Iran's manhattan project speeds ahead....

[Axis Kast]

Maybe because you pressured this false claim into political acceptance by other nations?

I'd be glad to review your evidence at any time.

Don't be silly. Iraq was no threat, and the world didn't think they were caching WMD.

On 28 January 2005, David Kay gave testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee following his resignation as special advisor to the Iraq Survey Group. This document, no. 42 in the Electronic National Security Archive (George Washington Univ.), includes Kay's reference to the fact that both the French and German foreign intelligence agencies -- among others -- judged that Saddam was in possession of both stockpiles and production facilities for biological and chemical weapons.

The Iraq war. They were weak; a war was stupid; we attacked them anyway.

In other words, "Because I say so!" Very predictable. Unfortunately, that isn't valid argumentation on your part. Particularly inasmuch as you seem to be dismissing out of hand all the times that the United States became involved in conflicts that demanded significant expenditures of blood and/or treasure: WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, just to name a few. In 1991, significant voices also warned that the battle-hardened Iraqi military would be a considerable challenge for the Coalition forces.

"New classification" ? Plenty of people pointed out at the time that what we were doing was wrong.

Nice way to dodge the issue. Care to try again?

Iraq turned into a disaster, and anyone who knew anything predicted it beforehand. THAT'S stupid.

That only means that our leadership should be held accountable for incompetence or negligence. The situation would be considerably more tractable had we not taken specific decisions, ill-advisedly (i.e., failing to secure the urban environments first thing; sending too few troops for the work of post-war occupation; and disbanding the Iraqi army).

Garbage. I'm pointing out that America is a nation of bullies and cowards, and that we only attack nations that we think are weak because we are bullies and cowards.

Nobody in their right mind fights a war with somebody that can wipe the floor with them. The two sides to a dispute don't go out and divy up an exogenous pile of military resources between them.

As for bullies and cowards, I rather think that most Grenadans and Panamanians and Kuwaitis are inclined to look favorably on our contributions to their recent history.

Also, when asked, you were able to provide a case universe of ... one. Hardly impressive.

Garbage. They lied, and knew they were lying. They made up the "mobile labs", they made up the fleets of WMD carrying drones. They invaded because they knew Iraq had no WMD, and so couldn't really hurt us back. And anyone paying attention knew they were lying.

I've already cited evidence that foreign intelligence agencies were of the opinion that Iraq was in possession of WMD. The mobile labs and fleets of WMD carrying drones can be convincingly explained as the analytical products of overzealous embrace of the post-9/11 truism that, suddenly, everything can hurt.

Also remember that, in 1991, we invaded a country known to possess chemical and biological weapons.

No, we were funneling money into favored American companies. We never cared if they actually did anything useful with it.

We also built schools, delivered medical care, and gave out humanitarian supplies. But, by all means, let's distort the facts so that we can partake of your utter fantasy.

A foolish argument. They were on the list of targets; if Iraq had fallen at our feet like we thought they would in our arrogance, we'd have long ago attacked them.

Debatable, at best. I've explained many times before why Iran could be considered a "hard nut" even if there wasn't an Iraq to worry about defending.

The entire war and occupation is an exercise in mass murder, and nothing else.

Prove it. I've already challenged you to prove we're killing at random.

Just like America.

Are you honestly comparing the freedoms enjoyed by Americans to those of Russia and China?

Because we've crippled ourselves. And "a variety of means" means military force since nothing else has a chance of working.

No; because it makes no goddamn sense. And I'll thank you to kindly stop trying to put words in anybody's mouth. "A variety of means" includes economic and political pressures, as well as punitive measures against successful proliferators, which should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Didn't you pay attention ? We knocked down the Taliban just enough to put in an occupation force, and then neglected Afghanistan to attack Iraq. We didn't even seriously try to get Osama Bin Laden - it's not like we actually cared about catching him. He was just a pretext.

We're ramping up our activities in Afghanistan considerably.

And it's debatable as to whether Osama bin Laden was ever going to be captured using conventional military forces. We have reportedly decimated al-Qaeda organizationally.

And your point ? How is the fact that they also acted like barbarians make us not barbarians ?

You hold us to ridiculous standards, and then insist that our enemies are correct to take enormous risks, or to commit terrible acts, simply because we do. I am asking why the reverse argument cannot be true.

[Darth Yoshi]

You have the right to protect your interests as a sovereign nation, and the security of your allies, which leads us to the next bit here;

We don't have the right to attack people just because we feel like it.

So, pre-emptively removing Iran's nuclear capability when they've publically called for one of your allies to be "wiped off the map" is "because [you] feel like it", because--well, because you say so.

So, basically might makes right?

[mr friendly guy]

Unless some other country manages to develop the logistical capabilities of America, they are not likely to be able to intervene on that scale. Whine about it when China or Russia develops a blue water navy, say in the next few decades.

France dictates terms in Sahelian Africa without much difficulty, despite much-degraded capability.

How does this refute my point that no country in the near future can exert as much influence or cause as much damage as the US, thus your "some other country will do it" argument is invalid?

Want to answer the question dumbass? Perhaps you need me to hold your hand an explain concepts such as scale, rather than this black and white thinking you seem to hold. I guess they are right when they say how conservatives view things right?

This "if we didn't do it somebody else will" is no different from religious apologist saying "if religion disappears some other philosophy will take its place" and you guessed it, its a false dilemna.

Not if your aim is to make the world a better place through binding of the United States.

Your argument would only work if you can show that other nations would and can (militarily, politically, economically etc) do the same or worse than the US. A claim you just dodge as well any creationist when confronted with evidence. But then this is you we are talking about right?

The EU isn’t a magical cockpit of morality.

Now, now Kast, what did we say about subtleties and false dilemna's? Oh that's right, keep on grasping at straws, since you used them all up building your strawman.

And what soft power has done for the people of Darfur! Oh, happy day!

OMG, soft power isn't perfect, who would have thought that.
Since I only said its less destructive than hard power, this strawman is about as accurate as George W saying Iraq has WMDs.

Yes, soft power is typically less deadly than invasion.

Concession accepted dipshit. So tell me again why some other country will magically do the same as the US again. Or we going to go through this whole song and dance of you dodging points.

In fact, just for interest, if China and the US magically reversed positions, in terms of resources, military, economy etc, why the hell would they think they need to use military force to achieve some political objective lets say getting hold of oil, when their diplomatic offensive seems to have done a good job and is less costly than war.

This “diplomatic offensive” countenances genocide.

So in other words, you don't actually answer the question.

It’s up to you to prove that the United States is more an initiator of useless wars than an inhibitor.

Since you are the one who claimed someone else would do the same thing, I would say its on you. I asked you to show it and you reverse the burden of proof.

I love your choice of words here, "considered the unfounded aggressors". Do you count yourself among those who consider it, or are you refering to someone else.

I’m still waiting for you to address the argument.

Ignoring the fact that you and LoA were arguing that point and I chose not to participate in that aspect, I am still waiting for you answer the fucking question. I trust you can read the quote tags. But then you mistake what I said for what LoA said so its obvious reading comprehension isn't your strong point.

[Ryan Thunder]

You have the right to protect your interests as a sovereign nation, and the security of your allies, which leads us to the next bit here;

We don't have the right to attack people just because we feel like it.

So, pre-emptively removing Iran's nuclear capability when they've publically called for one of your allies to be "wiped off the map" is "because [you] feel like it", because--well, because you say so.

So, basically might makes right?

How the fuck does that follow?

[loomer]

We thought you had it already. Failing that, politics. It looks really bad if you steamroll over your opponent and into your allies like Patton advocated.

Actually, America had a confirmed window of about ten years in which it KNEW Russia would be unable to adequately retaliate. A couple of bombers, maybe, but not a full scale nuclear retaliation. Don't fucking spout 'lol didn't know we could have' when it's false, dickwad.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, America had a confirmed window of about ten years in which it KNEW Russia would be unable to adequately retaliate.

Also, American politicians at the very same time, in the very same decade where you had total, unquestioned superiority and we had zilch means of delivery, continously lied that there's a "gap" between us and America. Preposterous. Ryan's idea that "they didn't know" isn't realistic.

Deterrent is not a deterrent when you know the enemy can't really retaliate.

[Terralthra]

That's to say nothing of things like ballistic missile submarines, which are a first-strike weapon system by their very nature.

Don't be stupid. SSBNs are a guarantee of retaliatory capacity, as they can't be targeted effectively in the opening wave of a nuclear strike. Their existence, uncertain location, and the difficulty of engaging them directly means that even a totally successful preemptive strike against an ballistic missile submarine-possessing nation would not protect the attacking country from devastating retaliation.

[Ryan Thunder]

That's to say nothing of things like ballistic missile submarines, which are a first-strike weapon system by their very nature.

Don't be stupid. SSBNs are a guarantee of retaliatory capacity, as they can't be targeted effectively in the opening wave of a nuclear strike. Their existence, uncertain location, and the difficulty of engaging them directly means that even a totally successful preemptive strike against an ballistic missile submarine-possessing nation would not protect the attacking country from devastating retaliation.

And this affects their ability to use this uncertainty to mount a first strike exactly how? Oh wait, it doesn't. So shut the fuck up.

[Terralthra]

That's to say nothing of things like ballistic missile submarines, which are a first-strike weapon system by their very nature.

Don't be stupid. SSBNs are a guarantee of retaliatory capacity, as they can't be targeted effectively in the opening wave of a nuclear strike. Their existence, uncertain location, and the difficulty of engaging them directly means that even a totally successful preemptive strike against an ballistic missile submarine-possessing nation would not protect the attacking country from devastating retaliation.

And this affects their ability to use this uncertainty to mount a first strike exactly how? Oh wait, it doesn't. So shut the fuck up.

Doesn't take you long to move the goalposts, I see. You argued that they were first-strike weapons by nature. They aren't. They have first-strike capacity, but so do ballistic missiles and strategic bombers. SSBNs are uniquely suited to second-strike capacity, which is exact opposite of what you said, that they are "a first-strike weapon system by their very nature." Just concede that you misstated and move on, don't move the goalposts and pretend that's what you meant.

[Axis Kast]

How does this refute my point that no country in the near future can exert as much influence or cause as much damage as the US, thus your "some other country will do it" argument is invalid?

Your point is irrelevant. Other actors are as much constrained by the deterrent effect of the American arsenal as by the limitations of their own arsenals. We’re talking about the potential to dictate outcomes in the weakest corners of the world.

Removing the American tarantula from the web of potential global conflict would change considerably the system of reliable constraints on aggressive military action. Need proof? Ask yourself who it was that really had a hard on for the containment of Iraqi capability, and, even before that, the liberation of Kuwait.

Evisceration of American offensive capability, or even the hardening of a distinct preference for agnostic abstention from global conflict, entails a loosening of the implicit assumptions around which our world has been consciously ordered since 1945.

Your argument would only work if you can show that other nations would and can (militarily, politically, economically etc) do the same or worse than the US. A claim you just dodge as well any creationist when confronted with evidence. But then this is you we are talking about right?

You haven’t made a convincing argument that the United States is making the world worse in the first place. Your number one poster child is Iraq, which everybody agrees is a mess, but your presumptive second piece of evidence is Afghanistan, which is much more difficult to criticize (since it was prosecuted badly, rather than morally questionable to begin with). I’ve already knocked out the ideas that our interventions in Panama and Grenada made the world a less happy place. We can go back as far as the Vietnam War, although it then becomes a question of where you want to make arbitrary “cuts” from history, since going back too much further in time takes you back into the era of multipolar colonialism.

Now, now Kast, what did we say about subtleties and false dilemna's? Oh that's right, keep on grasping at straws, since you used them all up building your strawman.

Evidently, you are too blind to see that if any good is to come from a self-binding of the United States, certain principles and norms will have to be upheld by another, presumably more responsible actor.

The big trouble here is that it is impossible to really understand where you are coming from without sharing your gloom-and-doom narrative about the historical consequences of American strength.

It isn’t evident to me what benefit there would be in proliferation of the norm of non-intervention, for example, which is favored by Russia and China. Or how other actors in the system are any different than we are. Your overriding supposition here is that, because the U.S. can most easily get into serious wars, subtraction is the real key to a more peaceful world. That only works if the subtraction isn’t a prelude to activation of a great many presently inactive variables.

Concession accepted dipshit. So tell me again why some other country will magically do the same as the US again. Or we going to go through this whole song and dance of you dodging points

Because structure, as much as individual ambition, drives our world. Iraq went into Kuwait. Who’s stopping them, if not the United States? Who else had the power to intervene or build that coalition?

So in other words, you don't actually answer the question

You’re dodging the point. Diplomacy can be as deadly as trouncing around with an AK-47. It simply depends whether it’s first or second-order killing. Your claim that China has adequately secured its energy interests by standing aloof from killing is highly specious.

Since you are the one who claimed someone else would do the same thing, I would say its on you. I asked you to show it and you reverse the burden of proof.

Look at the time before the United States. Look at the Soviet Union. Look at the French in Africa today. At Iraq in the Middle East in 1991. At the Shah’s Iran. Look at South Africa. At Rwanda.

[Ryan Thunder]

Doesn't take you long to move the goalposts, I see. You argued that they were first-strike weapons by nature. They aren't. They have first-strike capacity, but so do ballistic missiles and strategic bombers. SSBNs are uniquely suited to second-strike capacity, which is exact opposite of what you said, that they are "a first-strike weapon system by their very nature." Just concede that you misstated and move on, don't move the goalposts and pretend that's what you meant.

Fair enough. Sorry for being so touchy about it.

[Darth Yoshi]

How the fuck does that follow?

That should be obvious. If two nations with opposing interests both have the right to fuck everybody else over for their national interests, then they'll both be at each others' throats, and the nation with the ability to enforce its will is the one that gets to dictate what happens. Ergo, might makes right. Unless you're claiming that the US is the only nation that can be a dick in the name of national interests.

[mr friendly guy]

How does this refute my point that no country in the near future can exert as much influence or cause as much damage as the US, thus your "some other country will do it" argument is invalid?

Your point is irrelevant. Other actors are as much constrained by the deterrent effect of the American arsenal as by the limitations of their own arsenals. We’re talking about the potential to dictate outcomes in the weakest corners of the world.

What is this, the reason other countries military are limited is because America exerts a +5 suppression field
As you pointed out, other countries are still limited by their own militaries. They aren't suddenly going to develop the logistical abilities of America just because it isn't there any more.

Lets talk about these weak areas of the world. Since you like using Africa as an example, lets use that. Conflicts have occurred in recent memory, eg Ethiopia and Eritrea, Rwanda etc. Maybe the US deterrent is not used in these parts. So taking the US out of the equation won't really matter in these weak areas you seem so worried about, where they aren't going to interfere with any way.

The only way it would matter is if some other strong state managed to militarily affect the area, which won't happen without the logistical ability to get their troops there. And if you are going to wank off on how China and France exert influence in Africa, notice how they still do even if the US is there (either the US can't or chooses not to compete in that area), so removing the US from the equation changes nothing.

Removing the American tarantula from the web of potential global conflict would change considerably the system of reliable constraints on aggressive military action. Need proof? Ask yourself who it was that really had a hard on for the containment of Iraqi capability, and, even before that, the liberation of Kuwait.

Funny you should mention this, since you guys kind of were pals with Saddam while he was taking your side.

Your deterrent effect only works when you kind of choose to use it. As oppose to what hence forth shall be dubbed your encouragement effect.

Evisceration of American offensive capability, or even the hardening of a distinct preference for agnostic abstention from global conflict, entails a loosening of the implicit assumptions around which our world has been consciously ordered since 1945.

If these assumptions include a unipolar hegemony, then thats just circular reasoning.

Your number one poster child is Iraq, which everybody agrees is a mess,

Agreed

but your presumptive second piece of evidence is Afghanistan,

You presumed wrong. I am waiting to see whether this turns out into another clusterfuck like Iraq before I cast judgment. Of course you guys might still be able to salvage things, but you already fucked up in some areas, so time will tell.

Evidently, you are too blind to see that if any good is to come from a self-binding of the United States, certain principles and norms will have to be upheld by another, presumably more responsible actor.

Why is it that when comparing America to some countries you go, they are just as bad as us if not worse, but when comparing to the EU you expect the EU to be, what was it, a bastion of morality?

The big trouble here is that it is impossible to really understand where you are coming from without sharing your gloom-and-doom narrative about the historical consequences of American strength.

I was disagreeing with your contention that some other country will simply fill the void and do the same or worse. I don't need to go back too far in history, as most of what I discussed is focussed on the present. Your argument that American deterrent stops more wars than America starts seems weak when it chooses to exercise the deterrent selectively (not to mention helps aggressors when it suits them, Saddam any one) and those other "actors" don't have the means to do what America does at this point in time.

It isn’t evident to me what benefit there would be in proliferation of the norm of non-intervention, for example, which is favored by Russia and China.

That depends. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. See how Iraq turned out. Saddam is gone, but for years stability was crap and people died. No one doubts Saddam was a piece of crap, however he at least managed to keep the country stable, something which even now the US is struggling to do. Given the track record of helping some dictators (Saddam) when it seemed like the right thing to do, then going back in to fix the problem thus causing even more problems due to the inept way the Bush administration handled it, you end up creating problems with your cure, that you have to use a second cure to sort out which just repeats the first cycle.

I will be blunt. Interventions have worked historically. Its just that the US record recently seems hit and miss. And that only includes times the US chooses to intervene.

Or how other actors in the system are any different than we are.

In the sense that they also look after their own interest, its the same.
In the sense that they can throw about the same military force, its clearly different. As you pointed out, soft power might not stop any atrocity, but it doesn't worsen the situation to the same magnitude like the screwed up invasion of Iraq.

Your overriding supposition here is that, because the U.S. can most easily get into serious wars, subtraction is the real key to a more peaceful world. That only works if the subtraction isn’t a prelude to activation of a great many presently inactive variables.

Which inactive variables are those?
Africa - the US isn't using its deterent factor there on the locals. And big powers with interest in Africa can't exactly waltz in there militarily with over riding force.

Russia's backyard. Well, they still seem to exert influence there to the extent they were able to attack Georgia.

SE Asia. Well the ASEAN countries aren't likely to break into wars with each other in the forseeable future with their non intererence policies. The main bad point is Myamar, but lets face it, if a US ship with supplies wasn't allowed to give it to needy people, I think its safe to say the US isn't likely to have much influence there in the first place.

East Asia. I hear the usual saber rattling, well at least it temporarily stopped when the KMT retained power in Taiwan. But even with the saber rattling no major conflict occurs. I will give you a hint, none of the sides have the ability to successfully invade each other, so it won't happen.

The only other place which you can argue for a good deterrent effect is the ME in terms of you guys pushing for some type of two state solution with Israel and the Palestinians. Of course your work in the region has mixed results so its debatable whether the deterrent effect outweighs the rest.

Look at the time before the United States. Look at the Soviet Union. Look at the French in Africa today. At Iraq in the Middle East in 1991. At the Shah’s Iran. Look at South Africa. At Rwanda.

Looking at the time now, none of these powers have the same capabilities of the US even if they harboured such dreams.
Moreover I would question how likely was a Shah Iran if the US didn't help him, or how tough Saddam would be post Iran-Iraq war without your help. You talk about how the US deters conflicts, yet you use examples where the US helped create these problems by empowering people it thought would make good allies.

[Axis Kast]

Lets talk about these weak areas of the world. Since you like using Africa as an example, lets use that. Conflicts have occurred in recent memory, eg Ethiopia and Eritrea, Rwanda etc. Maybe the US deterrent is not used in these parts. So taking the US out of the equation won't really matter in these weak areas you seem so worried about, where they aren't going to interfere with any way.

The deterrent influence of norms propounded or elsewhere enforced by the United States has continued application even where we choose not to intervene militarily.

You persist in regarding the United States as a kind of tumor that can be extracted from the system without reference to the health and activity of any essential organs. That is a fantastic mistake.

The material capability of Sudan has been much diminished by economic lockout from the U.S. economy, developed entirely on the basis of moral determinations. American pressure was no less important in bringing about a screeching halt on Libyan development, much of which fueled decades of war and ethnocentrism in the Sahel.

The only way it would matter is if some other strong state managed to militarily affect the area, which won't happen without the logistical ability to get their troops there. And if you are going to wank off on how China and France exert influence in Africa, notice how they still do even if the US is there (either the US can't or chooses not to compete in that area), so removing the US from the equation changes nothing.

It absolutely does. Part of the reason that the Khartoum government sat down to sign the CPA has to do with its desperate interest in rekindling ties with the West, and particularly the United States. Thus, even without material inputs or direct economic involvement, our mere shadow was materially significant in obtaining a certain kind of outcome.

Funny you should mention this, since you guys kind of were pals with Saddam while he was taking your side.

Your deterrent effect only works when you kind of choose to use it. As oppose to what hence forth shall be dubbed your encouragement effect.

But, objectively speaking, the “enabling factor” behind Iraq’s rapid assumption of regional significance was the oil boom of the 1970s, not its association with the United States.

If these assumptions include a unipolar hegemony, then thats just circular reasoning.

The world was not unipolar until 1991.

Why is it that when comparing America to some countries you go, they are just as bad as us if not worse, but when comparing to the EU you expect the EU to be, what was it, a bastion of morality?

Because the post-1945 world looks the way it does as a result of more or less persuasive “buy-in” to a set of norms pushed by the United States and its allies. If we become agnostic, some other purveyor needs to replace us. Hence my earlier medical metaphor: the globe is like a patient in whom the United States is the largest organ. It might be removed, or much reduced, but other systems will have to take on greater functionality, accordingly.

I was disagreeing with your contention that some other country will simply fill the void and do the same or worse. I don't need to go back too far in history, as most of what I discussed is focussed on the present. Your argument that American deterrent stops more wars than America starts seems weak when it chooses to exercise the deterrent selectively (not to mention helps aggressors when it suits them, Saddam any one) and those other "actors" don't have the means to do what America does at this point in time.

What wars? You have… Iraq. Your argument essentially consists of, “If we had a weaker United States, we would not have seen all this killing in Iraq.” And then you move backwards and imply that a weaker United States wouldn’t have been capable of doing nefarious things during the Cold War, forgetting that we haven’t been even the only major actors in the system, historically speaking.

My argument isn’t that “the American deterrent stops more wars than America starts” – it’s that eviscerating us wouldn’t necessarily produce a more peaceful world. Not only is all of this debate based on counterfactuals for which neither of us can provide empirical evidence, but even sticking to theory, you’ve yet to explain why removing our capability to act doesn’t free up others, relatively speaking.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. See how Iraq turned out. Saddam is gone, but for years stability was crap and people died. No one doubts Saddam was a piece of crap, however he at least managed to keep the country stable, something which even now the US is struggling to do. Given the track record of helping some dictators (Saddam) when it seemed like the right thing to do, then going back in to fix the problem thus causing even more problems due to the inept way the Bush administration handled it, you end up creating problems with your cure, that you have to use a second cure to sort out which just repeats the first cycle.

Sometimes, although Iraq has yet to play out.

Let me ask you another question: if Lincoln hadn’t decided to “preserve” the Union, 600,000 people wouldn’t have been killed disputing the issue. Even broaching that topic should give you an indication of how problematic these kinds of arguments – about the need for, and relative essential “goodness” of conflict – can be.

Furthermore, Iraq is a bad example of a nation made “great” by American assistance. Structure, not American intentionality, explains Iraq’s rise to preeminence. Remember that they invaded with Kuwait using war materiel produced in the Soviet Union and bought with oil money.

Nobody requires these fantastic logistical establishments to make trouble in their neighborhood.

In the sense that they can throw about the same military force, its clearly different. As you pointed out, soft power might not stop any atrocity, but it doesn't worsen the situation to the same magnitude like the screwed up invasion of Iraq.

Wrong. Agnostic behavior can be worse than the application of military force. Hundreds of thousands are dead in Iraq; but the number rises to millions in the Sudan, where nobody has ever thought, seriously, to intervene. Khartoum’s war effort is entirely a function of its capacity to sell oil and shop in arms bazaars in Eastern Europe and the Far East.

Africa - the US isn't using its deterent factor there on the locals. And big powers with interest in Africa can't exactly waltz in there militarily with over riding force.

They don’t need “over riding force.” The French military saved Idriss Deby – determined the political fate of a country in the center of the continent – with only minor investment. The big question has always been whether, if somebody is running around dictating outcomes on that continent, we would get involved.

Russia's backyard. Well, they still seem to exert influence there to the extent they were able to attack Georgia.

Where would Saakhashvili be today, without the United States? Probably defending himself in a Russian courtroom – and that’s assuming he wouldn’t have “shot himself.”

Looking at the time now, none of these powers have the same capabilities of the US even if they harboured such dreams.
Moreover I would question how likely was a Shah Iran if the US didn't help him, or how tough Saddam would be post Iran-Iraq war without your help. You talk about how the US deters conflicts, yet you use examples where the US helped create these problems by empowering people it thought would make good allies.

The Shah is one of those problematic characters in history. Because his brutality is so oft discussed, people lose sight of the fact that he was a reliable ally from 1953 to 1979 – a heck of a long time, relative to other players during the Cold War. During that period, Iran obtained a higher overall standard-of-living than it enjoys today. The mullahs were feted when they came to power, but very rapidly behaved just as badly.

How likely was the Shah without the U.S.? Unlikely. How likely was Mossadegh to be able to outlast the British without sending his country into a fantastic tailspin? Unlikely. It’s very plausible that the Soviet Union would have been keen to cash in on the political upheaval by advancing its own clients.

We’ve certainly empowered some actors in the system. We aren’t the only ones. And, very often, structure – as in South Africa, where resources have been telling – determines who is going to play the dominant role in a region. South Africa, though isolated, was the rampant figure in the Front Line region well after its ties with the United States were mostly ideological, for instance.