Would America benefit from a multi-polar world?

I don't think you can equate the fact that the world was multi-polar before the French Revolution as a reason that the armies marched more back then than they do now (Which would also be forgetting that war was a completely different matter in the time period). Hey, after the Battle of Waterloo there was also a balance of powers in a multi-polar world and it created one the longest periods of peace that Europe had know up until that point. You are reducing history to a point where it's just illogical to make any references to it if you think that the balance of power was the only reason war was what it was back in the 19th century and why war isn't that way today. The reason that there aren't that many wars today as back then has very little to do with the fact that the USA is the predominant military power. For one, Europe today is unified, which it wasn't back in those days. Number two, the global economy just isn't as supportive as war in that context as it was before... and we can go on and on.

If Russia wants to start a war, it's not going to ask the permission of the US, neither did any of the ex-Yugoslavian countries.

 

The world is definitely as war-torn as ever (Africa!) but that's not necessarily relevant to the point. Stability and peace among the world's major industrial powers is underwritten to a large extent by America's status as a hyperpower: peace in Korea, Japan, stability and unity in western Europe, the flow of oil from the Middle East, etc. is all anchored by the U.S.'s hegemonic military presence.

 

That's simplifying a whole lot to the point where it's ridicilous, especially saying that peace and unity in Western Europe or peace in Japan are anchored on the military presence and hegmony of the USA. Same deal with the flow of oil out of the Middle East. I don't think it's necessarily hinged completely on the American military presence the way you are making it out to be.

In what way would peace and unity in Europe (or Japan) be linked to American hegmony anyway?

 

Its actually linked to American grand strategy.

I went to a speech a few semesters ago by Micheal Lind, one of the former head intellectual guys in the Neoconservative movement.

Essentially, the US' big plan for continued global dominance is to use its military to secure the economic needs of the "Great Power" community (this is the subtext of what is going on in Iraq)

This, in turn, prevents other countries from building up their military in order to secure their economic needs, because they know we have them covered. Thus, there is little challenge in the hard power race (and this seems to be paying off by the fact that the US spends as much as the next 17 countries in the world put together on Defense budget)

We know that if we withdrew from East Asia, Japan would probably start building up its military and nuclear power in order to protect itself from the rise of China.

 

Japan still has one of the largest militaries. Even though they can't even legally have one according to their constitution. Even if Japan had a large military, that's not to say that would automatically lead to more instability or conflict. Bigger European militaries are in the same boat, it wouldn't automatically benefit or hurt European peace to have bigger armies. Unless you believe that peace world wide is linked with corporate colonialism, in which case I would question your morality compass.

 

I would say history disagrees with you here. Military build up tends to be a symptom of an international system in which use of that military is expected to be necessary relatively soon. In addition, these buildups could be seen as CAUSING the outbreak of massive war to some extent, as was the case in the First World War where Germany knowingly sought conflict in order to fight a war when it was optimally powerful in comparison to the French-Russian alliance.

The Japanese are ranked 21st in size of army. This is hardly congruent with their actual soft power on the international scene.

European armies are relatively tiny compared to extra-european powers such as South Korea or Pakistan. The US hopes it STAYS that way.

 

Referencing history like that pains me as a history student. You can't compare the modern era to the pre-WWI era like that. The Cold War was also one big arms build-up and it didn't erupt into full scale war. So it's not like every precedent of arms-build up leads to your scenario. Aside from that, France or the UK could probably whipe the floor with the South Korean or Pakistani army, even if those were 'bigger', since technology pwns size these' days. Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world at one point, so what.

You are viewing the world from a purely military standpoint, which is a factor in decline. You're overestimating certain effects. You still haven't answered the question as to how military presence promotes peace in Western Europe or even Japan. Okay, bigger Japanese army, might cause friction, might not. It's an open ended question, in Western Europe it doesn't even apply. There are no military threats that could cause any serious harm.

 

I am a history student as well. Your argument from authority fails laughably, especially considering that your argument has been naive and not very cogent to begin with.

That depends on whether you buy into the "exceptionalism" of the modern world.

Because of nuclear weapons and each side's willingness to negotiate to a larger extent. I think its also important to not the precedent of the two World Wars in the mind of the people considering beginning a cold war.

Essentially, neither side had anything to gain by fighting the other, except assured infrastructure annihilation and disruption of economic profits. Economy is what drives war, and always has.

The same principle underlies modern US grand strategy - no great power has anything to gain by going to war, because their economic security is to be guaranteed by American hard power overseas and in the Gulf region.

There are reasons explaining why they don't.

Thats a tangent from the argument you were making. We were not discussing whose army was more powerful, you were stating that the European and Japanese armies were large and it didn't promote friction, and I was just pointing out that comparatively you are wrong.

Military presence promotes peace by preventing the buildup of military forces that could threaten the hegemony of American hard power.

During the Cold War, American military presence in Europe helped to balance against the Soviet.

In the Far East, American military presence does the same in holding China at bay, preventing Japan from converting more of its soft power into hard power in self defense.

In Europe, American hard power basically provides power projection for the US and helps to bolster the local economies.

 

Easy boy, you haven't made a single cognent argument to begin with, so don't give me that crap. Your argument goes "Well, it promotes stability because I said so."

No it doesn't. It's not because the US has bases in Europe that it actually supports or is detremintal to the current situation. Furthermore, as a history student you should know that random referencing to other time periods is a complete no-go. Do that in any academic paper and you will be torn to shreds. You cannot, in any good faith, compare the world of today, with Europe pre-1914. It's just laughable. WWI lacked the information infrastructure, the mindset, the economy, the military power projection capabilities. It's just a completely different type of world you are making a reference to. You can't compare things like these. Just because the Roman Senate under the Republic could have done A in case of event B. Doesn't mean that the Roman Senate under Constantine could, or would, do the same thing. Understand me?

No, that doesn't depend on the "exceptionalism" but on the ability to recognise that we are living in another time, which might adher to some of the same rules, but which has such different circumstances that you can't draw parallells between different situations.

And these nuclear weapons are now absent, or would be absent in a multi-polar world? The Global economy is if anything even more integrated than before. Economy is not what always drives war, but its a large factor in a lot of wars. In a multi-polar world it would be the same thing, the integrated economy is not the result of American hegmoney. And in Europe it is in fact much more the result of the EU.

BS, it's only guaranteed as long as you hold the fact true that American hegmoney in the region is a positive factor for their economies. It's naive to think that Russia considers it that way.

Now who's believing in the exceptionality of the current situation? For somebody accusing me of not being coherent you sure are all over the place.

There are also raesons why American hegmony isn't exactly the only thing that holds this 'Pax Americana' together.

It's about power, not the amount of men. Because in that case, China would be the predominant army. I'm not sure if you are aware of what the French Army is up to all over the world, but it's not like they're sitting on their ass either. I'm sure you are unaware of French Africa?

 

Actually, I have given reasons. However, your flaw from the beginning was that you are asking me to rationalize an argument that I only stated the premises of.

You're completely misunderstanding my argument and then bringing up a bunch of poorly stated and tangential points that relate to ASBSOLUTELY nothing I believe or have said.

You seem to believe (for whatever reason, presumably bad context recognition) that I am fully in support of the Neocon idea I outlined above. I am not FULLY in support of it, I merely understand the thinking of those who outlined it.

Going on and on about an argument I stated as though it is my personal belief is silly and represents a lack of ability on your part to comprehend the context in which I stated what I stated.

I said "This is what THEY think and put into practice, not what I state or believe in", although I am fully capable of understanding some of the justifications and ramifications of the theory.

Actually you are incorrect. I attended a class last semester in comparative history, which is basically EXACTLY what you just stated is unacceptable in the historical field.

Basic power politics remain the same, IMHO. All the technology in the world won't change the reason that powers go to war or don't go to war.

You are right in that infrastructure, mindste, economy, and military power projection capabilities have changed. I have never stated otherwise.

However, nation-state theory is still operative and still relevant.

The comparison I drew with Germany still fits quite well in the example I was using and is still valid. Your blite and overly dramatic dismissal of it was silly and showed a lack of deep understanding of the ideas I was trying to bring out.

"Germany went to war because of a military buildup around it that threatened to alter its standing in the Great Power community, effectively rendering it less capable of securing its basic economic needs."

Nothing about the above statement renders it unreasonable as an understanding of the ramification of power politics in a nation-state community, whether the event took place in 1900, 2008, or 1748. Whether Germany was going to eventually be outclassed in horsemen or tanks is irrelevant as far as understanding WHY Germany would go to war in such a system.

Here you do but betray your misunderstanding by arguing against something I never stated or argued in the first place, except that you wanted me to have said that American hegemony guarantees inter