A Dying Breed said:
How is NATO "almost useless?" It's playing a significant role in Afghanistan right now, but if that's not good enough for you, look at the Balkans. They can curse Bush's environmental policy or whatever, but that's frankly insignificant in relation to the role the US plays in European security. Europe understands that in the big picture it benefits from US power.
Most experts I've read argue that the current threat is greatly overblown. I'm surprised you hold this viewpoint, as it seems to justify the Bush doctrine (pre-emption.) Are you worried about whacko homegrown nationalist types like Tim McVeigh getting ahold of a nuke? Because that kind of fear seems to justify attacking any and every remotely hostile country that could potentially develop such weapons. This is the logic behind the Iraq war to a T (aside from the neo-con strategic goals; SoundMaster made some insightful comments about that.)
As with all things, it is more complicated than "the programs failed." For example, a large part of the African population (generalizing, it's a big continent) is what we refer to as "uncaptured peasantry." Meaning, they're agricultural types with little motivation to enter into a modernizing, industrial economy. Simply mobilizing human resources in this scenario presents a big problem. I was more referring to the conflict in these regions anyhow, stemming back from the way in which these places were carved up by imperialist powers with no respect for traditional or ethnic boundaries.
In any case I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. We seem to be looking at (mostly) the same thing, you're calling it a cat, and I'm calling it a dog. Maybe in 20 years it will become clearer who's right.
Yes, we're keeping a intellectually stimulating argument alive with our power of critical thinking. It is getting kind of stale, but Im enjoying it.
After Kosovo, there was much discussion on the usefulness of NATO, an organization created to protect Western Europe from the Russians. Remember, Russia was trying to join, and most were calling NATO a relic, and no longer all that important (in fact, it was all but accepted, that NATO was pretty much just America and Britain). The addition of Eastern European Countries, and their willingness to add a few thousand troops to Afghanistan, has not been very important or decisive. I would be very suspect of NATO's role in Afghanistan--not doing too well over there are they?
You do make an excellent point about how this thought of terrorists with bombs and rogue states with nukes, allows for pre-emption. But I still think its a fact of life in todays world, and the direct result of 60 years (especially the last 30) of largely failed and arrogant American foreign policy, that has created such rogue states and terrorists (remember our fumbling and bumbling with the Shah that led to the Ayatollah? our support of the mujhadeen?). But unlike Bush and boys, I think the only way to deal with such threats, is to change American foreign policy; not by invading. We need to win back their hearts and minds by listening to them, and using reason to discover why and what we can do to change the perception of America to the rest of the world.
As for Africa: you argue that colonialism is the real cause, as well as Africa's reluctance to accept modernization. Those are interesting claims, that I think are minor ancillary issues, to the bigger problems of Economic austerity programs and the transition away from Colonialism into self-rule. Remember A Dying Breed, that almost all African economies were growing quite rapidly up until the late 70's. But this growth, like ours presently, came largely at the expense of borrowing--especially since until the late 70's and early 80's most industry etc, was nationalized and owned by the government, and each country has large public sectors and social programs. It wasnt until the late 70's and early 80's when these countries went into debt, that these austerity and free trade programs were forced upon almost every country, and in effect, they forced each country to sell off their nationalised industries, dismantle the public sector including spending on health and education, and open each market to western goods. Since then, All of SubSaharan Africa has experienced negative economic growth. The same thing happened in South America and the Middle East. There is a plethora of literature out there, about this. Or better yet, talk to someone from one of these countries.
As for colonialism, it can be argued that indeed, many of these countries were safer, and experienced greater growth under colonialism, and suffered serious growing pains when they were granted independence. All were unprepared for independence. These countries didnt have any experience in ruling themselves, creating transparent and stable governments and bureacracy. In fact, in this case, you sound like a Lenin-ist, and I like a conservative. You blame colonialism, where I think it was a benefit to Africa (well where the British were at least--the French are a different story), but the transition was entirely lacking. Again, I urge you to consult a intelligent African on this subject.
So again, I think we have some major disagreements here, and on Africa, I am rather comfortable in my position. As for the rest, well, who knows.
