Islamic State, America, Russia and China. Let the talks begin. (MY ESSAY DEPENDS ON YOUR RESPONSE!).

academic_observer wrote:

Jestor wrote: Opinions vary, and everyone has theirs...

I am of the opinion, that the US has itself too stretched out, and should pull itself back, concentrate on itself...

Right now, a friend is experiencing some issues in their life, and all of the pressures are building on them, and they feel overwhelmed, worried, probably a bit confused as well as a bit scared...

My advice to my friend, was to pull back a bit, find their center/balance/themselves, and 'get right', before trying to help others too much, as trying to help others, can throw ourselves off balance... Just like you have to put your own oxygen mask on first on an air plane... You are no good to anyone, if you dont take care of yourself...

And, I think the US should be doing the same thing...

Stop mucking around in the affairs of the rest of the world, unless requested (and the 'by who/how' would need worked out, lol), and work on rebuilding ourselves again...

So what you are trying to say is that America's foreign actions represent a well-meaning global strategy, but that it should step back for the time being to handle some of its own declining affairs? Did I interpret that correct?

Yes, thats my feelings...

Im not above helping others, but, as has been shown, we need to be responsible in how we do it, and who we help...

It can/does come back to bite us...

While there is no denying the existence of these various groups and the struggle for power and resources between them, I find the examples of the Islamic State and China especially telling.

Since the emergence of rapid air travel, the Internet and more recently social networks, the lines we draw on maps have become less and less significant. Like it or not, we are quickly moving toward a global community. The IS does not consider itself to be limited by borders. The Islamic State exists wherever their ideology does. The same can be said for Anonymous and groups like them. Rapid worldwide communication and travel allows groups to exert influence across the globe without occupying or controlling any of the actual ground.

The rise of China as an economic power is yet another example of globalization at play. The recent growth of China's economy is in large part due to American consumerism, and yet the United States wants to force China to adopt American views about environmental protection and labor laws. Other nations will fall on one side or the other or get caught up in the middle, but the policies put in place by both nations will have an impact on the world as a whole. Eventually the global community will have to adopt standards that everyone will be held to. It is crucial to our survival as a species.

TL;DR version: The sooner we realize that "nations" and "states" are just ideas that separate us, the sooner we will come to accept the world as it actually is, a global community.

I'm not a fan of Putin so don't have much to say on Russia other then it appears to playing by a slightly different rulebook to the US. China is a bit of an unknown at the moment for me, its actions in the Spratly's are not particularly encouraging. But my concern with most of the upcoming 'players' (countries which a capacity to exert military force outwards with sufficient capacity to shape the course of conflict) is they shift from a place of talking tough because they cannot act tough, into a place of being able to act tough suddenly and finding themselves either having to change their tune or start lighting fires.

Take North Korea for example, every few months they promise imminent destruction of South Korea and the USA, fire some artillery and go back to chopping wood for the stove until next time, but what happens when they have the capability to do it? It shifts from being chest thumping attention seeking behaviour to a potential real threat. The later run's the risk of preemptive action to remove the threat, because in the day of weapons of mass destruction you cannot not only afford to turn the other cheek, but you cannot afford to get slapped in the first place. Better to grab the hand enroute, but idealism has its risks... like if your not fast enough, reactive vs proactive. So talking tough and having the capacity to act on it would really shift the risk assessment in that regard. The US and Russia have had this capability for a long time, and developed their relationships accordingly, so WMD proliferation makes things so much more complicated and difficult, and is likely the main reason behind a lot of the US involvement in the Middle East.

The Islamic State mob do not really factor for me so much anymore then any other terrorist group. I'd imagine they are easier to track and deal with by being centralized. The main threats with these groups is access to WMD, but criminal entities like these groups really have no place, it's just about finding the neatest way for their causes to die off. Syria is just failed foreign policy, letting a scrub fire go on and one in amongst oil filled eucalyptus trees is always going to cause an explosive bushfire sooner rather then later. Russia is there to back up its allie Syria against its civil war opponents primarily, one of which is the Islamic State, and the IS are only as difficult to destroy with military force as is the extent to which that military force is concerned about collateral damage and death.

Russia is unique as an ex-superpower and the main reason behind US foreign policy in the last 60 years because it has retained a large share of its nuclear capability and it's perestroika was a positive thing for it, despite its subsequant birth pains. What she is going through now is the teething period, when you get your new teeth and are trying to learn to smile
:side:
The question there is will she be able to handle wearing braces a little longer and grow up looking like Dolly, or not and end up looking like Jaws (007 For Your Eyes Only)...
:whistle:

I'm probably not the most impartial when it comes to the USA, while I'm not from the US and have never been to the US - I was raised reading military history and most of that is written by only one side LOL, but I try to exert a degree of reading between the lines of that, and my interests do not gravitate or circle the US. So, the US seems to try to do the 'right' thing by decent standards most of the time, but has a relatively forward posture as a result of the Cold War where it did not simply walk away from its allies, instead it tried to keep democratic principles in place in those areas.

Do democratic values underlie capitalism, yes probably. I'm not saying they are mutually dependent, but since I support both democracy and capitalism as separate concepts, I see no conflict in when both things are supported. In fact I see capitalism as financial democracy, but that is another story. The question becomes does this require military intervention, sometimes yes, that is how the third world works unfortunately, by force, and so the issue there becomes what is the best way to get a desired outcome - giving it to someone because you know they will thank you later, or letting them learn it the hard way and risk never having it. It would be an easy decision if it were not often a hard and long road in both directions.

But I think the US would be quite happy if it did not need to provide such a role in security globally.
I don't think it abuses it's power for its own gain even though those things align in some regards most usually, as previously mentioned.
I do think it wants the capacity to ensure its own security, and until its closest allies can do the same for themselves it desires to provide protection for them too, as at the end of the day any conflict does come down to numbers fielded with pointy sticks, whom ever has the most friends wins. Luckily the US IMO does not define its purpose in those terms, but is realistic about the nature of the playground.

So China is the big question mark for me. It can go either way, because the nationalism is quite pumped up. Social Identity Theory points to how efforts to build a strong unified group can easily shift to attacking non-groups members and other groups as a function in strengthening its own group identity. So having a strong national pride and identity is a good thing, until its at the expense of others.... I mean, that is what sport is for after all, a polite way of teaming up and competing, for self development and entertainment etc.

So while China was actively happy to participate in the hotter parts of spreading communism in the Cold War, it's I think in modern times is keeping its options open and focusing on its own growth so to remain in a position of regional superpower. This is a realistic goal, and already manifest. I think China just needs to keep playing a square bat and not try to get too flashy in its territorial ambitions. If they can make Space affordable (by their own standards) then we'll probably see the territorial ambition shift out there.

So a baseline way to assess each of these four groups could be to try and measure both the extent and nature of the government involvement in shaping nationalism. It's easy to do with the nature, but the extent probably speaks more about the imperative given it by that government, and if they have a history of using force to control the population's behaviour then it's a risk they might again use the people as instruments of the government. That is where I'd probably start, and after that I'd look at the imperatives behind recent foreign policy decisions, ensuring they are anchored in the appropriate historical context, and consider the 'health' of the citizen as an indicator of civil unrest to define that nations capacity to focus outwards or inwards. I don't mean to infer an unrest populace keeps a nation in line, but rather a marching army needs many boots (in metaphorical terms).... unfortunately sometimes a popular small war can fuel nationalism like sprinkling sugar on a pizza, which is not a good direction to go if one wants to avoid gas.

Good luck, and remember to properly attribute anyone if you use their words!!!!

Jestor wrote: Yes, thats my feelings...

Im not above helping others, but, as has been shown, we need to be responsible in how we do it, and who we help...

It can/does come back to bite us...

Awesome, thanks for clarifying that ...

It only just occurred to me that my question may come off as a little prudent. Wasn't my intention to raise any alarms if I did.

academic_observer wrote:

Jestor wrote: Yes, thats my feelings...

Im not above helping others, but, as has been shown, we need to be responsible in how we do it, and who we help...

It can/does come back to bite us...

Awesome, thanks for clarifying that ...

It only just occurred to me that my question may come off as a little prudent. Wasn't my intention to raise any alarms if I did.

Raising alarms is fine !

So let me now redirect the question (btw thank you for all your responses thus far!!)

Of the four identifiable 'big' players on the world stage (IS, USA, Russia and China) vowing for global dominance (lets face it, that's ALWAYS the end game for major powers), who do you as individuals (perhaps as Jedi? Please state so if this is the case) deem to be the lesser evil of the lot (i.e. the one that offers more to humanity or will seem less imposing)?

By all means, draw contrasts between political and economic ideologies (i.e. capitalism, democracy, theocracy, etc ...) in presenting your arguments.

Superficially, I think the problem in Russia and China is that too much 'stage-owned enterprise' has been shown historically to be unprofitable, stagnation of innovation, and leads to huge unproductive debt over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise
While lots of things create debt, something has to be the engine of the economy. Ideally I think innovation and development represent the most useful direction of growth, so activity which promotes those things seems to fit into capitalism best at the moment.