PDA

View Full Version : Protecting American Unipolarity Means International War Against US




everlasticity
01-12-2012, 12:41 PM
I am currently reading Neoconservatism and the New American Century by Maria Ryan. This is a good book for anyone interested in the History of the Neoconservative movement, which sprang out of the anti-communist left (Necon's were originally socialists who, ostracized by leftist socialist for being too conservative, found their way into conservative ranks). Neconservatives originally campaigned against communism, but once the Soviet Union fell, the Neocons lost their relevance. This gave rise to a second generation of Neocon's who believed that in the absence of a competing super power the United States needed to maintain its position as the sole world power. This is what neocon's dubbed the "unipolar moment", the moment when the US was the sole military power, which began after the fall of the SU, and extended indefinitely into the future.

The philosophy behind this "unipolar moment", according to Maria Ryan, was that the Neocon's believed the US had to do whatever was necessary to maintain military superiority throughout the world. This meant intervening in regional conflicts whenever US interests were at stake. Since the US had the might, it could intervene decisively in any conflict. This justified military intervention of all kinds throughout the world.

What occurs to me after digesting Ryan's central thesis, is that the idea of unipolarity necessarily means that the United States must maintain a constant stance of war as long as there are conflicts that directly, or indirectly, threaten our national interests, whatever they may be. It also means that the US has essentially pitted itself against any country that seeks to exert itself militarily. This include China, the Soviet Union, any country that seeks to get a leg up in the world. According to the Neocon's, it is the job of the US to prevent any country from rising above a certain level.

This invites more than just blowback, it is an intentionally hostile stance to the rest of the world that will in any and all cases invite retaliation against the United States on the part of any country wishing to become more powerful on its own. While we may believe that another world superpower is threatening to US security, isn't it equally, if not more threatening, to invite war against the US and its citizens at every step of the way leading up to and including a big war against a country that may have actually developed the chops to take us on?

Maria Ryan claims that the Neocon's were short sighted. They did not anticipate the rise of asymetrical warfare, economic warfare, cyber warfare, the rise of the Chinese, or that Russia would regain world power status. But anyone with any commons sense knows that a country cannot declare war on the entire world and come out clean on the other side. It didn't work for the Germans in WWI or WWII, and that was merely continental. What makes the Neoconservatives think that the US can pull it off on a world scale?

The implications of the Neocon's "unipolar moment" are clear. As long as the US seeks to maintain sole possession of world power, our country and our citizens are at risk, greater risk than if we learned to share power.

SonofThunder
01-12-2012, 12:47 PM
I haven't read that so I'll check it out, thanks.

Have you read "Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea" ?

It's thick, but good stuff.

everlasticity
01-12-2012, 12:58 PM
I have not, but I have come across the title. I am researching the Straussian connection to Neoconervatism, including reading Strauss, so I will be sure to look into it.