Five Ways to Reduce the Foreign Terrorist Threat to the United States

1. Five Ways to Reduce the Foreign Terrorist Threat to the United State 

Mohan R. Limaye

(Written in the year 2002-03)

 

Summary

Nobody or no amount of money can guarantee total security.  If the United States, however, implements the following five courses of action, it will in my judgment reduce its external terrorist threat to a large extent:

1. Pursue genuine attempts to promote democracy in those areas of the world where presently authoritarian or dictatorial regimes rule.

2.      Be a good, well-behaved citizen of the world community of nations.

3. Call its troops home from abroad.  In other words, close down its military bases on foreign soil.
4. Serve as a model of human rights protection for other nations by protecting human rights here at home.

5.      Share its wealth with the poorest nations of the world, just because it has more.

Introduction

I write this essay to provide a largely non-American viewpoint, one educated Third-World perspective on this topic.  I’m a naturalized U.S. citizen, who spent his early youth in India and has by now spent over 37 years in the U.S.  This opinion piece, like an op-ed page, could serve as a springboard for discussion not only at an institution of higher education but at other forums as well.  Since this is not a scholarly paper, every statement is not supported by empirical evidence, nor is there a bibliography at the end as academic papers do.

Though the envy and love-hate syndrome of the world for the successes and wealth of the United States explain to a certain extent the resentment toward it felt by the people and governments of some countries, that is not the whole story.  Thinking that this envy wholly accounts for the 9-11-2001 terrorist attack will lead to delusion or complacency and hence a lack of incentive to reform or revisit the U.S. foreign policy.  That is why I’m not emphasizing the envy factor in my analysis below.

Another caveat needs to be mentioned at the outset of this paper: I’m using the term U.S. to stand for the government of the United States.  I’m occasionally employing the term “Americans” almost interchangeably with American administrations, thus blurring the distinction between a people and their government.  I’m, however, aware of the distinction and of the fact that a nation’s government, even in a democracy, does not necessarily reflect the opinions of most of its people.

After the harrowing event of 9-11-2001, the United States has understandably been preoccupied with both the immediate and the long-term threats to its security.  Presently, U.S. government agencies are taking measures of the kind that any competent and watchful law enforcement departments anywhere would take for protection from short-term dangers.  But the long-term threat will not diminish just through “police” or “intelligence/detective” measures, through even the innovative measures taken by the FBI and the CIA.  I believe that strategic policy actions are necessary for any sizable reduction in the long-term threat to the U.S. from foreign terrorists.  I, therefore, suggest that the United States implement the five above-mentioned courses of action to meet its objective of security-risk reduction. 

[1] Pursue genuine attempts to promote democracy in those areas of the world where presently authoritarian or dictatorial regimes rule.

Though the U.S. is the first modern democracy born out of a revolution, it has lacked fervor to spread democracy elsewhere.  On the whole, it was cool toward the independence struggles of the former colonies of the imperial West.  At best, it has exhibited a policy of benign neglect.  India, for instance, gained its freedom from the British and became a democracy without U.S. intervention.  In fact, the U.S. sided with the French in Indochina (today’s Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam), the Dutch in Indonesia, and the British in East Africa ( today’s Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania) when the people in those countries were fighting to gain their independence.  In WWI and WWII, one could argue America was fighting to save, not democracy, but the colonial rulers like the British, French, Dutch, etc., who were trying to hold on to their empires.  In fact, a third-world perspective can interpret both the world wars as a struggle between the well established empires of the time, on the one hand, and the aspiring or would-be empires, on the other.  In recent times, during the Cold War, the U.S. became addicted to propping up dictators as long as they were perceived to be anti-communist.  Most of the leaders (even though democratically elected) that the U.S. saw as left-leaning were eliminated (Examples:  A CIA-backed coup dissolved the last fairly elected parliament of Syria in 1949.  There is also considerable evidence that Iran’s Mussadegh in 1953 and Chile’s Allende in 1973 were assassinated with covert help from the CIA).  The U.S. however supported right-wing dictators even when they were hated by the populace:  the Shah of Iran, Marcos of the Philippines, and Suharto of Indonesia come to mind.

The United States needs to stop supporting such autocratic leaders if it wants to be universally perceived as the “leader of the free world.”  Some short sighted U.S. leaders encouraged Iraq’s Saddam Hussein (during the Iran-Iraq war) and created the Taliban with active support from Pakistan under the excuse of creating a force to fight against the Soviet Union in the 1980s.  Little did they see that they were creating a “fundamentalist” monster that would bite the moderate world.  The lesson to be drawn from these activities is that purity of means cannot be sacrificed even for laudable ends (Incidentally, Mahatma Gandhi insisted on the purity of means as well as ends).  We treat Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two authoritarian regimes that have been breeding grounds for terrorism, as our friends and clients.  By supporting such regimes, the U.S. makes enemies of those around the globe who are repressed seemingly with its blessings.  If the U.S. is going to intervene in foreign countries at all (which, by the way, I do not approve of), it should be done for just and ethical causes, not for greed, to ensure cheap oil supply, or to support U.S. multinational corporations’ interests abroad.  The world is thus dismayed when it sees, on the one hand, the U.S. supporting various despots while preaching democracy, on the other.

Thomas L. Friedman,  a New York Times political commentator, in an article “Where Freedom Reigns”  (August 14, 2002) emphasizes his point that, in a democracy like India, Moslems have not resorted to violence because they have legitimate ways open to voice their grievances and get them resolved.  He, therefore, asserts that “the U.S. is so wrong not to press for democratization in the Arab and Muslim worlds.  Is it an accident that India has the largest Muslim minority in the world, with plenty of economic grievances, yet not a single Indian Muslim was found in Al Queda?” 

One wonders whether the U.S. deems it safer to have despots around that it can control and bribe than take chances with democracies (as in India, Western Europe and, recently, in Indonesia and Latin America) that it may not be able to predict and control. Like other nations, the U.S. seeks stability and peace because they are good for business and general prosperity.  Though many methods (for instance, bribery and force) exist to achieve these goals, the U.S. may find that promoting genuine democracy will in the long term prove to be a more effective method to ensure lasting peace and security worldwide.  That said, I do not believe though that democracy can be gifted; it has to be won by the people themselves through their own struggle for it.

[2] Be a good, well -behaved citizen of the world community of nations.

What being a well-behaved citizen of the world entails for the United States is (a) not to be unilateral in its actions and decisions toward other countries but respect the wishes of the world as reflected in the United Nations and (b) not use that world body only when it serves the U.S. will.  Several examples of the U.S. ignoring or rejecting world opinion can be cited:  the Kyoto (Japan) accord on global warming, the issue of reparation for slavery which came up at the U.N. conference on racism and various other forms of discrimination, threats by the United States to stop or reduce payment of its dues to the United Nations, labeling nations at odds with its positions as evil or irresponsible, turning a blind eye to the tribal atrocities in Africa, and demanding exemption for its military officers from the jurisdiction of a currently-planned International War Crimes Court.  These behaviors seem like the symptoms of a “hyper” power.

Some Americans ask, “Why is the U.S. measured by a higher standard than the rest of the world?”  The answer invariably is: Because the U.S. sets itself up as God, judging and rewarding or punishing other countries based solely on its verdict, nations all over the world expect the U.S. to be like the unerring God and evaluate its actions in that light with standards higher than they would judge themselves by.  If American belief in its exceptionalism makes the U.S. claim to be the greatest country on earth, a New Jerusalem, its intentions and behaviors are bound to invite exceptional criteria and high moral standards.

 Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the U.S. has forgotten a modest stance necessary for a learner.  It seems to give the impression that the world has nothing to teach it.  Most U.S. media and a large number of American people have a very low tolerance for criticism.  The Bush administration, in particular, seems to prefer a monologue.  It would rather not hear what the rest of the world has to say.  It is this arrogant attitude that often invites negative feelings toward the United States (Pew Attitude Survey of June 2002).

Some more indications of what the rest of the world thinks about U.S. unilateralism and imperial attitudes became apparent in 2001 when the United States was not offered a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission.  Also, the political parties that protested against the U.S. approach to the Iraq issue gained more seats in Germany’s national assembly in the recent (October 2002) German elections.  To me, the current U.S. positions and actions are helping radicalize even those elements in the world that have been traditionally moderate.  The U.S. is looking for an enemy without, while in fact the enemy is within—U.S. imperial attitudes and arrogance of wealth and power.  Even though American imperial ambitions today aren’t territorial, they still bring up fear and animosity in many parts of the world. 

[3] Call its troops home from abroad.  In other words, close down its military bases on foreign soil.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has favored a uni-polar world with itself as its military, economic, and cultural center.  Its policy discourages any potential single power from emerging in Asia or Europe; it attempts to nip in the bud any threat to its status as the sole super power.  Toward this goal, the United States keeps a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and does not itself pass the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), though it pressures other nations to sign the CTBT as well as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  The U.S. defense budget, moreover, is 40% of the entire world’s budget for defense.  The U.S. has been spending (since the presidency of Ronald Reagan) around $300 billion a year on its defense.  Its defense budget is more than the total of 15 next-on-the-list nations’ defense budgets.  The U.S. hawks would however maintain that, to police the world and punish the axis of evil, even higher allocations of funds are necessary.  War strategists have suggested that maintaining U.S. military presence all over the world is one way to keep at arm’s length America’s potential enemies and even to eliminate them before they have a chance to enter the United States.  Thus enter the doctrines of preventive and preemptive wars.

That’s why the U.S. maintains military bases almost on all continents.  But now that the Soviet Union is no more, some countries resent the presence of U.S. troops in their midst as an affront to their sovereignty.  Even though the governments of some nations may not protest the U.S. military presence in their midst very vigorously because of the economic benefits accrued, the citizens in many of these countries are often not happy about the client-state position their countries have to endure.  Witness the loud protests staged by South Koreans in January 2003 against the U.S. military presence in the demilitarized zone.  Similarly, many even moderate Middle Eastern Arabs (according to three surveys recently conducted by Al Jazeera, a Middle Eastern television channel), are in favor of the removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia.  The Philippines, for instance, had the U.S.- maintained Clark and Subic Bay bases removed from their country, but many bases elsewhere (in Okinawa, Japan, for example) are resented not just because they are inadequately monitored or policed but also because they serve as reminders of America’s imperial role in the world.  In my judgment, closing down these bases and bringing our men and women home will go a long way toward calming foreigners’ nerves and reducing the terrorist potential which feeds on such resentment.  Let other nations be left to protect their own sovereignty.  Closing down American bases abroad may appear to some Americans to weaken or jeopardize the U.S. position in the world.  However, paradoxically, in my judgment, it will strengthen U.S. security through the removal of this irritant “colonial” symbol from around the world, now that the Soviet Union, the other empire, no longer exists.  I’d suggest that the U.S. deploy its military power only at the request of the United Nations.  The five nations’ (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the U.S.) veto monopoly in the UN Security Council would, however, continue to jar with the sensibilities of other weaker nations.  

4] Serve as a model of human rights protection for other nations by protecting human rights here at home.

Outright killing or incarceration of hundreds of people during peacetime is not the only kind of violation of human rights.  There are also other subtler but very demeaning forms of human rights violations.  Dictatorships can be accused of the more obvious crimes against human rights, such as gassing its citizens, sudden and unexplained disappearance of dissenters, and long jail sentences without fair trials.  But the U.S., a civilized democracy, can be rightfully accused of several violations of human rights of the insidious kind not only in its past but right now.  The real issue is how you define “human rights.”  The outrageous acts, like the ones mentioned above, are classified universally as the most abhorrent kinds of human rights violations.  But I propose that the situations of the types listed below should also be labeled as human rights violations in a wealthy democracy like that of the United States: lack of healthcare insurance for over 40 million Americans, mismanagement and non accounting of $100 billion worth of trust funds held on behalf of native Americans for which the Secretary of the Interior has been chastised by a federal judge, and millions of people in despair induced by poverty, drugs, and resource-starved inner city schools.  In America we value the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  But how can there be a right to life when health care is denied to many millions of citizens?  Similarly, how can there be freedom or liberty for a large number of people when they have no money to exercise any choice?  And how can the very poor in America pursue happiness when happiness is tied to material possessions?  

As an example of my broadened definition of human rights, let me cite another case: Thousands of American missionaries have been targeting the poor of the world (through bribery and covert coercion) who do not have the means to resist attempts at conversion directed toward them.  Exploiting people’s poverty for conversion purposes through helping them “monetarily” and thus putting them under obligation is, in my estimation, one of the most disgusting forms of human rights violation.  Evangelical churches and their congregations in the United States in the meanwhile are congratulating themselves for a (noble!) job well done.  These conversions are taking place not because of the superiority of the (Christian or, for that matter, Islamic) dogma and philosophy but because these missionaries are armed with wealth to distribute to the needy, mainly in the Third World.  What’s even more revolting to me is how the new converts are surreptitiously encouraged to transfer their loyalties from their country of origin or birth to the country of the donors.  As a native of India, I have a direct experience of watching Christianized tribes in Northeast India clamoring for secession from India and for sovereign nationhood.  The U.S. must share the blame along with the other nations from where the proselytizers come.  Delinking the material help these missionaries provide from their zeal for and attempts at conversion will soothe many people around the world who are incensed by such unfair conversion attempts.   

Finally, the statistics of one young black male out of every four being currently incarcerated in U.S. jails is not flattering to the United States’ record on human rights.  In 2001 the Associated Press released a report under the caption “Black voters’ ballots invalidated more often.”  The story referred to an analysis which concluded that “black voters disproportionately are denied their votes in elections, either by accident or design” (The Idaho Statesman, April 6, 2001).  I suppose that the irregularities in the U.S. general (Presidential) elections of 2000 may have prompted the study.

[5] Share its wealth with the poorest nations of the world, just because it has more.

Though the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9-11-2001 did not come from the poor nations of the earth, the benign neglect demonstrated by the U.S. toward the poor of this earth does neither induce warm nor positive feelings for the United States.  Poverty has often led to radicalism, which in turn can lead to terrorism.  It’s therefore in the interest of the United States to empower the people of the developing world by pumping productive resources there.  Of course, monitoring where the resources go ought to be an integral part of this aid.  More hope for the poorest of this earth through wealth creation and its equitable distribution means less attraction for them to join terrorist organizations. It is fashionable in the U.S. to blame socialist policies, corrupt officials, red tape, and greedy dictatorships for the poverty of the Third World countries.  Very rarely, however, is it admitted that the very scant allocations of resources by the rich countries for the poor is the main reason why the poor have remained poor.  The wealthy will always say that you can’t solve problems by throwing money at them.  The poor, however, never say such things. They will gladly trade places with the rich. The world problem is, in fact, merely a macrocosm of the inequitable distribution of wealth within the United States itself.

It is unfortunate that the wealthiest nation in the world should act in such an insensitive and stingy manner.  Since Reagan’s presidency, the generous spirit of (post- WWII) Marshal Plan is dead in the United States.  Of all the industrialized advanced nations of the world, the U.S. gives out the least foreign aid (excluding military aid) in terms of the percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP).  Education, nutrition, freedom from disease, and infrastructure are the dire needs of the Third World today; and the United States, along with the other wealthy nations of the world, has the ability to remedy these wants, if it finds the will or readiness to part with only a small fraction of its GDP to leverage it for the enrichment of the lives of millions of people in the poorest regions of the world.

An ironic part of this issue of poverty alleviation is that many Americans call themselves Christian.  The hypocrisy and contradiction of this claim would be palpable or evident for anybody who interprets a “Christian” as someone who believes in Christ (as the Savior) and is committed to following in his path.  It seems like a large number of Americans follow “Christianity without Christ.” Almost everything Christ said and did (as the Bible tells us) was against greed and accumulation of wealth and for helping those in need.  The parable of the Prodigal Son, Christ’s reference to a camel more easily passing through the eye of a needle than a rich man being allowed to enter the kingdom of God, or the story of his turning water into wine (just enough for the guests, not for hoarding until the price of wine went up), etc. provide some evidence for my belief that capitalist America is really anti-Christ.  Jesus’ sayings and deeds are inconvenient for those who would rather hold on to their wealth and “domesticate” Christ than try to achieve equity along with growth. 
            I also need to expand upon the latter part of my fifth course of action, “Share its wealth … just because it has more.”   I say “just because it (the United States) has more” carefully and with deliberation for it lays to rest or circumvents the arguments of many neo-classical economists.  They often say that America’s wealth is not at the expense of other nations, that the poor deserve to be poor because of their “lack of character,” or there will always be poor people (and poor countries), or the poor will squander the money, or inequitable wealth-distribution is, in fact, good (for whomever!).

Conclusion

I believe that these measures, separately and together, will result in a noticeable reduction of terrorism directed at the United States.  The first measure, promoting democracy, will give people a voice.  They will also have no reason to blame the U.S. for supporting and protecting unpopular dictators.  The second measure, acting like a good citizen among nations, will reduce the resentment felt for the bully as well as the consequent desire to retaliate.  The third action, calling troops home, will allow America not to be perceived as an empire.  The fourth American action, serving as a model for human rights, will create admiration for the U.S.  And the fifth action, sharing wealth, will let the world see the United States as following in the path of Christ, not as a worshiper of Mammon, the god of wealth. 

Though I’m an optimist, I do not see much chance for positive change in the foreign policy of the United States.  There are two reasons for my doubts: First, as long as the U.S. government and a majority of citizens see the cause of terrorism purely external, they will be only concentrating on violent means and the instruments of war directed outwardly against the world.  There will be little movement toward changing U.S. policies.  Second, the three most significant national institutions that need to be introspective and self-evaluative – the school, the church and the media – have not, in my judgment, seen the need to change.  For example, American churches (more or less) toe the line of the wealthy few, instead of condemning rampant greed and capitalism run amok.  The school teaches whitewashed or airbrushed American history and strives to produce hyper-patriotic and occupationally trained citizenry rather than encouraging independent thinking and fearless inquiry among them – which is what education is all about.  The media, with a few exceptions, follow submissively the lead of the U.S. government and the so-called think tanks in matters of foreign policy rather than questioning the unexamined assumptions and conflicts of interest behind that policy. 

A question may arise at this point: What can average American citizens do to improve the situation?  For one thing, they can elect candidates to the national legislature and the presidency who believe in the program of action I’m suggesting in this essay.  For the second, they could keep questioning the motives of those who are pursuing the present shortsighted imperialistic policies.  For the third, they should write to their legislators and to the media to express their dissatisfaction with the status quo and demand positive change.  For the fourth, they could organize meetings, marches, and debates to awaken public conscience and awareness about the fact that the interests of a few are jeopardizing the wellness and security of a whole nation.

To my knowledge, very few American public figures – thinkers, opinion shapers, or political leaders – have recommended such a far-reaching and comprehensive program of action as I recommend here to reduce the post 9-11-2001 security problem of the United States.  No amount of money or no weaponry can buy total security for any nation.  I am, however, convinced that the measures I suggest here will go a long way toward making the United States more safe and secure than it has felt since that tragic and gruesome event.  In the bargain, the U.S. will also create and enhance a positive and endearing image for itself around the world.

The author acknowledges with gratitude the various suggestions made by Professors Jerry LaCava and Peter Lichtenstein, and my students (who choose to remain anonymous) at Boise State University, and Professor Gerald J. Alred of the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. 

Mohan R. Limaye (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee), a Fulbright scholar from India, will retire from Boise State University in January 2003.  He has taught, researched, and published in the areas of intercultural business communication, workforce diversity, democracy, and global business.

Why has the United States not won a major war since 1945?

Why has the United States not won a major war since 1945?

Mohan R. Limaye

Professor Emeritus

Boise State University

Boise, ID

A few weeks ago (early in May 2014), I posed the above question to my friends and relatives soliciting their answers.

I tend to concur more with responses E, H and L than with the others.

Here is a compilation of all the responses I have received so far:

A. If I were to receive a paper for review based on this premise, I would reject it immediately on the grounds that the underlying assumption is fundamentally flawed: The US did not win the second world war. Both the first and second world wars were won by the allies, not by the United States. This in turn suggests a counter premise that the United States has not won any war since the Civil War against the Confederate States.

This leads me to respond to the spirit of your question with one potential answer: The United States was on the winning side in military activities in the first half of the 20th century as it teamed up with other contemporary (major) military powers.

Remark: have the partners of the US in the military engagements since 1945 had the same strength as the allies in the first / second world war? Might be a good exercise for a military historian. This leads to a further idea: will the US only ever win if it is on the same side as Russia...?

B. First, drawing from my early pacifist roots, I might suggest that a war is never "won" outright. I think good arguments could be raised that the Civil War, WWI, and WWII ended merely with one combatant accepting the surrender of others. But the damage to the U.S. society in each case was profound.

Second, the "wars" (or maybe "conflicts") since 1945 were not fought to be won outright. If they were fought without reservations, modern weapons would have ended the conflicts very quickly. They were fought for position in the global political environment.

C. One thing that comes to mind is: All wars after WW-II were most unpopular among the US populace.

D. We, the US, has fought its "wars" or limited conflicts since Korea without engaging its full force for fear of extreme retaliation.  No big bombs since WWII.  The fear was that China would come to the aid of Korea and Vietnam more so than it already did in both conflicts.  In the mideast both Irag wars and in Afghanistan, the U.S. went in with force, but the insurgents --Taliban- hide out like the Vietcong did in Vietnam and it is impossible to tell the enemy from the friendly troops.  The U.S. pulled out of all these conflicts without destroying the enemy and bringing them to their knees.  The enemy was / is like Medusa and killing one seems to spout a dozen more.   Which tells us that the  U.S. has not won the hearts and minds of  the land.  The natives do not see an outcome better with  the U.S. than with the home troops.  Another reason is that the3 conflicts have been entered into by the U.S. without a clear consensus from the U.S. citizens for  funding the war, for providing solders, and for  sacrificing to win the conflict at all costs.  In short, there is no superordinate goal to rally the country around.  Truman kept McArthur out of North Korea and didn't want a conflict with China.  Johnson couldn't figure out why we were in Vietnam.  Bush fabricated stories about the necessity of  going into Irag.  The U.S. won in Afghanistan with the killing of Bin Ladan, but that produced dozens of successors.

E. I would say that war is a complex exercise, made even more complex by guerrilla warfare tactics as employed in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  It's hard to defeat an opponent with the willpower to endure destruction and casualties in the defense of one's home.

F. Here are a few more thoughts:

1. The US successfully carried out the Bosnia mission. This was a small bore (Boer?) war but the region was in the Russian orbit and the US did not back down. There were also a few 'police actions' in the immediate vicinity of the US.

2. The main reason why no large scale wars like the WW II happen is because of  the possession of nuclear arms by major powers. It is ironic that the most feared weapon  has become a deterrent of big wars. The WW II was the main reason why nuclear research got the funding, yet the same 'hot' weapon produced the 'cold' war! One more example of the cooling effect of these weapons is seen in the India-Pakistan relations.

3. I think that the existence of the UN also plays a big part. Bush had to go (and lie) to the General Assembly to go into Iraq. There are frequent cries of 'bomb, bomb Iran' from the hawkish politicians in the US but no administration has dared to do this for fear of global repercussions and condemnation.  

4. Another paradox that someone mentions is how the arms industry helps to tamp down larger conflicts. Clearly, the industry produces arms not for actual warfare but for making money by selling arms to both of the combatants (so that there is no war)! 

G. It is strictly not true that the US hasn't won any wars since '45, but ...

1. There have been no nation-threatening wars (for the US, at least).
2. The definition of what is a war has changed, has become fuzzy.
3. The nature of war has changed.
4. People are far more informed and engage intensely with their govts. The public's appetite for war has waned, in spite of the Govt having Hollywood and the Mainstream Media mostly on its side.
5. The smallest of adversaries is now well armed with devastating weapons and is able to prosecute asymmetrical warfare effectively.
6. War can be, and is, waged in a variety of different ways, some of which are far more effective that the traditional confrontational methods. Economic, electronic and informational warfare are in vogue.
7. Nations and peoples are far more interconnected and interdependent, thus potential wars are often 'headed off at the pass'.
8. Many, long-term, globally-dispersed, low-intensity conflicts, along with constantly stoking insecurity is far more profitable for the arms industry than a few, massive, devastating wars. Let's face it--today's wars are dictated by the arms industry, not by governments or peoples.

H. If I have to give only ONE reason, I’d say that the spirit of nationalism (newly acquired and – ironically – learned from Western nations like us) in the recently independent countries has made it difficult for the U. S. to win outright any wars it fought there since 1945, for instance, in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.  In Grenada, we did win.  However, no young Americans, my compatriots, even remember Grenada, let alone find it on the map.  No honest American can claim we won in Iraq and Afghanistan.  A fiery emotion like patriotism is hard to beat.

I. That the US did not win is false.  The US "won" in Iraq-1, Iraq-2 (killed the head), Afghanistan-1, Granada.  The only one they "lost" was Vietnam.

What quantitative measure(s) to use for "win" or "loss" is debatable, but counting the ratio of net devastation (to lives, property, etc) to the two sides, the US has never lost a war so far (except its civil war) - even Vietnam was devastated far more than the US.

J. How about the big win - the cold war?

K. The US over the last 60 years or so has lost its moorings, its sense of purpose and cohesion.  Too much disharmony, too much “me-ness”, and too divergent viewpoints have made any serious war-undertaking impossible.  That was not the case when we launched the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, WWI and WWII.

L. Some of your American friends, Mohan-Rao, who may not know Indian history, will find this parallel from our history rather interesting and instructive.  A mighty Mughal/Moslem emperor (whose empire then stretched from today’s Afghanistan to South-Central India) descended from Northern India into Western India around the latter decades of the 17^th century to crush a newly founded Maratha kingdom (a rebellious act in the eyes of the emperor).  He had huge resources at his command – soldiers, weapons and other materials, many times what the Marathas could muster.  Aurangzeb, the emperor, stayed and fought in the Deccan/South-West India for over 25 years.  Finally, he died there; his son -- exhausted and discouraged – gave up the campaign and left for the North.

This tells us why the US has not won any wars since 1945.

M. This article may be of relevance:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/03/28/the_evolution_of_territorial_conflict_a_new_paper_argues_that_there_s_a.html

Generally speaking, when opponents enter into conflicts—whether birds fighting over a nesting site or states going to war over a border dispute—the actor that previously occupied the territory has an advantage. 

“If somebody’s a resident, they seem to fight harder. They’re much more apt to be aggressive,” Duffy-Toft says. “As residents, they know the feel of it and the smell and where to find food, but if they come to the conclusion that they don’t have the capacity to defend that territory, they will abandon it.”

Two Faces of Democracy

Two Faces of Democracy

   

There is a strong impetus today to export democracy, but democracy assumes the shape of the country in which it arises. In this course, we will analyze and compare the world’s first modern democracy (the U.S. with its presidential form) and the world’s largest democratic nation (India with its parliamentary form). The course will focus on how democracy operates in the U.S. and India, demonstrating that democracy in both nations is not a finished product but a continuing process toward improvement. We will explore several dimensions and measures of democracy, such as vibrancy, voter turnouts, civil liberties, and degree of demographic representation in legislatures.

Course Leaders: Dr. Mohan R. Limaye, a Fulbright scholar from India, is an Emeritus Professor in the College of Business at Boise State University. He has published about and taught courses in international business and in diplomatic relations. Because his older brother was a member of India’s parliament for many years, Dr. Limaye was exposed to his nation’s political debates as a teenager.

Dr. Ross E. Burkhart, Associate Professor of Political Science, is Chair of the Department of Political Science at Boise State University. His teaching specialties are in international relations, comparative politics, and research methodology; and his research on cross-national patterns of democracy has appeared in prestigious political science journals.

Some Propositions regarding the United States

1. Ten Observations regarding the United States
   June 2014
   Mohan R. Limaye
   Professor Emeritus
   Boise State University
   
   
   The following propositions/observations of mine are likely to offend some of my readers.  However, you will agree that education is about challenging and being challenged.  Refutation, condemnation, agreement, corroboration – any of these responses are welcome as long as you give reasons and evidence for your reactions:
   
   
   1.     It is a common assumption (and I have been hearing this for a long time) that the U.S. won the Cold War.  If I were a perceptive Russian born and brought up in the “core” of Russia, I would respond, “Forget about the implosion of the Soviet Union.  We {Russia} won the Cold War.  We successfully averted (potential) nuclear attacks from the United States during all those decades.”
   2.     In my view, those Americans who incessantly talk about freedom are the ones who least understand what freedom really is.  These are, for instance, the NRA (National Rifle Association), Tea Party people, and Libertarians.  As I understand the concept of freedom and its practice, there have been only three people in human history who understood and lived a life of “freedom”: The Buddha, Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi.  Sorry, none of them was an American.  As one of my friends puts it, they all had one common characteristic: voluntary acceptance of poverty.  They were persons of zero assets, people with no property.  This does not mean that all beggars are “free”.
   3.     The US imperialist or expansionist and racist tendencies were visible, quite palpable, from way before the U.S. became an independent nation -- in fact, from the time of the first permanent English settlement at Jamestown in 1607.  Certainly, from 1776, some of the Founding Fathers like Jefferson had their covetous eye on the Caribbean islands.
   4.     Talking about the Founding Fathers, I believe that, if we want any progress in this country, we need to stop deifying America’s Founding Fathers.  Raising any questions regarding this veneration is denounced as blasphemous and unpatriotic. In my judgment, we need to move away from the notion of the infallibility of the Founding Fathers.
   5.     The institution, called the US Supreme Court, needs to be abolished.  At best, it is redundant and, at worst, it is obstructive.  The Parliament or any elected body is perfectly capable of deciding on constitutional matters.  The advantage of such an arrangement is that, in democracies, such bodies are accountable to the people, unlike the Supreme Court. 
   6. The challenge for all societies has always been to strike a happy balance, to create a harmonious marriage, between the uniquely capitalistic characteristics of innovation and individual incentive, on the one hand, and the intrinsically socialistic or humanitarian impulse toward equity and compassion, on the other.  Most people may agree that political equality does not have much meaning in the face of economic inequality.
   7. From my standpoint, WWII was a war fought between those who had empires and those who longed for empires.  The British, the French, the Dutch and the Americans (the Allies) already had empires that they wanted to guard jealously, while the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese (the Axis powers) desired to expand their possessions.  Meanwhile, neither of these two parties to the War gave a damn for the colonized, exploited subjects in these empires.
   8. Though the U.S. adores Winston Churchill, I do not admire him at all because he was a hypocrite: Sitting on an empire and talking about noble things like going to war to protect democracy!  Here was a man who did not walk the talk.  And I’m not even mentioning his racism and his cavalier neglect, which resulted in the death of several million Bengalis/Indians of starvation.   
   9. A substantial number of Americans call themselves Christian.  However, in my view, they practice “Christianity without Christ.”  If they really followed the path of Christ, this nation would be overwhelmingly a socialist country, not a plutocracy.  The reality is that this republic is for the rich, by the rich, and of the rich. 
   10 I hope that the U.S. has learned a valuable lesson from its Vietnam War: Once a people find their “identity” and are willing to sacrifice their lives to preserve it, even countries far superior to them (in brute strength and resources) cannot prevail against them.    

The Syllabus of Mohan Limaye's Course on United States Foreign Policy

Fall 2012

Ideological Roots of U.S. Foreign Policy

POLS/History 497

Saturdays: 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

INSTRUCTOR:  Mohan R. Limaye, Ph.D.

                              Professor Emeritus

                             Boise State University

NO TEXTBOOOK

INTRODUCTION:  

You will agree that, in the post 9-11-2001 world, it makes sense to take a fresh look at the United States foreign policy (USFP), to track where we were and where we are now in terms of our international relations.  We will also address a possible reshaping of America into an ethically sound nation, “friendly” to itself in the long run.

Some of the readings and student assignments in this course may appear on the surface not closely connected with the theme of our course.  But I’m going to leave it to the student to realize the connections and linkages, discover differences and similarities in the themes or topics of the books recommended for the Book Report, and build his or her own understanding of US foreign policy through the readings, class discussions, and the assignments.  The ambiance of the classroom and the structure of the course will be relaxed and flexible, and hence should be conducive to student participation.   

SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS COURSE

§                     We will explore various influences on the shaping of the USFP:

As a class, we shall delve into the “psyche” of America, into the cultural, political, and sociological ideals and “myths” that have shaped the United States.  We shall explore the various ideologies that have guided America in its foreign policy pursuit.  Preferably and ideally, our search will yield one American dominant belief, one over-riding value, one constant preoccupation that has driven USFP.

§                     We shall critically evaluate today’s domestic or internal forces:

We shall explore to what extent the foreign policy of a nation is a reflection of its domestic workings.  We shall study the structural influences on USFP (for example, the Constitutional provision for the President to be the Commander in Chief).  I argue that there is a strong correlation between a country’s domestic policy/philosophy and its international relations.  Our treatment of other nations mirrors our care or neglect of our own people.  In this context, we shall also examine the nexus among industry, military, and government.  Another topic for investigation would be in what ways special interest groups and large corporations exercise a great deal of influence on all three branches of the U.S. government.     

§                     This course will be taught as a seminar:

The class will be loosely organized.  It will depend heavily on student participation and student-teacher interaction.  Attending class regularly and being prepared for discussions are crucial to any seminar experience.  Total freedom of expression for the students will be a hallmark of the course.  What this characteristic of the course also means is that lecturing will be minimal in the delivery of this course.  The main responsibility for learning, gathering information, and doing thorough research on various topics relevant to the course will rest with the students.  The students will write essays and research papers.    My role will be mainly to guide, coach, monitor, critique, and evaluate student effort.

§                     Teaching and learning are revolutionary activities:

I believe that teaching involves more than just giving information; it encourages radical (going to the roots) thinking and debate.  In my judgment, teaching and learning at the University challenge mainstream or accepted thinking.  University education should “decenter” a student.  Just imparting information or only building skills constitutes training, not education, and is the surest way of making oneself obsolete or outmoded.  University education should transform both the teacher and the taught.  I’d like the students not just to work hard but to work smart.  This is the position in critical pedagogy I believe in.

TWO ADDITIONAL EMPHASES IN THE COURSE

(1)   This course will provide plenty of opportunities for both the students and the instructor to learn from one another.  For one, the students being American (most of them born and brought up in the U.S.) will have different perspectives on USFP from the perspective the instructor has had being raised in India.  He has inevitably different perceptions of America, even though he has lived in the US for over 45 years and even though his graduate education occurred here, both the Master’s and his Ph.D. 

(2)   Secondly, the book summary assignment will allow several opportunities for all of us to be better informed than any of us could hope to be, if left to our own individual resources.  Oral presentations of the books (in addition to the written reports), allowing Q-A periods, will be one more mode of reinforcing and deepening peer learning.

                  

SOME POSSIBLE/POTENTIAL PROPOSITIONS (Students can choose any one from the following for their paper):

1. The most significant driver of USFP is American Exceptionalism, the historical legacy inherited from Americans’ belief that they are uniquely suited to fight evil (as Superman or Spiderman does).  Blessed by God, Americans think that they have to take over the mantle of world guardianship.
2. Even though it is said that “America’s business is business,” other European imperial powers such as Spain, France, Netherlands, Britain were no different from the U.S. in that they all were seeking assured markets for their commercial activity and economic gain.  One can still maintain that American global businesses serve as instruments or vehicles of USFP.  Big business plays the role of a willing cheerleader or partner of U.S. government, when not playing the instigator of USFP.
3.  NATO should have been disbanded right after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Since it was an alliance formed mainly to defend against aggressive Soviet intentions, it has no raison d’etre (no reason for existence) any more.  It militates against the other supra/international body, the United Nations, by intervening in conflicts outside its geographic sphere.  In fact, it undercuts the authority of the UN.
4. American hyper-patriotism explains USFP: The United States does no wrong.  It is always there to defend liberty and democracy.  “We don’t conquer; we liberate.” 
5. “Your enemy’s enemy is your friend”; that seems to be the strategic foreign policy doctrine the U.S. believes in, even though its futility has been proven again and again.
6. Lack of empathy, inability to put oneself in the other’s shoe (total unawareness of other countries’ sensibilities) has been the hallmark of US international relations.  America’s ignoring of the golden rule, Do unto others what you’d have done to you, explains a good deal about America’s international relations.
7. One can reasonably argue that what characterizes USFP is the opposite/reverse of “He shall cast stones who has not sinned”.  The US often stands at the forefront of sinners ready to cast stones at others.                                                                                                                                            
8. Expansionism seems to be an enduring, abiding goal of the US.  Even the Founding Fathers had a covetous eye on other territories; for instance, Thomas Jefferson dreamed of acquiring some of the Caribbean islands for the new nation.  However, one can say that the Louisiana Purchase and the purchase of Alaska were “fair and square” deals.  France and the U.S. were willing seller and buyer, respectively.  So were Russians -- willing sellers.
9.  USFP and the American Dream are closely linked; they are interdependent.  One feeds on the other.
10.  The world expects the U.S. to run to the rescue of every nation that finds itself in trouble -- from civil wars, droughts, starvation, genocides, aggressions, all the way, to calamities like earthquakes, and tsunamis.   However, some countries then complain that the U.S. takes unilateral action when resolving international issues.  That is not fair; one cannot have it both ways.
11. Most Americans of all persuasions agree on the principal contour of USFP, leading to its continuity. Consequently, regardless of the party affiliation of the President and regardless of which party holds a majority in Congress, USFP changes little, with a few exceptions. 
12. It seems that Manifest Destiny, the idea that the U.S. has Providence guiding its course, is still a central belief, a driving force propelling USFP.
13. As a US Navy ad asserts, the United States is “a global force for good” on the world stage.  The United States tries its best to uphold, to ensure, “Pax Americana” by keeping rogue nations in check.
14. Our political leaders insist that the goal of USFP is to spread democracy, free trade, and a US-style form of government throughout the (some times quite an intractable, intransigent) “third-world” countries for their own good.
15. Washington seems to go back and forth from Realism to Idealism in its pursuit of USFP.
16. (Choose a country) views USFP this way (Make an assertion).  Elaborate on why that specific nation has this kind of perception of the United States and its foreign policy.
17. USFP is driven by the desire: a. To maintain America’s exceptional status in the world, b. To maintain its military strength superior to any other country’s, and c. To maintain a high level of prosperity.
18. Taking into account that there were massive protests in the United States during the Vietnam conflict, while hardly any during the Iraq war, makes one argue plausibly that whenever the military draft (conscription) is in operation U.S. citizens get actively involved in the conduct of the USFP.
19. (Numbers 19 and 20 are later insertions): Unofficial (though determined and continuous) support for religious conversion all over the world is an instrument of USFP.  These converts, and their later generations, become the “insurgents” or fifth columnists for U.S. causes upsetting the political and demographic stability or balance in their native countries.
20. When one compares the U.S. “empire” with other {Choose THREE} empires in documented human history, one notices some similarities {Name a couple} and some differences {Name two}.
21. American “benign” ventures on the world stage, cultural and developmental, such as the Fulbright or similar scholarships and the Peace Corps often serve as soft tools to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives.  Two examples of spectacular success are Steve Jobs and President Obama; both are sons of foreign students.
22. The spread of (Western-style) nationalism throughout the world in the last one hundred years or so, in place of tribal and royalist loyalties, has severely limited and constrained the efficacy of the hard/military power of U.S.-led coalitions in recent times.
23. The world today is neither bi-polar nor uni-polar.  The rise of regional powers has rendered it multi-polar.
24. American foreign policy is often guided by the subconscious premise, a given, that perpetual growth is the birthright of the United States and it is unpatriotic to question this assumption.
25. Covert action, targeted assassinations, and “outsourcing” of soldering to private mercenary outfits are three increasingly frequent strategies the U.S. government employs for the implementation of its foreign policy.   

POLICIES

(1)    Tardiness and absences are discouraged: Each unexcused absence will cost 20 points. Serious reasons and unavoidable circumstances are okay, but no “frivolous” excuses!

(2)    The presenter should make every effort to finish the oral report within the allotted time.

(3)    Oral presentation grades are non-negotiable.

(4)    The use of standard, “educated” English is required for all assignments.  (Please proofread carefully before submission).  Correct language is not just for “English” courses; it is for ALL communication.

(5)    Once oral presentation dates are set, students will be expected to stick to the schedule (They can, however, provide substitutes).

(6)    Late assignments one week tardy will be accepted with some penalty; assignments that are two weeks late will cost steeper penalties.  And assignments later than two weeks will not be accepted at all (which means they will get a zero).

EVALUATION OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE

The First Assignment: In-Class Essay (200 points) 

Due date: September 1, 2012

You will write an analytical essay (approximately 1,000 words) about your assessment of USFP, about how you evaluate it.  First, describe what it is, what its mission and goals have been, what are its successes and failures (weaknesses and strengths).  Be sure to create a thesis; think of an idea that in your judgment drives American behavior in the global arena. No external sources are needed or expected.  This is totally your creation.

My purpose in asking you to write this impromptu in-class essay is to get an idea of how you write – your “feel” for language (your style), how you develop a thesis or a core idea, and how you craft a coherently sustained piece of writing with supporting examples or evidence.

The Second Assignment: Book Summary and Critique (300 points for the written report and 100 points for the oral presentation: 400 total)

Due date for the written paper: To Be Announced

Each student selects a book from the list provided by me as a separate handout.  No book shall be chosen by more than one student.  The only exceptions are books longer than 400 pages.  The written book report should consist of two parts: (a) a summary and (b) a critical evaluation.  Please also demonstrate in what ways the theme and its treatment in the book deepen or contribute to your understanding of USFP.

The report (the two parts together) should be approximately 2,000 words, about 10 to 12 pages (typed double-spaced).

1. If you must go outside my list for some reason, select only scholarly books, published preferably after 2000.
2. You must also include your own, original critical evaluation of the book, not from amazon.com or other (external-to-you) sources.  The report must clearly demonstrate that you have read and reflected upon the book.
3. The report will be written, and presented in class orally.
4. An annotated bibliography of 10 articles related to the topic/thesis of the book should be attached.
5. A question-and-answer period will be an essential part of your oral presentation.

The student gives a hard copy of the report to the instructor and presents the book orally to the class.

The Third Assignment: Miscellaneous Research Project (200 points)

Due date: To Be Announced

Each student chooses one proposition out of those listed above.  You can take either a pro or a con position.  Preferably, I’d like all of them covered.  Once all of those are taken, you can go out of the list and create your own propositions. 

Find at least ten sources regarding the proposition you have chosen and ANNOTATE/EVALUATE them (your views).  My goal for this project is to find out the depth and the breadth of your research skills.  Your final product, an essay, with your annotations and your critical comments, together, should be about eight to ten pages, double-spaced.  The objective is that any body that has not read your sources/original articles should still be able to get the main points so that the reader of your paper will know the context in which to readily grasp your thesis and analysis AND what other scholars you cite have to say about the proposition you have chosen.  Please do not attach the articles or documents themselves, unless I ask for (some of) them.  Just provide an annotated bibliography. 

Oral presentations will follow.

The Fourth Assignment: Analysis and Reflection (200 points)

Due date : To Be Announced

The students should demonstrate in their essays their end-of-semester understanding of USFP.  They may want to self-consciously examine whether (and to what extent) their views of USFP have undergone a change due to their “exposure” to this semester of readings and class participation.

At least TEN annotated sources (that influenced your thinking the most) are expected.  Length of the essay: Approximately 2,000 words (No rigidity there; I don’t count words).  Let me see you there in your paper.

Notes:

My grade and evaluation of the oral portions of your assignments will take into account how competently and confidently you field questions from the audience.

Total freedom of expression for every student is guaranteed in this class.

A Prospectus/Preamble to Mohan Limaye's Course on The American Dream

Reimagining the United States: Reshaping the American Dream

A Course Prospectus or “Preamble”

(Drafted in 2009)

Mohan R. Limaye, Ph. D.

Most of us will agree that, over the years, the concept of the American Dream has had some positive results in terms of people’s dynamism and creativity leading to progress for the United States.  Over many decades, the American Dream has inspired those born here as well as those arriving here as immigrants to achieve for themselves and their children great material success.  For the immigrant, the idea of the American Dream may still evoke expressions such as “from rags to riches”, “from a log cabin to the White House” and “the sky is the limit.”

This course revolves around a proposition that, though the idea of the American Dream has had substance and merit, the concept needs urgent reshaping today.  The land of unlimited opportunity may be experiencing some dimming.  The ills troubling our nation today, from a severe economic downturn and environmental degradation to the ever more expensive healthcare, from the soaring public and private debt to the war of attrition in Afghanistan, all seem to me to be the consequences of the excesses of the American Dream. 

Varying interpretations of what the American Dream means have varying axiomatic bases.  However, in my judgment, the two most influential of the several premises the American Dream seems to be predicated on are of dubious validity: one, the earth’s resources are infinite and, two, the U.S. will always dominate the world.  Regarding the first premise, many Americans’ dominant cultural predilection for limitless, for ever more, material objects seems to imply a belief that the earth can sustain all this extravagance.   “The pursuit of Happiness” may have led to limitless greed and selfishness.  However, within the life span of one individual, his/her idea of the American Dream may change – from acquisition to “downsizing”, from intense attachment to gradual detachment from “things”, from stuff. 

 Some people believe that advances in science and technology will resolve what seem to be insurmountable obstacles to progress, as they have done in the past –obstacles, such as the demand for things exceeding their supply.  For instance, if we run out of space on this earth we will colonize other planets.  However, to me, the real crux of the issue at any given moment in time or in any country (or on any planet) is the distribution of available resources.  The challenge for all societies over the centuries has always been to strike a happy balance, a golden mean, between the uniquely capitalistic characteristics of innovation and individual incentive, on the one hand, and the intrinsically socialistic or humanitarian impulse toward equity, fairness and compassion, on the other.  The participants in the class may want to discuss these issues. 

One can make a case that in earlier times, before the phrase “the American Dream” came into existence, the Founding Fathers dreamed of establishing a nation where the basic freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience -- like those enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- would be preserved.  Then in later times, once these freedoms seemed to be guaranteed, a majority of Americans began thinking of, say, owning a home as an essential part of the American Dream.  After all, the original phrase contained “Life, Liberty, and Property”; “Pursuit of Happiness” was a revision.  On the other hand, the class would also want to look at the non-materialistic aspect of the American Dream, its more “spiritual” aspect. 

As the students study the evolution of this concept of the American Dream, they will also need to look at the U.S. from outside in and not just from inside in.  They will need to ask some probing questions: Do we, indeed, need to change our view of the self as well as our view of the other?  Do we need to realize that a post-American century has dawned?  The students will be able to explore such issues in their readings for the class.  They will also learn about different attitudes and perspectives people in other countries have as far as their “dreams” are concerned.  The United Nations’ rankings of countries on various criteria of “livability” could be a starting point.

The second premise or assumption may have for its basis an apparently incurable obsession of many Americans to be the single Superpower.  From James Monroe to Teddy Roosevelt, the march of the American Dream went hand in hand with doctrines like the “Manifest Destiny” and with territorial expansion.  Even in recent times, one imperial addiction, meddlesomeness, does not seem to have cooled down.  Under the new administration, it seems, only the rhetoric of U.S. foreign policy has changed, not the substance.  To get out of our present troubles, we have to reexamine the foreign-policy aspect of the American Dream and, at the least, to modify it.  

I also suggest we should open up in this class a discussion of the impact of the Founding Fathers’ thinking (and the ideas of other figures of the so-called Age of Enlightenment) on the successive generations of Americans.  The Founders of the Republic warned against involvement in European affairs.  Indeed, some may argue, they were rather isolationists, at least in principle.  But, later on, in subsequent decades, the U.S. became more and more interventionist.  In fact, Newt Gingrich recently went on blithely suggesting (on the eve of the Republican Primaries there) that we should effect a regime change in Cuba.  And some Americans can hardly wait to start hostilities with Iran.

In our search for where our values and belief systems have come from, we will benefit from reading and reflecting on some primary sources like the Declaration and the Constitution.  We need to take an objective (and, maybe, not a reverential) look to determine whether the Founding Fathers carried in them, ideologically, the seeds of territorial expansionism (Certainly, they wanted to push into the Indian/native American territory).  In addition, maximum exploitation of nature was the creed of the age.  Both of these “values” were, in my judgment, important ingredients in the shaping of the American Dream and of our discourse about it even today.