01-19-2011, 01:15 AM
I very much agree with Paralus that the U.S. has for the most part been pulled into its current role as hegemon of the western world from a preferred isolationist stance. This is, I think, a common thread that runs throughout American history and something that happened to the Spartans, especially with regard to the Peloponnesian War. However, I think that there have been at least three periods where aggressive policy from within the country led us into foreign adventures.
The first period of home-grown aggression was in the early 19th century, when we were full of ourselves during expansion across the North American continent. At that time, we sparked the Mexican-American War to lay claim to remaining bits of territory that completed what would become the lower 48 states of the continental U.S. The American Civil War knocked us back into isolationist mode shortly thereafter.
The second period of native aggression came around the turn of the 19th century, when 'jingoistic' politicians and newspapers instigated the Spanish-American War to gain the U.S. its first overseas empire. This time, it seems to have been the resulting insurrection against American occupation of the Philippines that, even though that uprising was finally squashed, soured us for a time on such adventures, turning former advocates of aggression like Theodore Roosevelt into much more reasoning and peaceful men. After that, we pretty much restricted our aggressions to the support of corporate enterprises in Latin America until pulled reluctantly into World Wars I/II and the following Cold War series of proxy conflicts with the Soviet Union.
The last period of naked aggression came at the end of the 20th century when the Neocon political faction in the U.S. gained brief control of the presidency and used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to launch the Iraq War, which they saw as the opening round for a string of easy conquests in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria and, finally, Iran). These operations were planned to secure valuable petroleum resources by establishng military dominance in the region while at the same time aiding key regional ally Israel. Effective failure of the opening venture in Iraq (no longer viable as a staging area for an attack on Iran in that the country is now dominated by allies of various stripes to the current Iranian regime) now seems to have joined economic decline and the continuing quagmire in Afganistan to bring a practical end to this last period of aggression. As a result, though a few folks are still around advocating an assault on Iran, the vast majority of Americans seem to be turning isolationist again, having a primary focus on fixing the worst ills afflicting their homeland (though there's little concensus on just how to accomplish this monumental task).
Thus, in the end, I don't so much despair the current situation so much as accept it as a natural turn of events both typical of world powers in general and American history in particular. I wonder if there were some in Sparta that felt the same after the sad end of their Theban adventures?
The first period of home-grown aggression was in the early 19th century, when we were full of ourselves during expansion across the North American continent. At that time, we sparked the Mexican-American War to lay claim to remaining bits of territory that completed what would become the lower 48 states of the continental U.S. The American Civil War knocked us back into isolationist mode shortly thereafter.
The second period of native aggression came around the turn of the 19th century, when 'jingoistic' politicians and newspapers instigated the Spanish-American War to gain the U.S. its first overseas empire. This time, it seems to have been the resulting insurrection against American occupation of the Philippines that, even though that uprising was finally squashed, soured us for a time on such adventures, turning former advocates of aggression like Theodore Roosevelt into much more reasoning and peaceful men. After that, we pretty much restricted our aggressions to the support of corporate enterprises in Latin America until pulled reluctantly into World Wars I/II and the following Cold War series of proxy conflicts with the Soviet Union.
The last period of naked aggression came at the end of the 20th century when the Neocon political faction in the U.S. gained brief control of the presidency and used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to launch the Iraq War, which they saw as the opening round for a string of easy conquests in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria and, finally, Iran). These operations were planned to secure valuable petroleum resources by establishng military dominance in the region while at the same time aiding key regional ally Israel. Effective failure of the opening venture in Iraq (no longer viable as a staging area for an attack on Iran in that the country is now dominated by allies of various stripes to the current Iranian regime) now seems to have joined economic decline and the continuing quagmire in Afganistan to bring a practical end to this last period of aggression. As a result, though a few folks are still around advocating an assault on Iran, the vast majority of Americans seem to be turning isolationist again, having a primary focus on fixing the worst ills afflicting their homeland (though there's little concensus on just how to accomplish this monumental task).
Thus, in the end, I don't so much despair the current situation so much as accept it as a natural turn of events both typical of world powers in general and American history in particular. I wonder if there were some in Sparta that felt the same after the sad end of their Theban adventures?
It\'s only by appreciating accurate accounts of real combat past and present that we can begin to approach the Greek hoplite\'s hard-won awareness of war\'s potential merits and ultimate limitations.
- Fred Eugene Ray (aka "Old Husker")
- Fred Eugene Ray (aka "Old Husker")
