<>
<>In the old days, before the rise of fuzzy-minded liberal internationalists, it was considered utterly normal for powerful states to force their weaker neighbors to hand over money or material goods as a price for avoiding military punishment. Although unfair, it was a reasonably effective method for preventing wars.
Rather than go through the full invade-kill-burn-plunder cycle, which took a lot out of invader and invadee alike, both sides found it easier and more humane to simply skip straight ahead to the last stage. It worked for the Romans, the Byzantines, the Ottomans and the various peoples fortunate enough to share borders with them.
Implementing the policy would be quite simple. We would inform heads of militarily vulnerable states that if they did not wish to have their regime changed — or, at least, to have large chunks of it blown to smithereens — they had better make an annual contribution to the U.S. Treasury. I envision receiving sums more than sufficient to cover our budget deficit.
Sure, this may strain diplomatic relations. But most of the world hates us anyway. How much worse can it get? If we're going to be an international pariah, we might as well enjoy some benefit from it.
This solves a bunch of problems in one go, people. First, we don't get our soldiers killed in foolish, needless wars. Second, we pay off the deficit that Bush is running up with his tax cuts for the rich without having to recind those same tax cuts. And last, we can sneer at and humiliate a hell of a lot more countries simultaneously under this plan than we can by invading them.
Don't tell anyone, but I think this Chait guy is on to something here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be Nice