Americans need to stop thinking like imperialists and we need to stop buying into the myths of empire, including the myth that defeat in some peripheral theater is a world-historical disaster.
It saddens me to see the most interesting columnist at the Times repeating what essentially passes for the conventional wisdom of the "credibility" argument. My political views are different from Douthat's but I always find his unconventional takes on current events interesting. He's almost like a cubist painter, showing you how something looks from a different and unexpected perspective. But apparently not on this column, where he repeats the Washington consensus talking point while throwing in a few allusions to Rome for good measure.
I would say that Rome's defeat at Tutenbourg Forest at the hands of Arminius and company is an even less-strong analogy than Daniel has indicated in his supply. The Germanic tribes really did live right on the periphery of Rome's borders and were a potential threat to sack and raid Rome and its nearby settlements. Afghanistan is literally a on the other side of the world from the United States, and it is in a region where local actors like Pakistan and India have a much more direct stake in the political affairs of the country. Whatever else the embarrassing collapse of the American-backed regime in Afghanistan represents, it does not portend the possibility of a ground invasion of the United States by Pashtun or Hazara tribesmen. (As a side note, I would highly recommend the Netflix series "Barbarians" to anyone who wants a great dramatization of Roman-Germanic relations, and a stark reminder that not so long ago, the ancestors of very white Europeans in fact lived in tribes not too different from those that characterize contemporary Afghanistan. I can't wait for season 2!)
Daniel makes a good analogy with comparing the US to Spain, although he also could have cited France as a parallel empire that went broke multiple times by fighting wars in distant parts of the world. I would say that France is an even stronger parallel because the French intellectual classes got drunk on an aggressive form of liberal rhetoric and became convinced that all peoples beyond the French border were conspiring to destroy France's "universal values" (for the liberals) and its "civilization" (for the monarchists), hence necessitating constant aggressive expansion in supposed "defense" of the nation. Perhaps one day we will see an updated version of the classic film "The Battle of Algiers" from the perspective of Afghans. However, given that the Taliban walked into Kabul in a virtually bloodless transfer of power, it will be difficult to dramatize last month's events in the same fashion.
I see no sign that the US is prepared to reduce our imperial commitments. Despite our domestic failures to address the climate catastrophe, accelerating inequality, a barbaric and failing healthcare system with declining life expectancy, and a crumbling infrastructure, our political system is incapable of reforming itself. In simple terms our politics has been privatized to serve corporate interests and those interests have too much to lose if we practice real restraint. That is why House and Senate committees have just voted to increase our “defense” budget by another $25 billion.
You don't see a sign that the US is prepared to reduce its imperial commitments? I would say that (notwithstanding the resistance of the military bureaucracy and the Fourth Estate) the fact that Biden pulled the troops out of Afghanistan is such a sign. Increasingly, Americans as a whole seem to be focused at home and have become skeptical of foreign interventions. We might remain strategically ambiguous with Ukraine and Taiwan for strategic reasons but as far as actual direct intervention and not merely the threat thereof is concerned, Afghanistan would seem to be a good example.
Yes, Biden did finally get us out of Afghanistan and he attributed that to just following Trump’s agreement to remove troops by May 31, extending that to August 31, but better late than never.
On the other hand, he has kept troops in Syria and Iraq and conducted airstrikes on both countries. He has kept in place Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran and has effectively given up on rejoining the JCPOA—which would have been an easy win if he’d wanted it. Then there is his kid glove approach to the Saudi’s as they continue their genocidal war in Yemen, as well as turning a blind eye to Israel’s sabotage and assassinations targeting Iran. Also kept in place Trump’s economic warfare and regime change policies toward Venezuela and increased sanctions against Cuba. Meanwhile, we are increasing our military footprint in Africa, continuing to exacerbate tensions with Russia by sending arms to Ukraine and provocative naval patrols in the Black Sea and attempting to “contain” China through both diplomatic and economic means—in other words planning for the new Cold War and increasing the Pentagon’s budget. Wake me when any of this changes.
It saddens me to see the most interesting columnist at the Times repeating what essentially passes for the conventional wisdom of the "credibility" argument. My political views are different from Douthat's but I always find his unconventional takes on current events interesting. He's almost like a cubist painter, showing you how something looks from a different and unexpected perspective. But apparently not on this column, where he repeats the Washington consensus talking point while throwing in a few allusions to Rome for good measure.
I would say that Rome's defeat at Tutenbourg Forest at the hands of Arminius and company is an even less-strong analogy than Daniel has indicated in his supply. The Germanic tribes really did live right on the periphery of Rome's borders and were a potential threat to sack and raid Rome and its nearby settlements. Afghanistan is literally a on the other side of the world from the United States, and it is in a region where local actors like Pakistan and India have a much more direct stake in the political affairs of the country. Whatever else the embarrassing collapse of the American-backed regime in Afghanistan represents, it does not portend the possibility of a ground invasion of the United States by Pashtun or Hazara tribesmen. (As a side note, I would highly recommend the Netflix series "Barbarians" to anyone who wants a great dramatization of Roman-Germanic relations, and a stark reminder that not so long ago, the ancestors of very white Europeans in fact lived in tribes not too different from those that characterize contemporary Afghanistan. I can't wait for season 2!)
Daniel makes a good analogy with comparing the US to Spain, although he also could have cited France as a parallel empire that went broke multiple times by fighting wars in distant parts of the world. I would say that France is an even stronger parallel because the French intellectual classes got drunk on an aggressive form of liberal rhetoric and became convinced that all peoples beyond the French border were conspiring to destroy France's "universal values" (for the liberals) and its "civilization" (for the monarchists), hence necessitating constant aggressive expansion in supposed "defense" of the nation. Perhaps one day we will see an updated version of the classic film "The Battle of Algiers" from the perspective of Afghans. However, given that the Taliban walked into Kabul in a virtually bloodless transfer of power, it will be difficult to dramatize last month's events in the same fashion.
I see no sign that the US is prepared to reduce our imperial commitments. Despite our domestic failures to address the climate catastrophe, accelerating inequality, a barbaric and failing healthcare system with declining life expectancy, and a crumbling infrastructure, our political system is incapable of reforming itself. In simple terms our politics has been privatized to serve corporate interests and those interests have too much to lose if we practice real restraint. That is why House and Senate committees have just voted to increase our “defense” budget by another $25 billion.
You don't see a sign that the US is prepared to reduce its imperial commitments? I would say that (notwithstanding the resistance of the military bureaucracy and the Fourth Estate) the fact that Biden pulled the troops out of Afghanistan is such a sign. Increasingly, Americans as a whole seem to be focused at home and have become skeptical of foreign interventions. We might remain strategically ambiguous with Ukraine and Taiwan for strategic reasons but as far as actual direct intervention and not merely the threat thereof is concerned, Afghanistan would seem to be a good example.
Yes, Biden did finally get us out of Afghanistan and he attributed that to just following Trump’s agreement to remove troops by May 31, extending that to August 31, but better late than never.
On the other hand, he has kept troops in Syria and Iraq and conducted airstrikes on both countries. He has kept in place Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran and has effectively given up on rejoining the JCPOA—which would have been an easy win if he’d wanted it. Then there is his kid glove approach to the Saudi’s as they continue their genocidal war in Yemen, as well as turning a blind eye to Israel’s sabotage and assassinations targeting Iran. Also kept in place Trump’s economic warfare and regime change policies toward Venezuela and increased sanctions against Cuba. Meanwhile, we are increasing our military footprint in Africa, continuing to exacerbate tensions with Russia by sending arms to Ukraine and provocative naval patrols in the Black Sea and attempting to “contain” China through both diplomatic and economic means—in other words planning for the new Cold War and increasing the Pentagon’s budget. Wake me when any of this changes.