Interesting Read on the ignored significance of 1989

[volinbham]

The Unknown War - Reason Magazine

musings?

 

[MG1968]

there is probably a large portion of the news media that misses the Soviet Union. To the extent that I miss the days when our enemy was well defined and that enemy kept it's proxies relatively in check, I miss the USSR as well.

 

[Daddy Gee]

there is probably a large portion of the news media that misses the Soviet Union. To the extent that I miss the days when our enemy was well defined and that enemy kept it's proxies relatively in check, I miss the USSR as well.

good point... which is why the next terrorist attack will be so vexing... I don't know that there will be a defined target that we can attack....

 

[KB5252]

there is probably a large portion of the news media that misses the Soviet Union. To the extent that I miss the days when our enemy was well defined and that enemy kept it's proxies relatively in check, I miss the USSR as well.

I think actually the opposite. For those in the news media that were proponents for socialism or communism the huge Soviet empire was bad for them. They along with the US were the only superpowers. They were big bullies on the block.

When the Soviet Union failed proponents could point to smaller weaker nations like Cuba and say they were kept down by the US and had they been left to their own devices their socialistic experiment could prosper. The fall of the Soviet empire allowed them to redefine socialism to something more palatable.

 

[rjd970]

The failure of the Soviet Union created a vacuum for smaller states and asymmetric threats to fill. In many respects, the world was safer when two superpowers were slugging it out because it forced everybody else to pick a side and fall in line.

 

[volinbham]

The failure of the Soviet Union created a vacuum for smaller states and asymmetric threats to fill. In many respects, the world was safer when two superpowers were slugging it out because it forced everybody else to pick a side and fall in line.

Safer for who? I bet the folks that wanted some semblance of freedom in the Eastern Bloc feel a lot safer today than they did when they were under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.

 

[rjd970]

Safer for who? I bet the folks that wanted some semblance of freedom in the Eastern Bloc feel a lot safer today than they did when they were under the iron fist of the Soviet Union.

Safer for us, for starters. We don't have the comforting blanket of Mutually Assured Destruction anymore.

As a whole the world was much more predictable, which by extension, made it safer.

 

[Oldvol75]

Oh! If we could only play The Beatles,"Back in the USSR!!!

 

[volinbham]

Safer for us, for starters. We don't have the comforting blanket of Mutually Assured Destruction anymore.

As a whole the world was much more predictable, which by extension, made it safer.

Not buying it - a gross generalization to be sure. As the article points out, the number of people living in freedom has doubled. Not sure how that equates to a less safe world.

The Middle East was not being controlled by the presence of 2 super powers. If anything, the 2 superpowers were using the ME as their experimental playground and pseudo war. Countries around the world were being armed by 2 superpowers all through the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Cold War sowed the seeds of armed conflict throughout the world. The ending of it hasn't made that worse.

 

[rjd970]

Not buying it - a gross generalization to be sure. As the article points out, the number of people living in freedom has doubled. Not sure how that equates to a less safe world.

The Middle East was not being controlled by the presence of 2 super powers. If anything, the 2 superpowers were using the ME as their experimental playground and pseudo war. Countries around the world were being armed by 2 superpowers all through the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Cold War sowed the seeds of armed conflict throughout the world. The ending of it hasn't made that worse.

First off, I don't consider people in countries like Turkey and Pakistan living in freedom, despite what token concessions they have made. The simple truth here is that although the people living in freedom may have doubled, it doesn't necessarily equate to people living with more liberties.

And I think your entire second paragraph proves my point, save the last sentence. At least with places like the ME the superpowers were using them as proxies, like you have suggested. You don't really think our support of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan or our tacit support of the Saddam Hussein regime against the Iranians didn't give us any control of these countries do you? Of course it did. Even Bin Laden, we knew what he was up to and we were able to support his jihad against the soviets. At least we had some measure of control over these rebel groups and dictatorships during the cold war...whereas now it is a free for all with these elements and they have become our biggest, and probably our most dangerous enemies. During the cold war, did we really sit up at night worrying about terrorist gaining a WMD from the Iraqi stockpiles and staging a suicide atomic attack on our soil?

There is a lot to be said for the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and the cold war epitomized this. We live in a far more unstable world now than we did during the cold war. With two superpowers going head to head everybody is forced to take sides or get destroyed. With a single superpower we get multiple enemies, state and non-state alike, that have their own singular agendas and one big target to focus on. If anything, I would say our danger increased because by getting rid of one major threat, we produced multiple smaller ones with far more complex threat structures and geopolitical goals.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

When the Soviet Union failed proponents could point to smaller weaker nations like Cuba and say they were kept down by the US and had they been left to their own devices their socialistic experiment could prosper. The fall of the Soviet empire allowed them to redefine socialism to something more palatable.

Interesting take.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

good point... which is why the next terrorist attack will be so vexing... I don't know that there will be a defined target that we can attack....

carpet bomb here

 

[IPorange]

You are proposing carpet-bombing Israel? That would certainly confuse everyone.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

You are proposing carpet-bombing Israel? That would certainly confuse everyone.

correction, here, except isreal.

 

[lawgator1]

Two thoughts.

First, the editorial and this thread make a good point that there ought to be more recognition of the fall of the Soviet Union, the history of it, the effects of it, etc. I remember it when it happened and I think that in the 20 years since then a huge amount of what will ultimately be unknown resources that would have had to go to preparing for a war we all knew would be disastrous has been spent on other, better things.

Most of the piece focused on the susprising lack of notice of it, and that is a shame. At the same time, I resented the insinuation in the article that we should mark the anniversary by being wary of Obama or "liberals:"

At a time that fairly cries out for historical perspective about the follies of central planning, Americans are ignoring the fundamental conflict of the postwar world, and instead leapfrogging back to what Steve Forbes describes in this issue as the “Jurassic Park statism” of the 1930s (see “ ‘The Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs,’ ” page 42).


Agree or disagree with that insinuation, it immediately distracts from the principle point of the editorial. It is unfortunate that the writer had to distract and detract from his otherwise valid point by taking a gratuitous swipe at "big government" along the way. Pretty thinly-veiled swipe, at that.

 

[BigPapaVol]

First off, I don't consider people in countries like Turkey and Pakistan living in freedom, despite what token concessions they have made. The simple truth here is that although the people living in freedom may have doubled, it doesn't necessarily equate to people living with more liberties.

And I think your entire second paragraph proves my point, save the last sentence. At least with places like the ME the superpowers were using them as proxies, like you have suggested. You don't really think our support of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan or our tacit support of the Saddam Hussein regime against the Iranians didn't give us any control of these countries do you? Of course it did. Even Bin Laden, we knew what he was up to and we were able to support his jihad against the soviets. At least we had some measure of control over these rebel groups and dictatorships during the cold war...whereas now it is a free for all with these elements and they have become our biggest, and probably our most dangerous enemies. During the cold war, did we really sit up at night worrying about terrorist gaining a WMD from the Iraqi stockpiles and staging a suicide atomic attack on our soil?

There is a lot to be said for the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and the cold war epitomized this. We live in a far more unstable world now than we did during the cold war. With two superpowers going head to head everybody is forced to take sides or get destroyed. With a single superpower we get multiple enemies, state and non-state alike, that have their own singular agendas and one big target to focus on. If anything, I would say our danger increased because by getting rid of one major threat, we produced multiple smaller ones with far more complex threat structures and geopolitical goals.

The asymmetrical threat thing is just way overblown. There are a lot of folks out there who can bloody our nose, but there are very few who pose a serious threat to our sovereignty. There is no Red Horde, at least ostensibly, prepared to blast through the Fulda Gap and wipe out the West. Many of those strategic battles still dominate the landscape, just not as overt as they once were.

The greater threat is the loss of economic dominance. Our econ force is what wiped out the Soviet Union. It won't do the same to the Chinese. I'm shocked that people try to paint the threat out there as a military one. It doesn't exist. Rogue nukes are a huge problem, but not to the extent that stockpiles of them were.

 

[Lexvol]

The asymmetrical threat thing is just way overblown. There are a lot of folks out there who can bloody our nose, but there are very few who pose a serious threat to our sovereignty. There is no Red Horde, at least ostensibly, prepared to blast through the Fulda Gap and wipe out the West. Many of those strategic battles still dominate the landscape, just not as overt as they once were.

The greater threat is the loss of economic dominance. Our econ force is what wiped out the Soviet Union. It won't do the same to the Chinese. I'm shocked that people try to paint the threat out there as a military one. It doesn't exist. Rogue nukes are a huge problem, but not to the extent that stockpiles of them were.

When the technological dominance follows the economic dominance then the asymmetrical threat becomes more imposing. Once we become dependent on foreign engineers, and forget how to do the dirty work ourselves, that will spell trouble.

 

[BigPapaVol]

When the technological dominance follows the economic dominance then the asymmetrical threat becomes more imposing. Once we become dependent on foreign engineers, and forget how to do the dirty work ourselves, that will spell trouble.

but IMO, the new economic power will be imposing. As long as it is the pacifist EU, we're fine. However, folks with all the economic might don't remain pacifists for long, especially when folks impede their will. It would take many in the EU about 4 seconds to get over their pacifism. They're pacifists of necessity, rather than the true mankind lovers they pretend to be.

The Chinese: there is no doubt where they're headed.

 

[Lexvol]

but IMO, the new economic power will be imposing. As long as it is the pacifist EU, we're fine. However, folks with all the economic might don't remain pacifists for long, especially when folks impede their will. It would take many in the EU about 4 seconds to get over their pacifism. They're pacifists of necessity, rather than the true mankind lovers they pretend to be.

The Chinese: there is no doubt where they're headed.

The EU might make it to the brink but between the possibility that nationalism will raise its head, and the self imposed green economic restrictions I think you definitely see the writing on the wall.

 

[lawgator1]

The asymmetrical threat thing is just way overblown. There are a lot of folks out there who can bloody our nose, but there are very few who pose a serious threat to our sovereignty. There is no Red Horde, at least ostensibly, prepared to blast through the Fulda Gap and wipe out the West. Many of those strategic battles still dominate the landscape, just not as overt as they once were.

The greater threat is the loss of economic dominance. Our econ force is what wiped out the Soviet Union. It won't do the same to the Chinese. I'm shocked that people try to paint the threat out there as a military one. It doesn't exist. Rogue nukes are a huge problem, but not to the extent that stockpiles of them were.

I don't see what good it does to compare the threats in the first place. At the height of the Cold War, had there been outright war, the goal of the Soviet Union would have been geopolitical, that is, discrete government control over land, people, and resources. For terrorists, the goal of an attack is disruption. Its not that bin Laden sees himself as running North America, or using its resources for his own purposes. Its just destruction, pure and simple. There isn't an end game.

 

[Lexvol]

I don't see what good it does to compare the threats in the first place. At the height of the Cold War, had there been outright war, the goal of the Soviet Union would have been geopolitical, that is, discrete government control over land, people, and resources. For terrorists, the goal of an attack is disruption. Its not that bin Laden sees himself as running North America, or using its resources for his own purposes. Its just destruction, pure and simple. There isn't an end game.

Theocracy...maybe?

 

[BigPapaVol]

I don't see what good it does to compare the threats in the first place. At the height of the Cold War, had there been outright war, the goal of the Soviet Union would have been geopolitical, that is, discrete government control over land, people, and resources. For terrorists, the goal of an attack is disruption. Its not that bin Laden sees himself as running North America, or using its resources for his own purposes. Its just destruction, pure and simple. There isn't an end game.

so you don't believe OBL has a political end in mind? His purpose is shock and media coverage to further his deranged religious views.

 

[lawgator1]

so you don't believe OBL has a political end in mind? His purpose is shock and media coverage to further his deranged religious views.

Oh no, I think he has a politicial (and as Lex notes, religious) purpose in mind. I just don't think it is to control North America. To ruin its civilization? Yes. To mold it in some image he has of the way the world should be? Yes. I'm just saying that its not the same purpose as a traditional geopolitical struggle has, which is to take you over and control your resources for their own ends.

Not arguing with you. In fact agreeing with you. My point is just that the thinking behind the new threat is tougher to deal with because it is much harder to strategize generally protecting every big building, sporting event, and port against someone just wanting to make a statement, versus identifying likely targets for MiGs.

 

[rjd970]

so you don't believe OBL has a political end in mind? His purpose is shock and media coverage to further his deranged religious views.

No doubt that this is a central part of his agenda. However, going back to what you said about the bigger threat being economic dominance also applies IMO. One thing Bin Laden has been good at is getting us bogged down into military conflicts where they can wage war at a much lower cost than we can. I mean, what good is a billion dollar B-2 when they are being more than effective with $100 roadside bombs? They wage war spening primarily human capital, we wage war by spending primarily monetary capital. There is a definite economic strategy to what he is doing, whether he knows it or not.

I also don't agree that the military threat is overblown. Bin Laden, for example, was able to do something the Soviet Union never was...successfully attack U.S. soil, twice. Say what you will about which you think is the greater threat, but IMO it is far more difficult to stop someone carrying a suitcase bomb into downtown New York then it is to keep strategic bombers on ready alert 24/7.

I just think that using third world countries as proxies to fight each other was far mor safer than directly fighting the same third world countries in manned conflict where the cost in blood and riches is far greater.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No doubt that this is a central part of his agenda. However, going back to what you said about the bigger threat being economic dominance also applies IMO. One thing Bin Laden has been good at is getting us bogged down into military conflicts where they can wage war at a much lower cost than we can. I mean, what good is a billion dollar B-2 when they are being more than effective with $100 roadside bombs? They wage war spening primarily human capital, we wage war by spending primarily monetary capital. There is a definite economic strategy to what he is doing, whether he knows it or not.

But this money tends to boost the economy, rather than hurt it. G is still a huge component of the GDP equation.

I also don't agree that the military threat is overblown. Bin Laden, for example, was able to do something the Soviet Union never was...successfully attack U.S. soil, twice. Say what you will about which you think is the greater threat, but IMO it is far more difficult to stop someone carrying a suitcase bomb into downtown New York then it is to keep strategic bombers on ready alert 24/7.

But the point is that there is no real risk to our nation. It is tougher to control rogues and suitcase bombs, but they are more pesky than anything. You act as if these guys weren't going to come this direction with the Soviets still around. I don't believe that for a second. They are bent on exporting radical Islam and we were going to meet up about it at some point.

I just think that using third world countries as proxies to fight each other was far mor safer than directly fighting the same third world countries in manned conflict where the cost in blood and riches is far greater.

But fighting over third world countries doesn't propose any catastrophic style risk to our nation.