by the gun" that falls under the Neoconservative umbrella. Brzezinski, for better or worse, is old school / as is Colin Powell and, largely, Condi Rice (the former was basically a lone voice against the War Party while Sec. of State [then made Public Fall Guy at the UN] and Rice is pretty much the counterbalance to Cheney's "Bomb Iran Now" megaphone directed at W's head [she was also villified by the Likud press for daring to suggest that Palestinians might be *gasp* humanin short, Obama isn't likely to bring a new day of sweetness an' ponies w.r.t. American foreign policy / but McCain - who i kind of admired a few months ago when he believed that torture is unAmerican - seems
( ... )
What Obama should ask himself, especially after the last decade, instead of digging up old hawkish geostrategists nationalistically fiddling with the World Island (doesn't it feel very 20th Century?) is if there is anything truly worth winning remotely sensible to gamble for compared to what is extremely likely to be lost.
Reply
The reasons he seeks French friendship, however, are a bit dubious, as you can guess. He thinks that each of those three countries controls a certain sphere of influence in Eurasia (he includes part of Northern Africa in the French sphere as well), and that by bringing France into our corral we'd naturally bring that French influence under our own too.
Reply
Reply
Bush was getting along just fine with Sarkozy, last I looked ...
Reply
Reply
What are we likely to lose, and -- if we let Al Qaeda alone -- how will we stop them from hitting us again, and harder? And what about Iranian backed Shi'a terrorists? Just because we leave them alone is no reason to imagine that they will leave us alone.
Reply
Reply
Wasn't that last what Al Qaida was supposed to say?
Sorry, your question, as phrased, doesn't make any sense. My direct answer would be "No," but I suspect that you meant to phrase it differently.
Reply
Reply
i don't really believe we can choose against oligarchy (theoretically, sure...). but there is, presently, a choice of sorts between America's traditional "liberal internationalism" and this radical Wilsonian "democracy by the gun" that falls under the Neoconservative umbrella. Brzezinski, for better or worse, is old school / as is Colin Powell and, largely, Condi Rice (the former was basically a lone voice against the War Party while Sec. of State [then made Public Fall Guy at the UN] and Rice is pretty much the counterbalance to Cheney's "Bomb Iran Now" megaphone directed at W's head [she was also villified by the Likud press for daring to suggest that Palestinians might be *gasp* humanin short, Obama isn't likely to bring a new day of sweetness an' ponies w.r.t. American foreign policy / but McCain - who i kind of admired a few months ago when he believed that torture is unAmerican - seems ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment