Hegemony & Leadership Toolbox

Download 380.55 Kb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size380.55 Kb.
1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   25

Heg Bad – Terrorism

US Hegemony encourages terrorists

Shor 10 Associate Professor Wayne State University Interdisciplinary Studies Program

(Francis, “War in the Era of Declining U.S. Global Hegemony”, Issue 2, 2010, Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies, pp.65-81; Associate Professor Wayne State University Interdisciplinary Studies Program, http://www.criticalglobalisation.com /Issue2/JCGS_Issue2_War_and_Declining_US_Hegemony.html, 6/29/2011)

Clearly, the pursuit of such wars also engenders resistance abroad and potential dissent at home, the latter, however, contingent on some fundamental understanding of the whys and wherefores of prosecuting war. Certainly, resistance to a militarized U.S. foreign policy is evident in various guises, from local insurgencies to global protests. Irrespective of the form such resistance may take, including insurgencies that engage in terror, the U.S. will encounter resistance as long as it insists on imposing its sense of order in the world. In effect, a “system of global domination resting largely on military force, or even the threat of force, cannot in the greater scheme of things consolidate its rule on a foundation of legitimating beliefs on values” (Boggs, 2005, p. 178). On the other hand, U.S. perception of that resistance, whether by the ruling elite, corporate media, or the public at large, is filtered through an ideological smokescreen that either labels that resistance as “terrorism” or some primitive from of know-nothing anti-Americanism. Part of the inability to recognize the reality of what shapes the lives of others is the persistence of a self-image of U.S. benevolence or innocence, even in the face of the realities spawned by U.S. intervention and occupation.
Terrorists attack for specific political reasons that are the result of US primacy.

Layne 04 professor at Texas A&M University’s George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service.

Christopher, in Balance of power: theory and practice in the 21st century, eds. T. V. Paul, James J. Wirtz, Michel Fortmann, pp. 107-108.

9/11 was not a random act of violence visited upon the United States. The United States was the target of al Qaeda’s terrorist strikes because that group harbored specific political grievances against the United States. If we step back for a moment from our horror and revulsion at the events of September 11, we can see that the attack was in keeping with the Clausewitzian paradigm of war: force was used against the United States by its adversaries to advance their political objectives. As Michael Scheurer, who headed the CIA analytical team monitoring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, put it, “In the context of ideas bin Laden shares with his brethren, the military actions of al Qaeda and its allies are acts of war, not terrorism…meant to advance bin Laden’s clear, focused, limited, and widely popular foreign policy goals….” Terrorism, Bruce Hoffman says, is “about power: the pursuit of power, the acquisition of power, and use of power to achieve political change.” As Clausewitz himself observed, “war is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object.” Terrorism really is a form of asymmetric warfare waged against the United States by groups that lack the military wherewithal to slug it out with the United States toe-to-toe. 9/11 was a violent counter reaction to America’s geopolitical—and cultural—primacy. As Richard K. Betts presciently observed in a 1998 Foreign Affairs article, “It is hardly likely that Middle Eastern radicals would be hatching schemes like the destruction of the World Trade Center if the United States had not been identified so long as the mainstay of Israel, the shah of Iran, and conservative Arab regimes and the source of a cultural assault on Islam.” U.S. primacy fuels terrorist groups like al Qaeda and fans Islamic fundamentalism, which is a form of blowback” against America’s preponderance and its world role. As long as the United States uses its global primacy to impose its imperial sway on regions like the Persian Gulf, it will be the target of politically motivated terrorist groups like al Qaeda.

Heg Bad – War

Hegemony leads to war – empirical proof

Seiff, 11-BA graduate, Columbia University in Political Theory

Adam S., “The Delusion of a Unipolar Peace,” Publiuscu.org, 2011 http://www.publiuscu.org/storage/Sieff%2014-29.pdf, accessed 6-29-11

It is unsurprising that these unipolar enthusiasts are also the most optimistic about the prospects for peace in America’s current “unipolar moment.”5 However, we should be leery of this conclusion. Of the three reasons Krauthammer argues not only will U.S. unipolarity be peaceful and durable, but that the only limitations upon its peaceful durability is the extent to which the U.S. disengages and declines to exploit its preponderance of power; Wohlforth similarly notes that the health of the system depends on the United States’ ability “to disregard the international system…and provide order.” (Wohlforth, p. 8) 15½ The Delusion of a Unipolar Peace ½Adam S. Sieff given in support of unipolarity, only the first is indisputable. Additionally, the emerging empirical record shows that unipolarity is far from peaceful. As Nuno Monteiro points out, the United States has been at war for twelve out of twenty years since the Cold War ended.6 At the price of much blood and treasure, the U.S. has committed large forces to Kuwait Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Remarkably, the first two decades of unipolarity— representing less than 10 percent of American history—account for more than 25 percent of the country’s total time at war.7 Events seem to be challenging the notion that unipolarity makes for peace.

Heg Bad – War EXTN

Unipolarity less peaceful than other global structures of power

Seiff, 11-BA graduate, Columbia University in Political Theory

Adam S., “The Delusion of a Unipolar Peace,” Publiuscu.org, 2011 http://www.publiuscu.org/storage/Sieff%2014-29.pdf, accessed 6-29-11

Indeed, while the certain absence of great power war is a clear advance towards peace, it does not necessarily follow that unipolarity also reduces other types of conflict, as Wohlforth and others presume. To be truly peaceful, unipolarity must not create new avenues of conflict to replace those that it eliminates or mitigates.8 In fact, this paper theorizes that a unipolar structuring of the international system creates significant new avenues conflict, the particular type of which depends upon the grand strategy chosen by the unipole. Resultantly, unipolarity cannot be said to be peaceful, certainly no more peaceful than any of the previous international arrangements that preceded it, and possibly even less peaceful.
Unipolarity just as war-prone as other forms of polarity

Seiff, 11-BA graduate, Columbia University in Political Theory

Adam S., “The Delusion of a Unipolar Peace,” Publiuscu.org, 2011 http://www.publiuscu.org/storage/Sieff%2014-29.pdf, accessed 6-29-11

I argue that a unipole has three main strategies it can pursue relating to the status quo: (1) expansion (2) status-quo preservation and (3) retrenchment.21 By status quo, I mean the international political alignments and distribution of power present in the international system at any moment.22 An expansion strategy seeks to reshape the status quo to align with the unipole’s interests, a status-quo strategy seeks to maintain the status quo, and an retrenchment strategy only seeks to assure the survival of the unipole without regard for maintaining the global status quo. The following three sections present mechanisms for conflict that follow from each of these three options, demonstrating that unipolarity is not peaceful, and at least no more peaceful than systems which preceded it.

1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   25

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page