Second, it appears you are supporting the “American Empire” model in terms of intervention for economic and business interests. Do I have that right? Cuz, uh, that would really undermine most of what you’ve stated previously regarding America’s role in the world and justifications for intervention (hint: You know this intervention WAS NOT humanitarian, right? Just checking).
[/quote]
Yes, I support an American Empire. But a softer, gentler one based on earning the hearts and minds of people through American democratic principles, but also through the brands, consumer lifestyle ideas and products and technology that we sell.
National interests come first. But humanitarian principles should be part of our foreign policy.
There are times when military force is necessary. But I generally believe that commerce, relations and people exchange achieve a lot more than intransigence and hard demands that we make under threat of force.[/quote]
Brian: How about assassinations? Does that fall under “hard” or “soft” power? You do know that Obama spent a huge chunk of change on covert US forces in Libya, right?
Everything from US SOF forces to CIA paramilitaries to US-backed insurgent hit teams. You don’t think we did this just with airpower, did you? Not so much.
Obama’s “kinder, gentler” American Empire is the same American Empire that’s been rolling since Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet pulled into harbors across the globe and showed American “power projection”.
He is just as willing as Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon, or LBJ to put bullets into the heads of those who oppose our wanting to take their shit. It might look and smell nicer, but the bodies hit the dirt just the same.
