Expert: Don't underestimate US warlike tradition as it is essentially a dangerous nation

[VCheng]

He may be about to.

I guess he is just warming up. Look at the Armageddon type of lunatics he stuffed his Whiter House with.

Does not bode well for many target nations.

I guess we will have to wait and see what he does.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Yes, who wrote it? Whose this person, whose opinion you want us to just take his word for it.

Let me help you. The author is Li Haidong, professor of the Institute of International Relations at the China Foreign Affairs University.

Wait it gets better.

This article is originally published on Global Times, and is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online

Please make sure you shout “fake news” just as quickly and as loudly as possible next time since that is what they do when they see a source they don’t like.

 

[Nan Yang]

IS is nobody compared to Saddam

6) In the end United States didn't even need Iraq oil and even China got the oil.

 

[nahtanbob]

6) In the end United States didn't even need Iraq oil and even China got the oil.

USA imported 40% of its oil even when it was dependent on Middle East
The real issue is American allies in Europe, Asia were highly dependent on Middle Eastern oil

 

[Nan Yang]

USA imported 40% of its oil even when it was dependent on Middle East
The real issue is American allies in Europe, Asia were highly dependent on Middle Eastern oil

7）And despite the life lost, the injured, treasury drain for weapons of mass destruction, country destroyed there is no accountability.

 

[master_13]

With the largest US military base operational, Iraq. In Afghanistan permanently too- in your backyard and surrounding China all around

and yet earlier you were blabbing about Chinese military "expansion"? When china only has 1 oversea military base, even less than India?

 

[nahtanbob]

7）And despite the life lost, the injured, treasury drain for weapons of mass destruction, country destroyed there is no accountability.

iraq is better now than in 2002. it wasn't the plan.

 

[Nan Yang]

iraq is better now than in 2002. it wasn't the plan.

And the best reserved for the last.
8) While United States spend over 16 years fighting it's longest war ever, China became the 2nd largest GDP in the world with world class infrastructure..

 

[LeGenD]

Recently, the US deployed the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force to the Persian Gulf. Some analysts are speculating about the possibility that US military might strike against Iran.

The US has threatened to launch military strikes against other countries more than once and it can even be said that the US has always been in a state of war since the end of the Cold War. These wars are often interpreted as US’s move to secure its strategic resources such as oil or to acquire more favorable strategic positions over other major countries. But frankly, these explanations overestimate US’s long-term strategic planning capability when it launches war and also underestimates its warlike tradition.

First, many wars that US participated in are not closely related to its major strategic interests.

This has been particularly prominent since the end of the Cold War. Foreign wars under US military intervention are not closely related to securing the US major strategic interests. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, the Kosovo War in 1999, War in Afghanistan (2001-present), the Iraq War (2003–11), the First Libyan Civil War (2011), and the Syrian Civil War (2011-Present), and so on.

The US has made various different definitions for its military actions, such as transforming the functions of the United Nations, humanitarian intervention, large-scale counter-terrorism operations, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, and forcing democratic transition, to name a few. The wars involving the US military are actually quite random and often highly controversial both domestically and internationally since there is little or no major US strategic interest involved.

Second, the US caprice in using warfare is closely linked to the security concept formed during its development process.

War and expansion are the inherent traditions of the US diplomacy. The fundamental logic behind it is that “the US security begins with the outside” or “US own security is fundamentally dependent on the Americanization of the outside world.”

The frequent war launched by the US reflects this logic and shapes the national character. Since winning the War of Independence, the US has believed that if weak countries or political forces cannot be Americanized, then the US has the legitimacy to transform or even expel them.

In the 19th century, the US expanded in North America by slaughtering the Indians, plundering and dismembering Mexico, and expelling Spain until it completely destroyed its overseas colonial empire. During the Cold War in the 20th century, the US spent 14 years in Vietnam War which basically involves no key geostrategic interest with the US. The series of wars against the weak countries after the Cold War are without exception.

In contrast, the US tends to respect the special interests of countries with superior or roughly equal strengths and seeks to negotiate and resolve conflicts with them. The way that the US deals with the UK in the 19th century North America and the Soviet Union in the 20th century are examples.

Arguably, the US is more likely to resort to war to resolve deep differences with weak and small countries, but is usually very cautious of using the option of war when it deals with differences with countries with enough power.

The geostrategic logic behind the considerable number of wars involving the US is very vague, and in contrast, the logic of national strength versus growth is quite clear. The former leads to the frequent involvement of the US in wars in many parts of the world, and the latter leads to the extreme vulnerability of its relationship with other major powers.

Unlike the logic that most countries do not resort to war unless it has to do with their core interests, the US is so obsessed with the Americanization of the world that it is keen to initiate or participate in wars within the geographic scope of its strength. The usual notion of resorting to war for energies like oil or geostrategic advantages indeed underestimates US enthusiasm for war.

Third, since its independence, the US has behaved in many ways that are incompatible with the world.

As regards the American tradition, the United States is not a stick-in-the-mud nation. When it is strong, it will do everything in its power to transform the world. While it is weakened or frustrated, it tends to develop in isolation, stay alone, and maintain its freedom of movement.

Many wars involving the US since the end of the Cold War can be described as a portrayal of its action styles. The record of the capricious US intervention in different regions or the transformation of wars is not graceful as it usually leads to chaos, countless civilian deaths, and large-scale refugee flows. Countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan, which are subjects of US war transformation, are all mired in civil wars or quagmire of separation.

In addition, the emotional and irrational characteristics of the war decisions by the US after the Cold War are obvious. Some mainstream media in the US have exaggerated the international events with existing ideological biases, which has aggravated the possibility that policy makers make wrong decisions under the pressure of public opinion. The high degree of “polarization” in US domestic politics makes it easier for policy makers to irrationally use war to alleviate or transfer domestic crises. All these have increased the impulsiveness and arbitrariness of the US involvement in wars.

Generally speaking, the dissatisfaction with the existing international order and the stubborn practice of transforming other countries with war are largely derived from the historical traditions of the US. It is consistent and the contemporary practice of such mentality has brought profound division and lasting chaos to the world.

After in-depth systematic research of American diplomatic history, the renowned American scholar Robert Kagan deeply realized the “warlike” and “aggressive” traditions of the United States. Mr. Kagan concluded that the US is a “Dangerous Nation”. The conclusion, though not pleasant, does objectively summarize the essence of American diplomacy.

Disclaimer: The author is Li Haidong, professor of the Institute of International Relations at the China Foreign Affairs University. This article is originally published on Global Times, and is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information, ideas or opinions appearing in this article do not reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.

This article is meh.

1. Yugoslavia was breaking down due to Civil War:

"Kosovo lies in southern Serbia and has a mixed population of which the majority are ethnic Albanians. Until 1989, the region enjoyed a high degree of autonomy within the former Yugoslavia, when Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic altered the status of the region, removing its autonomy and bringing it under the direct control of Belgrade, the Serbian capital. The Kosovar Albanians strenuously opposed the move.

During 1998, open conflict between Serbian military and police forces and Kosovar Albanian forces resulted in the deaths of over 1,500 Kosovar Albanians and forced 400,000 people from their homes. The international community became gravely concerned about the escalating conflict, its humanitarian consequences, and the risk of it spreading to other countries. President Milosevic's disregard for diplomatic efforts aimed at peacefully resolving the crisis and the destabilising role of militant Kosovar Albanian forces was also of concern."

Link: https://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm

- and the resultant wave of humanitarian crisis set the stage for the Kosovo War.

2. US invaded Afghanistan to eradicate Al-Qaeda Network across Afghanistan and Pakistan in response to 9/11, and succeeded in this endeavor by 2011 with Operation Neptune Spear.

Afghanistan is in chaos once again but its problems will be sorted out eventually.

3. US invaded Iraq to reshape its political landscape (i.e. De-Ba'athification drive). Toppling Saddam regime was a crucial step towards this end, and now US have military bases and a friendly government in Iraq. Israel also have one less adversary to worry about.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Ba'athification

4. Why Libya was struck and Qaddafi regime was taken down?

"According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned and in 2011, it was estimated to have 144 tons of gold in its vaults. Muammar Gaddafi’s plan was to introduce a gold-backed currency which he hoped African and Muslim nations would adopt. He felt it could rival the euro and the dollar, and rightly so too."

Link: https://www.africanexponent.com/post/new-evidence-the-real-reason-gaddafi-was-killed-2706

5. Intervention in Syria became necessary due to spread of ISIS across Syria and Iraq in 2014. ISIS is/was the endgame of AQI (an off-shoot of original Al-Qaeda Network) and former Ba'athists joining forces to undo US-backed political reforms in Iraq and more. Therefore, US commenced Operation Inherent Resolve to defeat ISIS in the Middle East.

Details in this thread: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/mapp...-resolve-to-defeat-isis.618878/#post-11464920

---

Every war have a cause IMHO.

American interests are being served in different ways. From American standpoint, it is important to keep the American Military Industrial Complex afloat because it a major driver of innovation and create lot of jobs.