On more careful reading, Kagan's article seems to be a little bit hollow. Besides some simplistic statements already pointed out, his basic assertion -- when (military) power exists it has to be manifest -- is only supported by some favorable examples and by what he calls psychology of power.
In fact, those examples refer to a first stage -- establishing a new order. Of course, one can find a lot of counter examples of a second stage, when the one who possesses military power tries to calm things down, secure the loot, and send people back to work. On the other hand, there are examples of the military weak who find a situation unacceptable and wage war without any regard for the odds or diplomacy or psychology of weakness.
The author's conclusion that America can sustain the military action by herself indefinitely, which is backed by some economic figures, is also simplistic; it does not take into account the fact that America does not make that money in isolation. In fact, Americas economic interests are geographically overstretched, and many things will probably go wrong with countries directly or indirectly affected by her military action.
I could offer a different hypothesis supporting the assertion that military power has to be manifest. It is also simplistic, but more reasonable: Military power is based on maintaining a weapons industry, which has lobbied and cut a deal for an annual purchase of bombs.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26167>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT