The doctrine of US exceptionality: Does the US bear exceptional leadership burden?

S

sear

serene
The doctrine of U.S. exceptionality: Does the U.S. bear exceptional international leadership responsibility?

The United States of America is a global military ultrapower.

It was reported during the Cold War that the U.S. military had dozen time global nuclear overkill.

But there's more to leadership than that.

We used to set higher standards for conduct, claimed as a shining example of U.S. superiority.

But then the Bush (younger) administration happened along, and water-boarded quasi-POW's, in violation of its own ostensible "noble" principles.

- Does the United States of America bear a global leadership burden that Botswana, Paraguay, or Tajikistan do not?

- If so, what is that burden?

Political?

Military?

Moral?

Legal?

Social?
 
Yes and no, the US should stand up to the values and principles they represent as the leading democracy in the world, however, that is idealistic, and Machiavellian actions are often necessary.

A balancing test should be applied to difficult situations, hopefully weighing toward the idealistic path
 
And if we are going into a "police action" let the military do their job and keep politicians out of it. No more lines in the sand bullshit. Cut the boys loose on anybody and they will get it done quick.
Hillary supported/supports leadership or regime change (See Libya/Syria)and I dont know if that has worked very well for us frankly.
In Vietnam them peasants/farmers/folks could give a shit who was in charge nor what type of Government they had.....they were to focused on what they were going to eat that night. Just a total waste of life all around. Everybody lost in Vietnam. Everybody. My brother is still there in some fucking jungle. For what?
If you ask the global world police question to those of us that have been in the shit dont expect a politically correct response. It is bullshit. War is bullshit but we need it or tyrants will rule all of us. Just use it very sparingly and only when absolutely fucking required....and not for oil.
 
The Only Sarge said:
And if we are going into a "police action" let the military do their job and keep politicians out of it. No more lines in the sand bullshit. Cut the boys loose on anybody and they will get it done quick.
Hillary supported/supports leadership or regime change (See Libya/Syria)and I dont know if that has worked very well for us frankly.
In Vietnam them peasants/farmers/folks could give a shit who was in charge nor what type of Government they had.....they were to focused on what they were going to eat that night. Just a total waste of life all around. Everybody lost in Vietnam. Everybody.
Click to expand...

If the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, how does one "keep the politicians out of it?"
 
archives said:
If the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, how does one "keep the politicians out of it?"
Click to expand...
Easy/
Once the decision is made to remove a leader, kick ass or go fuck somebody's dog......let the military take it from there to achieve the orders and directives.
This OK fight to here and stop....and "rules of engagement" is horseshit.
 
The Only Sarge said:
Easy/
Once the decision is made to remove a leader, kick ass or go fuck somebody's dog......let the military take it from there to achieve the orders and directives.
This OK fight to here and stop....and "rules of engagement" is horseshit.
Click to expand...

Then the decision is political. and last I knew, least the way the Founders set it up, the military answers to the Government and is not a separate entity on it's own. Even the ultimate plan/strategy addressing the situation prepared by the military has to be reviewed and approved by the Gov't

You are professing a Chuck Norris, John Wayne view of the military, which looks good on the big screen. but doesn't fit reality
 
archives said:
Then the decision is political. and last I knew, least the way the Founders set it up, the military answers to the Government and is not a separate entity on it's own. Even the ultimate plan/strategy addressing the situation prepared by the military has to be reviewed and approved by the Gov't

You are professing a Chuck Norris, John Wayne view of the military, which looks good on the big screen. but doesn't fit reality
Click to expand...
Your not reading what I am typing. Maybe it is me.
Of course our elected Government controls the military. God helps us if it did not work that way. What I am saying is once that decision is made then let the military do its job. These half ass operations the politicians get us into is bullshit. You either have a target and an well defined deliverable or you don't send in the military. Now as for John Wayne And Chuck I never fought with them so I have no fucking idea what that looks like.
 
" as the leading democracy in the world " #3
Click to expand...
Your conclusion is your premise.

It is India, not the United States that's considered the leading democracy on Earth, by population.

If the U.S. has a DISPROPORTIONATE leadership obligation, based upon what?

Military might?

WWII influence?

Coastline?
" how does one "keep the politicians out of it?" " #5
Click to expand...
$Money.
And now we encounter the war powers debate.
 
The US is the exemplary model of democracy in the world, has been for centuries now, and has a responsibility to live by the values established in those standards, in other words, practice what we preach. The other factor your missing is that this isn't a dichotomy, the US foreign policy has always served US interests first, the involvements we got involved in weren't done solely out of altruism

As I noted, the President is the head of the military, that alone implies politics is involved
 
archives said:
If the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, how does one "keep the politicians out of it?"
Click to expand...

Politicians, ie. civilians, make the final decisions to what actions need to be taken ..... once it is determined what military action is to be taken and what the goals are, the military must be allowed to use their expertise to attain those goals....we should never have civilians playing armchair general or to give the troops orders on how to fight in the field while they sit in their offices in total safety.....LBJ tried that and failed....
 
archives said:
The US is the exemplary model of democracy in the world, has been for centuries now, and has a responsibility to live by the values established in those standards, in other words, practice what we preach. The other factor your missing is that this isn't a dichotomy, the US foreign policy has always served US interests first, the involvements we got involved in weren't done solely out of altruism

As I noted, the President is the head of the military, that alone implies politics is involved
Click to expand...
Your mistaken in an important aspect here. The President is Commander in Chief. That doesnt make him or her a military expert, a General or Admiral. What your being told is the CIC makes the decision to use the military and the military takes it from there. They develop the military strategy/plans to execute to reach the deliverable the CIC ask them for. The President doesnt develop military strategy. The President doesnt command troops in the field nor ships at sea. The military does that.
 
The Only Sarge said:
And if we are going into a "police action" let the military do their job and keep politicians out of it. No more lines in the sand bullshit. Cut the boys loose on anybody and they will get it done quick.
Hillary supported/supports leadership or regime change (See Libya/Syria)and I dont know if that has worked very well for us frankly.
In Vietnam them peasants/farmers/folks could give a shit who was in charge nor what type of Government they had.....they were to focused on what they were going to eat that night. Just a total waste of life all around. Everybody lost in Vietnam. Everybody. My brother is still there in some fucking jungle. For what?
If you ask the global world police question to those of us that have been in the shit dont expect a politically correct response. It is bullshit. War is bullshit but we need it or tyrants will rule all of us. Just use it very sparingly and only when absolutely fucking required....and not for oil.
Click to expand...

How have we used it for oil?
 
sear said:
The doctrine of U.S. exceptionality: Does the U.S. bear exceptional international leadership responsibility?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this doctrine? I have never heard of it except when whiney leftTards parrot it in their asinine talking points.

sear said:
The United States of America is a global military ultrapower.

It was reported during the Cold War that the U.S. military had dozen time global nuclear overkill.

But there's more to leadership than that.
Click to expand...

I am struggling to see how there is no leadership in that; did we use our nuclear power to hold sway and imprison other nations?

sear said:
We used to set higher standards for conduct, claimed as a shining example of U.S. superiority.

But then the Bush (younger) administration happened along, and water-boarded quasi-POW's, in violation of its own ostensible "noble" principles.
Click to expand...

Wrong again; then 9-11 came along. I do wish you liberals could get even the simplest of concepts correctly instead of removing any doubt what a bunch of brain dead robots you are parroting the idiot talking points you've been gullibly fed.

sear said:
- Does the United States of America bear a global leadership burden that Botswana, Paraguay, or Tajikistan do not?
Click to expand...

They are not even in the same league with us. DUH!

sear said:
- If so, what is that burden?

Political?

Military?

Moral?

Legal?

Social?
Click to expand...

All of the above; which we do in an exemplary way. Unless of course you listen to Liberal retards with an agenda, then they stupidly think we are no better than Botswana, Paraguay, or Tajikistan.

Moron.
 
NOVA said:
Politicians, ie. civilians, make the final decisions to what actions need to be taken ..... once it is determined what military action is to be taken and what the goals are, the military must be allowed to use their expertise to attain those goals....we should never have civilians playing armchair general or to give the troops orders on how to fight in the field while they sit in their offices in total safety.....LBJ tried that and failed....
Click to expand...

The military is allowed to attain the goals, but how they do it has to be approved, this isn't playing "armchair general," if the military presents a strong case for what they intend on doing, it is approved, that is how the system is suppose to operate. The military isn't some separate branch that specializes in fighting, it as an extension of the Government and needs that Government's approval to operate
 
archives said:
The military is allowed to attain the goals, but how they do it has to be approved, this isn't playing "armchair general," if the military presents a strong case for what they intend on doing, it is approved, that is how the system is suppose to operate. The military isn't some separate branch that specializes in fighting, it as an extension of the Government and needs that Government's approval to operate
Click to expand...

Thats the way its being done for the last eight years but it is not way it needs to be done.....The commander in the field needs to call the shots.....he alone knows exactly
what problems he will face and its HIS JOB to determine the best course of action to achieve his objective, he knows the rules....Obama rules of engagement has already costs lives....and its exactly why were bogged down in wars that go on for 10+ years......
But you believe what you must.....we'll agree to disagree.
The soldier knows the UCMJ and what the Geneva convention requires and its his ass and his men that are on the line.....

and that line, " The military isn't some separate branch that specializes in fighting" is about as dumb as I've ever heard.
 
archives said:
The military is allowed to attain the goals, but how they do it has to be approved, this isn't playing "armchair general," if the military presents a strong case for what they intend on doing, it is approved, that is how the system is suppose to operate. The military isn't some separate branch that specializes in fighting, it as an extension of the Government and needs that Government's approval to operate
Click to expand...
No again. If you think the President is the armchair general in some video game scenario your wrong as hell. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Sec of Defense et al aren't there just for window dressing. Your saying every move the military makes has to be approved by the President and it surely doesnt work that way. You're in lalalala land now.
 
forget this neocon notion of spreading democracy by force. Democracy is a nice concept, but it's not required by foreign gov'ts
to deal with us. It's not our business if SA is a kingdom, or Russia run by an autocrat.

What is our business is advancing US interests -so called realpolitik. It'swhat every nation eventually uses on foreign policy.
We cn certainly ally with other counrties for common goals/security arangements, but the bottom line is foreign policy must advance US interests
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top