Political Humor | The Myth of Balance

With posts like The Only Roadmap- W.W. IV, More Evidence Of World War, and Well, You’re ALMOST Right, Newt, stewing in my head, combined with tiresome liberal memes such as “disproportionate use of force,” and the need to “balance America’s might,” I began to think about some of the things that are going on right now, and the situations that led us to this point.

The fact that there was a “counterbalance to American might.” is one of the key reasons why we find ourselves in the current situation. We are currently spinning damage control, due to the fact that we did not do things right in the first place. What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is the right way. Topple the tyrannical despot, secure the peace, rebuild infrastructure, and ensure the growth of a democratic process.

In WWII we did this with Germany and Japan, and it worked. In WWIII (the Cold War) we did not, and it has come back to haunt us. The thing is, we couldn’t do it right. Why? Because we had the Soviet Union and the threat they posed. Had we gone in to a direct conflict, we would have overextended our military and resources.

Instead, we created marriages of convenience, assuming that the enemy of an enemy was friendly enough, and that they would have us to thank for helping to defeat our mutual foe. So we armed rebels, propped up anti-Soviet dictators, and sometimes even armed both sides to maintain a “balance” of power.

Ultimately, we succeeded in the greater goal of crushing the USSR. Millions of people worldwide are now free as a result. In Poland, and Ukraine, and many other former Soviet satellites, and “Eastern Bloc” nations, they are rapidly becoming some of the most free countries in the world.

The unfortunate side effect was that in many countries, those whom we sponsored turned out to be just as bad, if not worse than what already existed. The Taliban came to power because we didn’t stick around and ensure a democratic process, and Pakistan set up the Taliban as a puppet government, so that they would not have hostile nations on two borders.

Time and again, we propped up dictators that went on to commit horrifying acts against their own people, all because we thought that they were more “U.S. friendly” than the Soviet sponsored regime or guerrilla group. Saddam had WMD and influence, and some of that is attributable to us as well. We supplied him with weapons to keep Iran from becoming too dominant. He demonstrated his own ruthlessness with the genocidal acts he committed, and ruled as a despotic dictator of the worst variety.

We had the opportunity to remove him from power when he demonstrated his lust for expansionism and invaded Kuwait. Instead, we forced him out of Kuwait, and fled. The revolutionaries of Iraq, counting on our support were slaughtered. We didn’t finish the job, and this time, we could have.

We agreed to a cease fire, which Saddam mocked furiously. This gave us a legitimate reason for invading Iraq: to finish what we had started, and assume the responsibility that we had abandoned. The Taliban harbored OBL, and was the context from which we entered Afghanistan.

We continue to reap the consequences of our attempts to fight without finishing.We didn’t win the Korean War decisively, and as a result, Kim Jong Il steamrolls Christians, starves his people, and fires off missiles towards Japan, hoping to one day successfully land one, capped with a nuclear warhead, on Japan.

The lesson of Vietnam, the real lesson is: If you fight, fight to win. Fight with overwhelming, “disproportionate” force, fight mercilessly, and win decisively. Then, show compassion and rebuild. Plant the seeds of democracy, and stay long enough to secure the fledgling democracy from warlords and despots. Had we done this, the Vietnam War would have ended sooner, and with far fewer casualties on both sides. The bloodbath that ensued when we cut and run would never have happened. I also have no doubt in my mind that it would now be a thriving and free nation, but it is not.

Once again, the reason we didn’t do things the right way was the “counterbalance” to “American might,” the Soviet Union. We needed to remain strong enough to face them down directly, should it come to that. We used proxy wars against them worldwide. The strategy was usually the “realpolitik” of; arm the guerrillas, prop up anti-Soviet dictators.

Well this strategy worked in destroying the USSR, but it left behind a mess. We could have done things properly in the first place, if it were not for the existence of the USSR. The vaunted “counterbalance” that kept America from being the “sole superpower.”

That’s right, dirty hippies, “balance” of “American might” is a bad thing.

**

Slightly related, I really liked this paragraph from Rudy Rummel:

To fight this war and win we must know our enemies. Generally, we do not, and one of our problems in this war is thinking about our enemies in conventional terms. For example, few seem to realize that the war we are fighting is not only against Islamofascism, but also against absolute dictatorships that support it and are the self-professed enemies of freedom; it is a war for democracy, but also for a democratic peace, and the end to democide and mass impoverishment. And, virtually unknown, is that this also is a war against slavery… (Read all)

You may now attempt to persuade me that I’m not always right.

X-Posted at Fmragtops Spews