Rus: I think the closest analogy would be the world during the 1930s. There was a major change in the world order as the monarchies of the 19th century were swept away by World War I. The remaining powers like Britain, France and Russia were exhausted from four years of war, and the US had retreated somewhat from the world stage.
History shows that Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were widely lionized by the media of the day, and the Soviet Union, especially, was considered to be the up and coming model for a progressive state. Voices like Churchill’s warning of how dangerous Hitler was, and the potential for a coming war, were ignored. Right up until Germany invaded Poland, the feeling was that war could be avoided. Granted, it involved appeasing Hitler by giving him Austria and Czechoslovakia, but it kept war from breaking out.
My point? First, that appeasement doesn’t work, and, second, even though the US has been humbled as of late, we still remain a force. We need to re-think our world position and realize that soft power and multi-lateral engagements are more effective in some instances. However, when you have players like Iran and China, the notion of a trigger happy and slightly psychotic United States can still buy a little peace and quiet.
No, I’m not for nuking Tehran or Beijing. But I’m also not for strapping on the rose colored glasses, either. If you think President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket in Iran is out for anything less than regional domination, than consider his words and actions. Same goes for China. They will be challenging us for military dominance within the next generation. As goofy as the US can be, I would still vote for us running the show, versus the Communist Chinese. Nationalistic maybe, but we’re still better than the alternative.
I grew up in the SF/Bay Area during the 1970s and 1980s. I love hippies! Well, I like what I used to buy from hippies…
