Comments on: Sunday UK Strategic Defence Review Blogging: Chapter 1

By: google « Alternate Seat of TYR

google « Alternate Seat of TYR — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:25:18 +0000

[...] The amusing thing is that, before I gave up and grabbed my copy of Distraction, I googled for Bruce Sterling American world policeman diva. Which is a near-SHA1 hash of the content of that paragraph, no? The fifth result for that search is part one of my response to the UK Strategic Defence Review as a Blog. [...]

By: ajay

ajay — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:18:50 +0000

Recent history seems to be against your argument.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:25:48 +0000

So I can understand the fear that the ability to offer the US something it wants might be lost by underfunding.
I can’t see how the UK could lose the ability to refuse the US by simply doing nothing.

There certainly is a competition between independent capabilities and things the US may want, but how is that about a capability to say “no”?

By: jon livesey

jon livesey — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:50:16 +0000

“As for the hypothetical of the US wanting to trash existing international organisations, is there any doubt it could do so if it really wanted to, irrespective of anything the UK might do?”

I think that is spot on. If I understand British policy, it is not based on the delusion that they can prevent the US from doing anything it wants. Rather it is based on the argument that if the UK gives the US something it wants – political cover at the UN, for example – then in return the UK has “some” influence.

The US can ignore any of its allies on any particular issue, but if it ended up alienating all of its allies, that would be a bad outcome for the US. I tend to assume that the US is run by people who are a bit more sane than the US yahoos who post xenophobic nonsense all over the net.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:18:40 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by afoe_tw: new afoe entry, Sunday UK Strategic Defence Review Blogging: Chapter 1 – http://tinyurl.com/yjy7n2g #fb…

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:07:50 +0000

A strange piece. Declining US power in no way implies that the Americans will wish to rip up the liberal international order they have built. On the contrary, they will become keener than ever to maintain it. This article reads like something from 2003. The worry in 2010 – and doubtless 2020 – is not how to say “No” to America but rather how to maintain a liberal international order when the ascending powers are fundamentally illiberal.

America will play a vital role in this. I suspect that complaints about American unilateralism will come to look rather quaint when China is throwing its weight around in 2025.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:49:33 +0000

“The answer is surely that a major aim of policy is to maximise our ability to say “no”. ”

How could that be in jeopardy? And in particular whom do you wish to be able to say “no” to?
As for the hypothetical of the US wanting to trash existing international organisations, is there any doubt it could do so if it really wanted to, irrespective of anything the UK might do?

By: jon livesey

jon livesey — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:12:33 +0000

A very nice piece. I would just add that on the eve of the Great War, there were several nations that were in the same position of relative strength vis a vis the UK, as the UK, France and Germany are to the US.

And in the outcome, whatever their contribution to fighting the war, their influence on strategy and even tactics was negligible.

What they got out of helping to fight the war was not influence on how it was fought, but a seat at the table once it was won.

To be cynical, the US’ allies in the Middle East are not in it to influence how the US fights wars, but to be present when the post-war settlement and its attendant economic opportunities comes to fruition.

And this is nothing new. Napoleon didn’t take advice from his weird family, but he made then into minor Kings and Princes.