The Economist
December 11, 2021
Eighty years ago Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It was a grave error, bringing the world’s mightiest country into the war and dooming the Japanese empire to oblivion.
A clear-sighted Japanese admiral supposedly lamented: “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
Today Japan is peaceable, rich and innovative. It was the Japanese who rebuilt their country, but their task was made easier by the superpower that defeated them.
Not only was America sponsor to a liberal, capitalist democracy in Japan; it also created a world order in which Japan was free to trade and grow.
This order was not perfect and did not apply everywhere. But it was better than anything that had come before.
Unlike previous great powers, America did not use its military dominance to win commercial advantage at the expense of its smaller allies.
On the contrary, it allowed itself to be bound, most of the time, by common rules. And that rules-based system allowed much of the world to avoid war and grow prosperous.
Unfortunately, America is tiring of its role as guarantor of the liberal order.
The giant has not exactly fallen asleep again, but its resolve is faltering, and its enemies are testing it.
Vladimir Putin is massing troops on the border with Ukraine and could soon invade.
China is buzzing Taiwan’s airspace with fighter jets, using mock-ups of American aircraft-carriers for target practice, and trying out hypersonic weapons.
Iran has taken such a boastful stance at nuclear talks that many observers expect the talks to collapse. Thus, two autocratic powers threaten to seize land currently under democratic control, and a third threatens to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty by building a nuclear bomb.
The question now becomes, how far would America go to prevent such reckless acts?
Joe Biden can sound forceful, at times. On December 7th he warned Mr Putin of severe consequences if Russia were to launch another attack on Ukraine.
He has maintained sanctions on Iran. And in October he said that America had a “commitment” to defend Taiwan, though aides insisted policy has not changed. (America has long refused to say whether it would send forces to repel a Chinese invasion, so as not to encourage any Taiwanese action that might provoke one.)
China was left wondering whether Mr. Biden misspoke or was craftily hinting at a more robust stance.
On December 7th America’s House of Representatives passed a big boost to the defense budget.
And yet, America has become reluctant to use hard power across much of the world. A coalition of hawks and doves in Washington is calling for “restraint”.
The doves say that by attempting to police the world, America inevitably gets sucked into needless conflicts abroad that it cannot win.
The hawks say that America must not be distracted from the only task that counts: standing up to China.
Either of these two visions would entail a partial, destabilizing American retreat, leaving the world more dangerous and uncertain.
Mr. Biden’s debacle in withdrawing from Afghanistan led some to doubt America’s willingness to defend its friends or deter its foes, and many to worry about the competence of its planning.
The president’s loose words about America’s nuclear umbrella have undermined faith among allies that it still protects them.
And though Mr Biden does not insult allies as Donald Trump did, he often fails to consult them, eroding the bonds of trust that have long multiplied American power.
Just as important as the instincts of any one president is the mood of the country that elects them.
America is no longer the confident powerhouse of the 1990s. Its relative power has waned, even if it remains unmatched.
After Iraq and Afghanistan, voters have grown weary of foreign adventures.
Partisan politics, which once stopped at the water’s edge, paralyzes most aspects of foreign policy. Over 90 ambassadorial posts remain vacant, blocked by Congress.
The relentless drama of politics, including such things as disputed elections and mask-wearing, makes America seem too divided at home to show sustained purpose abroad.
Japan and Australia have signaled that they would help defend Taiwan. Britain has joined America in sharing nuclear-submarine propulsion technology with Australia. A new German government is hinting at a tougher line against Russia.
More adaptation to a world with less America will be required. Democracies, especially in Europe, should spend more on defense.
Those, such as Taiwan and Ukraine, at risk of being attacked should make themselves stronger, for example by beefing up their capacity for warfare. The better prepared they are, the less likely their foes are to attack them.
Fans of the rules-based order should share more intelligence with each other. They should bury old quarrels, such as the futile spats between Japan and South Korea over history.
They should forge deeper and broader alliances, formally or informally.
India, out of self-interest, should draw closer to alliance with Australia, Japan and America.
NATO cannot admit Ukraine, since the rules say an attack on one is an attack on all, and Russia has already occupied Ukrainian territory.
But NATO members can offer Ukraine more arms, cash and training to help it defend itself.
If the current world order breaks down, America’s allies will suffer terribly.
Once it is gone, Americans themselves may be surprised to discover how much they benefited from it. Yet all is not lost.
A determined and united effort by democracies could preserve at least some of the rules-based system and prevent the world from sliding back towards the dismal historical norm, in which the strong prey unchecked on the weak. Few tasks are more important, or harder.
So, let’s ask the question again. This time looking at our history.
What would America Fight for?
The Cause of the American Revolution
Kelly, Martin. “The Root Causes of the American Revolution.” ThoughtCo, Feb. 16, 2021, thoughtco.com/causes-of-the-american-revolution-104860.
No single event caused the revolution. It was, instead, a series of events that led to the war. Essentially, it began as a disagreement over the way Great Britain governed the colonies and the way the colonies thought they should be treated.
Americans felt they deserved all the rights of Englishmen. The British, on the other hand, thought that the colonies were created to be used in ways that best suited the Crown and Parliament.
This conflict is embodied in one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution: “No Taxation Without Representation.”
In order to understand what led to the rebellion, it’s important to look at the mindset of the founding fathers. It should also be noted that this mindset was not that of the majority of colonists.
There were no pollsters during the American revolution, but it’s safe to say its popularity rose and fell over the course of the war.
Historian Robert M. Calhoon estimated that only about 40–45% of the free population supported the revolution, while about 15–20% of the free white males remained loyal.
1/3 supported the King, 1/3 supported George Washington, and 1/3 didn’t care one way or the other.
The 18th century is known historically as the age of Enlightenment. It was a period when thinkers, philosophers, statesman, and artists began to question the politics of government, the role of the church, and other fundamental and ethical questions of society as a whole.
The period was also known as the Age of Reason, and many colonists followed this new way of thinking.
A number of the revolutionary leaders had studied major writings of the Enlightenment, including those of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the Baron de Montesquieu.
From these thinkers, the founders gleaned such new political concepts as the social contract, limited government, the consent of the governed, and the separation of powers.
Locke’s writings, in particular, struck a chord. His books helped to raise questions about the rights of the governed and the overreach of the British government. They spurred the “republican” ideology that stood up in opposition to those viewed as tyrants.
Men such as Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were also influenced by the teachings of the Puritans and Presbyterians.
These teachings included such new radical ideas as the principle that all men are created equal and the belief that a king has no divine rights.
Together, these innovative ways of thinking led many in this era to consider it their duty to rebel against laws they viewed as unjust.
The geography of the colonies also contributed to the revolution. Their distance from Great Britain naturally created a sense of independence that was hard to overcome.
Those willing to colonize the new world generally had a strong independent streak with a profound desire for new opportunities and more freedom.
The Proclamation of 1763 played its own role. After the French and Indian War, King George III issued the royal decree that prevented further colonization west of the Appalachian Mountains.
The intent was to normalize relations with the Indians, many of whom fought with the French.
A number of settlers had purchased land in the now forbidden area or had received land grants. The crown’s proclamation was largely ignored as settlers moved anyway and the “Proclamation Line” eventually moved after much lobbying.
Despite this concession, the affair left another stain on the relationship between the colonies and Britain.
The existence of colonial legislatures meant that the colonies were in many ways independent of the crown. The legislatures were allowed to levy taxes, muster troops, and pass laws. Over time, these powers became rights in the eyes of many colonists.
The British government had different ideas and attempted to curtail the powers of these newly elected bodies.
There were numerous measures designed to ensure the colonial legislatures did not achieve autonomy, although many had nothing to do with the larger British Empire. In the minds of colonists, they were a matter of local concern.
From these small, rebellious legislative bodies that represented the colonists, the future leaders of the United States were born.
Even though the British believed in mercantilism, Prime Minister Robert Walpole espoused a view of “salutary neglect.” This system was in place from 1607 through 1763, during which the British were lax on enforcement of external trade relations. Walpole believed this enhanced freedom would stimulate commerce.
The French and Indian War led to considerable economic trouble for the British government. Its cost was significant, and the British were determined to make up for the lack of funds. They levied new taxes on the colonists and increased trade regulations. These actions were not well received by the colonists.
New taxes were enforced, including the Sugar Act and the Currency Act, both in 1764. The Sugar Act increased already considerable taxes on molasses and restricted certain export goods to Britain alone.
The Currency Act prohibited the printing of money in the colonies, making businesses rely more on the crippled British economy.
Feeling underrepresented, overtaxed, and unable to engage in free trade, the colonists rallied to the slogan, “No Taxation Without Representation.” This discontent became very apparent in 1773 with the events that later became known as the Boston Tea Party.
The British government’s presence became increasingly more visible in the years leading to the revolution. British officials and soldiers were given more control over the colonists, and this led to widespread corruption.
Among the most glaring of these issues were the “Writs of Assistance.” These were general search warrants that gave British soldiers the right to search and seize any property they deemed to be smuggled or illegal goods.
Designed to assist the British in enforcing trade laws, these documents allowed British soldiers to enter, search, and seize warehouses, private homes, and ships whenever necessary. However, many abused this power.
In 1761, Boston lawyer James Otis fought for the constitutional rights of the colonists in this matter but lost. The defeat only inflamed the level of defiance and ultimately led to the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
The Third Amendment was also inspired by the overreach of the British government. Forcing colonists to house British soldiers in their homes infuriated the population. It was inconvenient and costly to the colonists, and many also found it a traumatic experience after events like the Boston Massacre in 1770.
Trade and commerce were overly controlled, the British Army made its presence known, and the local colonial government was limited by a power far across the Atlantic Ocean.
If these affronts to the colonists’ dignity were not enough to ignite the fires of rebellion, American colonists also had to endure a corrupt justice system.
Political protests became a regular occurrence as these realities set in. In 1769, Alexander McDougall was imprisoned for libel when his work “To the Betrayed Inhabitants of the City and Colony of New York” was published.
His imprisonment and the Boston Massacre were just two infamous examples of the measures the British took to crack down on protesters.
After six British soldiers were acquitted and two dishonorably discharged for the Boston Massacre—ironically enough, they were defended by John Adams—the British government changed the rules.
From then on, officers accused of any offense in the colonies would be sent to England for trial. This meant that fewer witnesses would be on hand to give their accounts of events and it led to even fewer convictions.
To make matters even worse, jury trials were replaced with verdicts and punishments handed down directly by colonial judges. Over time, the colonial authorities lost power over this as well because the judges were known to be chosen, paid, and supervised by the British government.
The right to a fair trial by a jury of their peers was no longer possible for many colonists.
All of these grievances that colonists had with the British government led to the events of the American Revolution.
And many of these grievances directly affected what the founding fathers wrote into the U.S. Constitution. These constitutional rights and principles reflect the hopes of the framers that the new American government would not subject their citizens to the same loss of freedoms that the colonists had experienced under Britain’s rule.
Now I know there are other conflicts that triggered a response from the American People such as the War of 1812, The Spanish American War, and the Civil War. But in an effort to better focus on conflicts that involved foreign adversaries, let’s jump ahead to WWI.
Following World War I, the United States hoped to avoid further entanglement with European politics that had drawn us into war.
A strong isolationist sentiment developed that questioned the wisdom of our entry into WWI, The Great War, as it was then known.
Americans really didn’t care that much about Germany’s expansionist policies in Europe during that war.
However, the rise of military government in Germany, Italy and Japan and their invasions of neighboring countries prior to WWII became a major concern for United States leaders including President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
In Europe, Adolf Hitler led the rise of the Nazi Party, which claimed that Germany was treated unfairly in the peace treaty that ended WWI. He also sought to unite all German-speaking peoples, a policy that put him at odds with several neighbors like Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Great Britain and France tried to negotiate an end to German expansion, but the Soviet Union on Germany’s eastern front signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler that opened the door to Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939.
France and England came to the aid of the Poles and declared war on Germany. Hitler’s armies quickly overran Poland and then France, leaving Britain alone against German armies and air force.
President Roosevelt wanted to come to the aid of our British allies, but public sentiment still was not yet ready to send American soldiers to fight in another European war.
Meanwhile, Germany and Italy became partners with Japan that had designs on domination of Eastern Asia.
Japan lacked natural resources like oil and rubber and created plans to attack neighboring countries that could supply them. They invaded Korea and Manchuria and then China.
They also looked southward to the European colonies of Dutch East Asia and British Malaysia. They knew that the United States and Great Britain would fight to stop them.
To weaken U.S. naval forces in the Pacific, Japan bombed the naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7, 1941.
At that point we had no choice but to join the fight. Bear in mind, our entry came 2 years after the war had started.
So, America declared war on Japan, and on December 11, Germany and Italy lived up to their agreement with Japan and declared war on the United States.
Let’s move to the next conflict. The Korean war.
Again we ask the question, what would America fight for?
America wanted not just to contain communism – they also wanted to prevent the domino effect. Truman was worried that if Korea fell, the next country to fall would be Japan, which was very important for American trade. This was probably the most important reason for America’s involvement in the war.
Article on line by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
of the Hoover Institution for Prager University.
Mention the Korean War today and most people will look at you with a blank stare. At the time it was fought, just five years after World War II ended, everyone recognized it as a world shaping conflict, a stark confrontation between the forces of democracy and communism.
It began on June 25, 1950 when Soviet-backed communist North Korea crossed the 38th parallel and invaded its U.S.-backed anti-communist South Korean neighbor.
Within weeks the communists had nearly absorbed the entire country. The United States at first was confused over whether it should—or even could—respond.
America had slashed its military budget after the end of World War II and was short both men and equipment. It still had not awakened fully to the expansionist threat of Soviet Russia.
The Soviets—buoyed by their own recent development of an atomic bomb and Mao Zedong’s communist victory in China—sensed America’s lack of resolve and encouraged the North’s aggression.
Yet within weeks President Harry Truman rushed troops to save the shrinking Allied perimeter at Pusan on the southern tip of the Korean Peninsula.
And by late September 1950, General Douglas MacArthur had successfully completed the Inchon landings and launched counter-attacks. He quickly reclaimed the entire south and sent American-led United Nations forces far into North Korea to reunite the entire peninsula—only to be surprised when hundreds of thousands of Chinese Red Army troops crossed the Yalu River at the Chinese border and sent the outnumbered Americans reeling back into South Korea.
Thanks to the genius of General Matthew Ridgeway, who arrived to assume supreme command in South Korea in December 1950, over the next 100 days U.S. led UN forces pushed the communists back across the 38th Parallel.
The fighting was fierce. Seoul, the capital city of South Korea, exchanged hands between communist and U.S. led forces five times before it was finally secured.
During the years 1952 and 1953, the war grew static, neither side able to deliver a knockout blow. Eventually the conflict ended with a tense armistice in July 1953.
For over the next 60 years, a cold war persisted between the Stalinist North and what, by the 1980s, had evolved into the democratic, economic powerhouse of South Korea.
Over 35,000 Americans died in the Korean War. The war marked the first major armed conflict of the Nuclear Age, and one in which the United States had not clearly defeated the enemy and thus not dictated terms of surrender.
Was fighting the Korean War and restoring the South—without uniting the entire peninsula—worth the huge cost in blood and treasure
The natural dividend of saving the South was the evolution of today’s democratic and prosperous South Korea that has given its 50 million citizens undreamed of freedom and affluence—and has blessed the world with topflight products from the likes of Hyundai, Kia, LG and Samsung. South Korea is a model global citizen and a strong ally of the U.S.—and stands in sharp contrast to the communist regime in the North that has starved and murdered millions of its own people and caused untold mischief in the world community.
Had it not been for U.S. intervention and support to the South, the current monstrous regime in Pyongyang would now rule all of Korea, ensuring its nuclear-armed dictatorship even greater power and resources.
The American effort to save South Korea also sent a message to both communist China and the Soviet Union that the free world, under U.S. leadership, would no longer tolerate communist military takeovers of free nations.
The resulting deterrence policy helped to keep the communist world from attempting similar surprise attacks on Japan, Taiwan, and Western Europe.
Finally, the Korean War awakened the United States to the dangers of disarmament and isolationism and led to the bipartisan foreign policy of containment of global communism that in 1989 finally led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with it victory in the Cold War.
The Korean War was an incomplete American victory in its failure to liberate North Korea and unite the peninsula, but a victory nonetheless.
And not just from a military perspective, but from a moral one as well. The reason 35,000 Americans died in Korea was to keep at least half the Korean people free.
Korea did not have a single material resource that would have benefited America. Yet, we decided to join the fight.
How about one more folks?
What did the US fight for in Vietnam?
At the heart of the conflict was the desire of North Vietnam, which had defeated the French colonial administration of Vietnam in 1954, to unify the entire country under a single communist regime modeled after those of the Soviet Union and China.
The South Vietnamese government, on the other hand, fought to preserve a Vietnam more closely aligned with the West.
U.S. military advisers, present in small numbers throughout the 1950s, were introduced on a large scale beginning in 1961, and active combat units were introduced in 1965.
By 1969 more than 500,000 U.S. military personnel were stationed in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and China poured weapons, supplies, and advisers into the North, which in turn provided support, political direction, and regular combat troops for the campaign in the South.
The costs and casualties of the growing war proved too much for the United States to bear, and U.S. combat units were withdrawn by 1973. In 1975 South Vietnam fell to a full-scale invasion by the North.
A public opinion poll of more than 1,000 people in each of 64 countries in late 2014 by WIN / Gallup International found that only 44 percent of adult Americans were willing to tell pollsters they’d fight for their country.
The percentage is even less for some U.S. allies, such as Canada (30%), France (29%), the United Kingdom (27%), Italy (30%), Germany (18%) and Japan (11%).
In contrast, 71 percent of Chinese and 59 percent of Russians say they’d fight for their countries.
So, there you have it folks. I’ve given you a few examples of what we as Americans have fought for in our past.
The big question now is. Are we willing to fight for Taiwan? Are we willing to fight for Ukraine?
If not, have we reached a point in our history that we should now concentrate on our own country, turn isolationist, and let the rest of the world fend for themselves?
If so, what are the consequences?