Saw on CNN today that Boko Haram has pledged their allegiance to ISIS, thus joining ISIS...is that the absolutely worst thing they could have done. Just draws more attention from some that probably didn't really care what they were doing.

 

Maybe someone will finally take these thugs seriously and deal with them.

Saw on CNN today that Boko Haram has pledged their allegiance to ISIS, thus joining ISIS...is that the absolutely worst thing they could have done. Just draws more attention from some that probably didn't really care what they were doing.

 

Maybe someone will finally take these thugs seriously and deal with them.

 

Jumper Dad don't worry it's just the jv. Can't wait until we get a new President that will restore our power.

Jumper Dad don't worry it's just the jv. Can't wait until we get a new President that will restore our power.

 

Power has been on the decline since WW II. Can't spend a century undermining other power bases the world over and then be surprised when chaos is all that's left.

Power has been on the decline since WW II. Can't spend a century undermining other power bases the world over and then be surprised when chaos is all that's left.

 

Disagree on its been on the decline since WW2 that's just historically inaccurate.

Disagree on its been on the decline since WW2 that's just historically inaccurate.

 

You'll note I didn't say "our power". I look at the world since 1945 and I see a place growing increasingly chaotic. (Less so in the West but it's been interesting watching the EU prove itself not very adept at curtailing the current destabilizing forces in Greece and Ukraine.) A lot of that has to with East and West fighting proxy wars against one another throughout the 20th century. Still more of it has to do with the legacy of how Europe handled de-colonization at the beginning of the century. As such, tradition institutions and power bases in a lot of places were undermined or eliminated. As those institutions fail, others try to step up but in many cases, they find they can't hold on.

 

I don't believe power is a zero-sum game. One group does not necessarily always gain it at the expense of another. The collective power and influence of all groups is subject to contraction or expansion. Global warfare ultimately has harmful effects to overall power in that it typically destroys or weakens a lot of the institutions or groups that exercise it.

 

Good luck to the next president on the Middle East, but he'll be dealing with a power structure there that's been declining since the late colonial period. Why is it so difficult to get anything done over there? Because there are almost no institutions left to rely on. They're weak; they're corrupt; they're maniacal. I suppose the next guy could just try and kill everybody. Certainly makes it easier to topple a governing regime when you don't worry about how they're going to manage to control whoever is left on the other side.

Certainly makes it easier to topple a governing regime when you don't worry about how they're going to manage to control whoever is left on the other side.

 

As we have seen with Egypt and Libya.

You'll note I didn't say "our power". I look at the world since 1945 and I see a place growing increasingly chaotic. (Less so in the West but it's been interesting watching the EU prove itself not very adept at curtailing the current destabilizing forces in Greece and Ukraine.) A lot of that has to with East and West fighting proxy wars against one another throughout the 20th century. Still more of it has to do with the legacy of how Europe handled de-colonization at the beginning of the century. As such, tradition institutions and power bases in a lot of places were undermined or eliminated. As those institutions fail, others try to step up but in many cases, they find they can't hold on.

 

I don't believe power is a zero-sum game. One group does not necessarily always gain it at the expense of another. The collective power and influence of all groups is subject to contraction or expansion. Global warfare ultimately has harmful effects to overall power in that it typically destroys or weakens a lot of the institutions or groups that exercise it.

 

Good luck to the next president on the Middle East, but he'll be dealing with a power structure there that's been declining since the late colonial period. Why is it so difficult to get anything done over there? Because there are almost no institutions left to rely on. They're weak; they're corrupt; they're maniacal. I suppose the next guy could just try and kill everybody. Certainly makes it easier to topple a governing regime when you don't worry about how they're going to manage to control whoever is left on the other side.

 

At this pace isn't that the eventual end game?

At this pace isn't that the eventual end game?

 

When I say everybody, I mean everybody. Personally, I've neither the inclination nor the stomach for it.

When I say everybody, I mean everybody. Personally, I've neither the inclination nor the stomach for it.

 

I agree but if we don't use force at this stage how are we going to get anything done?

As we have seen with Egypt and Libya.

 

And with Iraq. And Afghanistan post Soviet Union.

You'll note I didn't say "our power". I look at the world since 1945 and I see a place growing increasingly chaotic. (Less so in the West but it's been interesting watching the EU prove itself not very adept at curtailing the current destabilizing forces in Greece and Ukraine.) A lot of that has to with East and West fighting proxy wars against one another throughout the 20th century. Still more of it has to do with the legacy of how Europe handled de-colonization at the beginning of the century. As such, tradition institutions and power bases in a lot of places were undermined or eliminated. As those institutions fail, others try to step up but in many cases, they find they can't hold on.

 

I don't believe power is a zero-sum game. One group does not necessarily always gain it at the expense of another. The collective power and influence of all groups is subject to contraction or expansion. Global warfare ultimately has harmful effects to overall power in that it typically destroys or weakens a lot of the institutions or groups that exercise it.

 

Good luck to the next president on the Middle East, but he'll be dealing with a power structure there that's been declining since the late colonial period. Why is it so difficult to get anything done over there? Because there are almost no institutions left to rely on. They're weak; they're corrupt; they're maniacal. I suppose the next guy could just try and kill everybody. Certainly makes it easier to topple a governing regime when you don't worry about how they're going to manage to control whoever is left on the other side.

 

I honestly don't get what you are trying to say here. My point is the statement that this country has been losing power since WW2 , is incorrect. WW2 was the announcement the world the we were one of the world's superpowers . To say we have been on the decline is historically inaccurate. That was this countries calling card and point of accent to power.

G-bombs. Lots and lots of pig entrails. Hit 'em where it hurts.

I honestly don't get what you are trying to say here. My point is the statement that this country has been losing power since WW2 , is incorrect. WW2 was the announcement the world the we were one of the world's superpowers . To say we have been on the decline is historically inaccurate. That was this countries calling card and point of accent to power.

 

To be fair, the Spanish-American War was the US announcement to the world that we were a major player on the global stage. Knocking out an old Europe colonial power was a big statement for us as a country. Even if that colonial power had fallen on hard times.

I honestly don't get what you are trying to say here. My point is the statement that this country has been losing power since WW2 , is incorrect. WW2 was the announcement the world the we were one of the world's superpowers . To say we have been on the decline is historically inaccurate. That was this countries calling card and point of accent to power.

 

As Jim said below, WWII was not the beginning of this country's ascent to power. I would submit that it was the height of US power (and institutional power in general). The Cold War itself, while a hugely successful time for the United States, was a destabilizing force in much of the world as the West waged war on global communism and global communism waged war back. The process of de-colonization in Africa and Asia was similarly destabilizing. While wealth grew and militaries grew, the effectiveness with which they could be used fell throughout the 20th century. Asymmetrical warfare has changed the game.

 

As the 20th century saw traditional power bases and institutions fail, newer things have popped up in their place. Some have been successful and some of them have not. I simply reject the notion that another American president with different ideas about how power should be attained will necessarily have an easier time finding ways to do so. Short term power is easy. The United States could go in, guns blazing and take out every ISIS stronghold in the Levant and ever Boko Haram regiment in Northern Nigeria. I have doubts as to how effective that will be long-term. Force and power are not equivalent; our quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that fairly well.

 

What those places need are effective institutions. Until they get them, this will go on.

I agree but if we don't use force at this stage how are we going to get anything done?

 

I'm not opposed to force against the monsters, but there are serious limits to what we can do without institutions in place after the fact. Iraq's post-invasion government had a reasonable shot at success, but old religious divisions between Sunni and Shia and the collapse of Syria didn't allow that to happen, putting us where we are now.

 

Are we going to use force because that's what's next or because we think we can get it right this time?