I would like to offer a counter view to your claim: "So much of America’s credibility as a security provider was rooted in deterrence - the act of winning without fighting... If we’re in the position where we need to risk direct military conflict with China in order to maintain our credibility and hegemony, then the post-Cold War world order has already collapsed."
Respectfully, US history doesn't support such a conclusion. Since the end of WW2 when American and the USSR became the world's super powers, American has had to assert it's hegemony military several times, two of which I will explain below.
The most brutal was the Korean War (1950-1953), where US and Chinese troops engaged in combat over their respective proxies, North Korea for China and South Korea for America. So there is a precedent of US/China fighting each other over their geopolitical interests. That war resulted in a uneasy truce and the partition of Korea on the 31st parallel that remains in effect today.
When it comes to Taiwan it is wise to recall the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). After discovering Soviet missiles on Cuba, President Kennedy ordered a military blockade of the island. Under international law that constitutes an act of war against Russia, since the USN was blocking Soviet ships. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and Premier Khrushchev withdrew the ships and misslies.
So the US has had to show strength through force to maintain it's credibility as a security provider and to maintain its "sphere of influence". NS Lyons, in my opinion, is right to suggest that defending Taiwan with force is necessary.
I'd conclude by adding you write with clarity and simplicity, avoiding the all so common tendency of writers to use flowery language or convoluted sentences or rambling that is pleasant to read. :)
"If America today, under the Left, is a revolutionary empire for the benefit of the world, the Right wants a classical empire for the benefit of America."
You didn't have me convinced until this line, Max. I still think you're making some leaps of logic here, but the risk you're seeing is real and one not many others are talking about. Good job. The path you've charted here is attainable, unlike the dreams of either left-wing globalist utopia or right-wing Fortress America.
You included my favorite line in all of Star Wars: "So this is hw liberty dies... with thunderous applause." Not the funniest. Not the most memorable. But one of Lucas' more profound observations.
I'm surprised you didn't find Lyons convincing. Surprisingly, I did. A debt laden America that can't make anything will have to be be selective about which allies it defends (Ukraine no; Israel yes), but I think Lyons makes a strong case that Taiwan should be on the yes list. Sometimes, solving problems consists of "kicking the can down the road" repeatedly until it falls into the gutter. Considering China's demographic and financial headwinds, Lyon's strategy may be a good one. After reading you though, I'm less certain.
Side note, what's with the dude holding the laurel wreath (I presume) above Augustus' head? Why can't he just wear the thing like every other king and emperor?
The "Star Wars" prequels are, in retrospect, great movies. They're certainly better than Episodes 7-9. I recall a lot of the criticism then (can't believe Episode III is turning 20 this year) and now is that it was too heavy on the political commentary, but two decades later, that almost seems like the strength of the prequels.
The Romans practiced a concept called "state of exception," where democracy was suspended in favor of temporary autocracy in response to emergency. Obviously, this has never really been a thing in the modern West, especially not in the Anglo political tradition. However, if you think about it the Roman Empire was the Roman Republic in a permanent state of exception. You could make the argument the U.S. has been in a state of exception for at least since 9/11. I suppose the only question is, will any American leader ever implement a permanent state of exception?
It seems like that's what Trump is doing, in practice, if not in theory. Not sure how successful he's going to be. I've always found Trump to be more Gorbachev than Caesar, but remember: Gorby was effectively ousted from power, too.
I, too, wondered what's with the guy holding the wreath above Augustus' head. In the comments section of the video, there's a debate over what's going on there, but the answers vary wildly. Meaning, nobody knows.
Episodes 7-9? There are only 6 mainline movies. There is a cool out of sequence one called Rogue One, but why would anyone make any later "episodes" when the whole growth-fall-redemption story arc was complete at 6? :-)
I was one of the likely few who celebrated Disney's purchase of the franchise back in 2012. Literally nothing was happening with it at the time, so I figured the acquisition by Disney would give it new life. Keep in mind, this was well before the Woke Revolution went into full swing.
"Rogue One" aside, the franchise has been destroyed.
I wish I could've incorporated this into the essay, but listening to the latest episode of the MacroVoices podcast, host Erik Townsend and guest Rory Johnston discussed imperialism. Johnston noted how territorial expansion is becoming a less taboo subject, worryingly so. That said, he also notes that it makes perfect sense for the U.S. to focus on the Western Hemisphere if it does in fact seek to gain more ground.
What Erik Townsend said was most eye-popping, suggesting that Venezuela ought to be at the center of the Trump administration's foreign policy attention:
"It definitely seems to me that it would achieve a lot of President Trump's economic goals.
It would bring the price of oil way down. It would expand American presence. It would certainly
be controversial because it would be considered a territorial expansion, and an aggressive one,
at that, because the Venezuelan Government obviously doesn't welcome it, but at the same
time, the Venezuelan Government appears to be kind of illegitimate to start with. They're not
really having democratic elections, and I'm not sure that the Venezuelan people would really
object that much to the US coming in and offering a whole bunch of Venezuelans jobs
developing those massive oil reserves. So, it does seem like a realistic possibility to me."
Erik Townsend is a smart guy, and one of my favorite financial analysts to listen to, so I was a bit surprised to hear him play the "greeted as liberators" line, since that's worked so well for us in the past. That said, I can definitely see a situation where Venezuela does become America's next Public Enemy #1, an idea I've even endorsed. However, I see no benefit, even in terms of energy, in making Venezuela the next Afghanistan and Iraq.
The blogger Dusk in Autumn had a good comment a while back that Trump likes to attack allies he considers disloyal or disrespectful much more than his theoretical enemies. He has gone after Republicans and his former employees far more than Democrats. Similarly he prefers to go after Canada and Denmark rather than big boys like China or Russia. I think it’s a pretty big character flaw but at least it’s smarter than starting WWIII.
I don’t recall Trump running on any of this stuff and I don’t think there’s much of a constituency for it in the US.
As you point out, the US doesn’t have the demographics for this. Even the young people who are around are soft in comparison to earlier generations.
Earlier in the 20th century it did have the people for this. It’s a little awesome to read about how in the 40s or 50s the US would roll in somewhere and build an air base in no time. Now it would take years, third worlders would do the work and some contractor would make billions.
The economics don’t work either. The US has colonies like Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI already. Are any of them anything other than a pain and an economic drain?
As a Canadian I think the US already has us under its thumb and we’re only falling behind economically. Trump is just adding insult to injury. Nothing about this helps the right in Canada or hurts Trudeau.
The bright side is that we’ll have a greater skepticism about the US and realize it’s not a benevolent power. We need a heavy dose of economic realism as we have kneecapped our economy with high taxes, environmental regulation, a cult of First Nations, and more. If a recession gets some of the recent immigrants to go home that will be another benefit.
Like so many things, a lot of this stuff is driven by the Online Right. Erik Prince is part of the Online Right, he's just a high-profile guy. When you have an audience, you can say just about anything and you'll think your ideas are more popular than they are.
If America attempted an empire today, as you said, it'd bring all its dysfunction and inefficiency with it. In fact, GWOT was as good a demonstration of what American empire today would look like.
As an American, I'd obviously like for us to be the senior partner in the relationship. I think a certain re-balancing of the relationship will take place in the coming years, and things may get a little snippy in the process. But no matter how dysfunctional the relationship gets, I doubt War Plan Red will end up getting dusted off.
Around the end of my university years I attended a Niall Ferguson lecture in Toronto where he extolled the British Empire and explained how it would be a model for the invasion of Iraq. In retrospect it seems so absurd and ridiculous.
I do see this as something of a symptom of US weakness rather than strength. When you have the biggest debt in the history of the world, something has to change eventually. It’s something of a Hail Mary pass - hey, let’s soak the foreigners and make them pay for the empire. The British had the same idea in the 1770s and it didn’t work out.
Who can believe that Trump's talk about annexing Canada is in the same league as the possible acquisition of Greenland and seizing the Panama canal? I take him seriously about the latter two, but the first was all about trolling a nearly mortally wounded Justin Trudeau. Has he mentioned it lately?
Trump is smarter than to think we could actually annex Canada, or that if we could, it would be to our benefit. Annexing Canada would supply The House of Representatives with something like fifty new congressmen, most of whom would be far to the left.
I can't take enough interest in the matter to make a quick search of how many provinces there are in Canada, but I presume they would come into the Union as states, entitling each to two senators. Okay, Saskatchewan and Alberta would probably elect Trumpists, but the rest would be standard issue AOC Democrats.
When I think about Greenland, though, for some reason my psyche starts to go rogue, and the image and sound of Peter Sellers as Strangelove comes to mind, Strangelove talking about the "interesting possibilities" of underground cities of the male power Elite, each Elitist with several nubile young ladies eager to be of service.
Don't take me literally about that. It's mineral deposits I have in mind, not other kinds.
Parts of Western Canada are desirable. BC (after resettlement of the current Vancouver population), Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Eastern Canada... not so much, although we DO need to expand the Saint Lawrence Seaway to handle much larger ships.
I would like to offer a counter view to your claim: "So much of America’s credibility as a security provider was rooted in deterrence - the act of winning without fighting... If we’re in the position where we need to risk direct military conflict with China in order to maintain our credibility and hegemony, then the post-Cold War world order has already collapsed."
Respectfully, US history doesn't support such a conclusion. Since the end of WW2 when American and the USSR became the world's super powers, American has had to assert it's hegemony military several times, two of which I will explain below.
The most brutal was the Korean War (1950-1953), where US and Chinese troops engaged in combat over their respective proxies, North Korea for China and South Korea for America. So there is a precedent of US/China fighting each other over their geopolitical interests. That war resulted in a uneasy truce and the partition of Korea on the 31st parallel that remains in effect today.
When it comes to Taiwan it is wise to recall the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). After discovering Soviet missiles on Cuba, President Kennedy ordered a military blockade of the island. Under international law that constitutes an act of war against Russia, since the USN was blocking Soviet ships. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and Premier Khrushchev withdrew the ships and misslies.
So the US has had to show strength through force to maintain it's credibility as a security provider and to maintain its "sphere of influence". NS Lyons, in my opinion, is right to suggest that defending Taiwan with force is necessary.
I'd conclude by adding you write with clarity and simplicity, avoiding the all so common tendency of writers to use flowery language or convoluted sentences or rambling that is pleasant to read. :)
"If America today, under the Left, is a revolutionary empire for the benefit of the world, the Right wants a classical empire for the benefit of America."
You didn't have me convinced until this line, Max. I still think you're making some leaps of logic here, but the risk you're seeing is real and one not many others are talking about. Good job. The path you've charted here is attainable, unlike the dreams of either left-wing globalist utopia or right-wing Fortress America.
You included my favorite line in all of Star Wars: "So this is hw liberty dies... with thunderous applause." Not the funniest. Not the most memorable. But one of Lucas' more profound observations.
I'm surprised you didn't find Lyons convincing. Surprisingly, I did. A debt laden America that can't make anything will have to be be selective about which allies it defends (Ukraine no; Israel yes), but I think Lyons makes a strong case that Taiwan should be on the yes list. Sometimes, solving problems consists of "kicking the can down the road" repeatedly until it falls into the gutter. Considering China's demographic and financial headwinds, Lyon's strategy may be a good one. After reading you though, I'm less certain.
Side note, what's with the dude holding the laurel wreath (I presume) above Augustus' head? Why can't he just wear the thing like every other king and emperor?
The "Star Wars" prequels are, in retrospect, great movies. They're certainly better than Episodes 7-9. I recall a lot of the criticism then (can't believe Episode III is turning 20 this year) and now is that it was too heavy on the political commentary, but two decades later, that almost seems like the strength of the prequels.
The Romans practiced a concept called "state of exception," where democracy was suspended in favor of temporary autocracy in response to emergency. Obviously, this has never really been a thing in the modern West, especially not in the Anglo political tradition. However, if you think about it the Roman Empire was the Roman Republic in a permanent state of exception. You could make the argument the U.S. has been in a state of exception for at least since 9/11. I suppose the only question is, will any American leader ever implement a permanent state of exception?
It seems like that's what Trump is doing, in practice, if not in theory. Not sure how successful he's going to be. I've always found Trump to be more Gorbachev than Caesar, but remember: Gorby was effectively ousted from power, too.
I, too, wondered what's with the guy holding the wreath above Augustus' head. In the comments section of the video, there's a debate over what's going on there, but the answers vary wildly. Meaning, nobody knows.
Episodes 7-9? There are only 6 mainline movies. There is a cool out of sequence one called Rogue One, but why would anyone make any later "episodes" when the whole growth-fall-redemption story arc was complete at 6? :-)
I was one of the likely few who celebrated Disney's purchase of the franchise back in 2012. Literally nothing was happening with it at the time, so I figured the acquisition by Disney would give it new life. Keep in mind, this was well before the Woke Revolution went into full swing.
"Rogue One" aside, the franchise has been destroyed.
I wish I could've incorporated this into the essay, but listening to the latest episode of the MacroVoices podcast, host Erik Townsend and guest Rory Johnston discussed imperialism. Johnston noted how territorial expansion is becoming a less taboo subject, worryingly so. That said, he also notes that it makes perfect sense for the U.S. to focus on the Western Hemisphere if it does in fact seek to gain more ground.
What Erik Townsend said was most eye-popping, suggesting that Venezuela ought to be at the center of the Trump administration's foreign policy attention:
"It definitely seems to me that it would achieve a lot of President Trump's economic goals.
It would bring the price of oil way down. It would expand American presence. It would certainly
be controversial because it would be considered a territorial expansion, and an aggressive one,
at that, because the Venezuelan Government obviously doesn't welcome it, but at the same
time, the Venezuelan Government appears to be kind of illegitimate to start with. They're not
really having democratic elections, and I'm not sure that the Venezuelan people would really
object that much to the US coming in and offering a whole bunch of Venezuelans jobs
developing those massive oil reserves. So, it does seem like a realistic possibility to me."
Erik Townsend is a smart guy, and one of my favorite financial analysts to listen to, so I was a bit surprised to hear him play the "greeted as liberators" line, since that's worked so well for us in the past. That said, I can definitely see a situation where Venezuela does become America's next Public Enemy #1, an idea I've even endorsed. However, I see no benefit, even in terms of energy, in making Venezuela the next Afghanistan and Iraq.
Go to https://www.macrovoices.com/ to listen to the episode.
The blogger Dusk in Autumn had a good comment a while back that Trump likes to attack allies he considers disloyal or disrespectful much more than his theoretical enemies. He has gone after Republicans and his former employees far more than Democrats. Similarly he prefers to go after Canada and Denmark rather than big boys like China or Russia. I think it’s a pretty big character flaw but at least it’s smarter than starting WWIII.
I don’t recall Trump running on any of this stuff and I don’t think there’s much of a constituency for it in the US.
As you point out, the US doesn’t have the demographics for this. Even the young people who are around are soft in comparison to earlier generations.
Earlier in the 20th century it did have the people for this. It’s a little awesome to read about how in the 40s or 50s the US would roll in somewhere and build an air base in no time. Now it would take years, third worlders would do the work and some contractor would make billions.
The economics don’t work either. The US has colonies like Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI already. Are any of them anything other than a pain and an economic drain?
As a Canadian I think the US already has us under its thumb and we’re only falling behind economically. Trump is just adding insult to injury. Nothing about this helps the right in Canada or hurts Trudeau.
The bright side is that we’ll have a greater skepticism about the US and realize it’s not a benevolent power. We need a heavy dose of economic realism as we have kneecapped our economy with high taxes, environmental regulation, a cult of First Nations, and more. If a recession gets some of the recent immigrants to go home that will be another benefit.
Like so many things, a lot of this stuff is driven by the Online Right. Erik Prince is part of the Online Right, he's just a high-profile guy. When you have an audience, you can say just about anything and you'll think your ideas are more popular than they are.
If America attempted an empire today, as you said, it'd bring all its dysfunction and inefficiency with it. In fact, GWOT was as good a demonstration of what American empire today would look like.
As an American, I'd obviously like for us to be the senior partner in the relationship. I think a certain re-balancing of the relationship will take place in the coming years, and things may get a little snippy in the process. But no matter how dysfunctional the relationship gets, I doubt War Plan Red will end up getting dusted off.
Around the end of my university years I attended a Niall Ferguson lecture in Toronto where he extolled the British Empire and explained how it would be a model for the invasion of Iraq. In retrospect it seems so absurd and ridiculous.
I do see this as something of a symptom of US weakness rather than strength. When you have the biggest debt in the history of the world, something has to change eventually. It’s something of a Hail Mary pass - hey, let’s soak the foreigners and make them pay for the empire. The British had the same idea in the 1770s and it didn’t work out.
Who can believe that Trump's talk about annexing Canada is in the same league as the possible acquisition of Greenland and seizing the Panama canal? I take him seriously about the latter two, but the first was all about trolling a nearly mortally wounded Justin Trudeau. Has he mentioned it lately?
Trump is smarter than to think we could actually annex Canada, or that if we could, it would be to our benefit. Annexing Canada would supply The House of Representatives with something like fifty new congressmen, most of whom would be far to the left.
I can't take enough interest in the matter to make a quick search of how many provinces there are in Canada, but I presume they would come into the Union as states, entitling each to two senators. Okay, Saskatchewan and Alberta would probably elect Trumpists, but the rest would be standard issue AOC Democrats.
When I think about Greenland, though, for some reason my psyche starts to go rogue, and the image and sound of Peter Sellers as Strangelove comes to mind, Strangelove talking about the "interesting possibilities" of underground cities of the male power Elite, each Elitist with several nubile young ladies eager to be of service.
Don't take me literally about that. It's mineral deposits I have in mind, not other kinds.
Parts of Western Canada are desirable. BC (after resettlement of the current Vancouver population), Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Eastern Canada... not so much, although we DO need to expand the Saint Lawrence Seaway to handle much larger ships.
I agree, so they would have to try to secede from Canada.