[dtennent]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

When threads are started and get into topics of national security, I’ve observed that posters usually fall into two camps. Camp membership is probably a combination of life experiences, political preferences, common sense (as defined by the person) and so forth.

The first camp, probably about 2/3s if not more of TOTVers, instinctively understand the totalitarian leadership currently calling the shots in Iran, China, and elsewhere are best viewed as our enemy. That means they are inimical to our interests and national security if not dealt with and, ideally, should be removed from power. I will call this camp “Peace Through Superior Firepower” for lack of a better term, and identify them as right of center. Most in this camp view America as a force for good in the world, on balance and overall. Note that I did not say perfect or flawless, but still we essentially view America as the good guys.

The second camp could be described several ways. I’ll be nice, and just call them “Peace Through Superior Flower Power” and observe they are typically left of center. They tend to look at actions and say “Hey, it’s not any worse than anything the US has done.” The tendency is to view America as the source of problems, vs solutions, and seek to understand the “other” points of view, whether it’s Iran, China, Cuba et al. IMO this group takes a kind of multicultural approach to foreign policy where all other cultures are to be admired while one, ours, is kind of well … we do have our faults. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa would be another way of saying it.

The first camp views the second as having their heads firmly lodged in a very dark place, while usually rolling over in the face of America’s enemies.

The second camp views the first as warmongers who want to nuke the world because, after all, we don’t really have enemies just adversaries. Besides, wolves and sheep are not necessarily incompatible. Can’t we all just get along?

I don’t expect to change anyone’s minds, but I think it could make for an interesting discussion.

• Which camp do you think has proven more successful in our history and why?
• Which camp do you see yourself as being in, or maybe which do you find more compelling even if not persuasive?


...

To me, the discussion is much more complex. For instance, the firepower we developed during World War II is what won the war. However, our reaching out to Germany, Italy, and Japan after the war and helping them rebuild dynamic economies, is what stopped the cycle of wars that had occurred over the previous decades. While there are certainly hostile countries, the larger battle is economic. China is currently winning this war. Even if we could destroy them militarily, another state equal to or worse than the current one would rise up in its place. Nor can we continue to cede our manufacturing and technology to them. Furthermore, they have bought and secured key mining interests around the world. IMO, we need to lead the world (and bring our European allies with us) in holding China accountable for their current practice of stealing technology, keeping prices low to drive out competition, and using workers as disposable items. To simply slap tariffs on products without detailed context of what they need to change doesn’t help our cause. However, a concerted and planned multinational effort could create the economic pain that would bring China around. It will take time as we cannot reverse the effects of the last 50 years overnight.

I guess this puts me into a third camp. Having the superior firing power but using diplomacy to achieve lasting changes. Instead of using the Glock, let’s use a taser to immobilize the fanatic no matter what his religious beliefs are.