The Hegemony Strategy

Via Jim Henley, the National Security Archive acquires a collection of documents outlining the Dick Cheney vision for post-Cold War America in which the central priority would be to take advantage of the collapse of the USSR to assert unilateral U.S. military hegemony around the world. This was a minority point of view within the George H.W. Bush administration, then Bill Clinton became president, but then it really had its day in the sun under George W. Bush.

We're all currently enjoying the fruits of that policy -- a $3 trillion war, more intense nuclear proliferation, al-Qaeda leaders still at large, China stronger relative to the U.S. than ever, etc.

Comments

Let's see--plans for world domination foiled by own incompetence? Dick Cheney is a comic book villain.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | March 3, 2008 9:04 AM

What's that you say? Dick Cheney is f'in crazy? I just can't believe it!

Where in those documents does it reference shooting an 87 year old man in the face?

Posted by cd6 | March 3, 2008 9:11 AM

Comics indeed. Let's use an expert, but highly partisan, economist to spin the numbers; ignore the dates for actual recent nuclear proliferation and it's reverse in Libya; hype the importance of terrorist luminaries; and pander to panic on China.

Next, Matt will demonstrate his super-power of intuiting the inner thoughts of Famous People!

Posted by Robert Powell | March 3, 2008 9:16 AM

Matt - any thoughts on Gaza at all?

Posted by Christmas | March 3, 2008 9:26 AM

Let's instead believe the far from expert super partisan Robert Powell who has no numbers but lots of bluster!

Posted by Rob | March 3, 2008 9:27 AM

Nobel Prizes don't count.

The meme that wouldn't die! Muahaha!

Posted by Reality Man | March 3, 2008 9:29 AM

While I would have preferred Santorum/Keyes for '08, I am comforted by the fact that, like Dick Cheney, John McCain has considerable foreign policy experience.

Posted by HappyConservative | March 3, 2008 9:31 AM

I ask about Gaza because I'm curious, as I was back during the summer of 2006, to see just how shitty things have to get before liberal blogs start talking about it. I know the primaries are sucking up a lot of oxygen, but since foreign policy is your beat, and since you've shown a willingness to talk about Israel/Palestine before, I figured it was worth bringing up.

Posted by Christmas | March 3, 2008 9:48 AM

more intense nuclear proliferation, al-Qaeda leaders still at large, China stronger relative to the U.S. than ever

It's amazing how Dick Cheney manipulated Bill Clinton into the policies that are as responsible for these facts as as George Bush's policies. I mean "more intense nuclear proliferation" - Dick Cheney really did a job on Bill Clinton to make him allow those Pakistani and Indian nuclear explosions in 1998! What a master manipulator that Dick Cheney is!

Posted by Al | March 3, 2008 9:53 AM

teh surge is working!!!1

Posted by Jeff | March 3, 2008 10:01 AM

God, someone please explain to me how McCain is doing so well. Doesn't he basically share the same vision?

You know that old Beach Boys song...

Posted by Tony | March 3, 2008 10:10 AM

Shorter Al, "But C-c-c-linton ... "

Al, deah, we know you've turned a blind eye to North Korea.

As for denying the $3 trillion price tag for Iraq, when did lost opportunity costs disappear from conservative accounting practices? (Answer: when it's convenient.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 3, 2008 10:11 AM

This is why it's so important to be clear on the _point_ of having a foreign policy in the first place. If you think about international relations as all about who's dominating whom, then _of_course_ the end of the Cold War is a time for America to rub it in everyone's face. But if you think of international relations as a means to achieve certain ends, like peace & prosperity, then this is obviously crazy. You can see the same logic playing out in terms of how the Republicans deal with Venezuela, China, & the mideast. Aside from a generic preference for democracy, what goes on in Venezuela is irrelevant. Chavez wants to sell us his oil and we want to buy it. We have a similar relationship with the mideast and China (only with the latter its non-oil trade). But we insist on getting into all of this macho posturing and threats when there's really nothing to be gained, and quite a lot to be lost, through actual conflict.

International relations can be positive sum! I think this is the fundamental difference between Conservative & Liberal views of foreign policy. Conservatives see international relations as zero sum. For us to win, someone else has to lose. Liberals view it as often positive sum. We can work together to achieve common goals.

Posted by DCreader | March 3, 2008 10:37 AM

More importantly, a unilateral assertion of hegemony doesn't make sense anymore. We absolutely need allies to combat 21st century threats (terrorist organizations that have no borders, disease, nuclear proliferation, climate change, etc.). It's not us vs. the Reds anymore.

Posted by Tony | March 3, 2008 10:52 AM

More to the point, attempts at hegemony - especially any old-fashioned brute-force attempt - will summon up resistance. The US can't cope with any resistance at all: even a low-level guerrilla war like Iraq costs more than the public wants to pay, particularly since the general public isn't interested in hegemony in the first place.
It might be different if there were some kind of payoff, but there isn't.

Posted by gcochran | March 3, 2008 10:53 AM

In some quarters, this document has been part of the conversation since at least 2002, also known as "before the US attacked Iraq".

Posted by fluxisrad | March 3, 2008 11:25 AM

We're all currently enjoying the fruits of [Cheney's] policy...

And there's so much more to come. It's going to be "the gift that keeps on giving", long after Cheney is just a memory.

Dick.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | March 3, 2008 11:36 AM

Christmas, fergeddaboudit!

You must be new here.

Matt will address Gaza when hell freezes over. Matt doesn't address "Serious Issues" on this blog.

When he does make a "substantive post" on a foreign policy subject like Pakistan or Iran, he makes a complete idiot out of himself by displaying his pathetic ignorance of the facts.

He needs to stick to domestic policy and political campaign issues. That's all his "philosophy degree" suits him for - and not much of that.

Economics? Fergeddaboudit!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 4, 2008 12:26 AM

Yeah Powell, from what I can tell, Alan Greenspan is your favorite economist; eesh.

As gentleman McCain says about himself, I've watched you post for awhile, and you have strong suits, but economics does not seem to be one of them.

Stiglitz > Greenspan.

Recently Powell you're starting to remind me of that terrific Paul Simon lyric: 'A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...'

But yeah, it is the hegemony, stupid. I believe Obama will begin to wind this down, while HRC (and obviously, McCain), won't.

Posted by mike | March 4, 2008 12:50 AM

Wrong, mike. Milton Friedman is my favorite modern economist. But given that the war in Iraq was a major feature of Greenspan's term as Chairman, his insights into what it was all about have a great deal of relevance.

No matter how one spins the numbers, we're spending about 20% of what it cost us to get a tie in Korea, and about half of what we paid for a defeat in Vietnam. And that's just the treasure part. In terms of blood, Iraq is cheaper so far by over 90% in terms of GI's, and even more so in terms of civilian casualties.

I like Paul Simon a lot too, and you're quote is very apropos the Obama question. I support him because what I hear in his rhetoric is that he understands his administration would not survive a crash-and-burn scenario in Iraq, so he'll probably do about the same there as McCain or Hillary. But on style points he's the clear winner.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 4, 2008 3:13 AM

Powell continues to lie about the casualty count of Iraqis, not to mention the displacement.

With nearly twenty percent of the population of Iraq dead or displaced, he thinks everything is hunky-dory.

A true scumbag.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 4, 2008 5:28 PM

Who needs real data (see the UN/WHO study) when we've got The Amazing Hack, who intuits the inner thoughts of famous people while channeling anti-American websites! If you had any coherent points, Hack, your intellectual sloppiness would discredit them.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 4, 2008 5:33 PM