I did NOT say that the US was attempting to provoke the Soviet Union into nuclear war. What I said was "we would have used that for boons". There was nothing defensive about our probing; we were examining Soviet defensive positioning and strategy which isn't at all useful when dealing with Soviet incursion. Be that as it may, take a step back - I'm arguing that the US has always acted provocatively and you're arguing that a P-3 hitting a Chinese fighter is different from a Chinese fighter hitting a P-3. Look - an American ELINT/EW craft was 70 miles offshore of sovereign Chinese territory. That's provocative. The Chinese responded by buzzing the P-3. That's provocative. The P-3 didn't back down - that's provocative. And then the Chinese crashed into it, they had to land, and the Chinese took it apart. That's provocative. It's like last week when Turkey blockaded the Italians from approaching Cyprus for oil exploration, despite the fact that Turkey only lays claim to half of Cyprus - nobody's negotiating there, they're provoking. And US foreign policy has been provocative since the end of WWII. Clinton had strikes in Afghanistan. He had covert ops. So did Bush I, so did Reagan. The only reason bin Laden was there is we invited him; our covert adventures in South Asia are legendary. GWB went to war because the Taliban were harboring bin Laden, who ended up in Pakistan. Obama didn't go to war with Pakistan, he sent in special ops. Bush's actions were disproportionate on an even grander scale than Reagan's invasion of Granada. If the goal is to get bin Laden, the method doesn't start with saturation bombing. I'm not interested in getting into the goodness/badness argument of American foreign policy. The fact of the matter is, the US throws its weight around and has since the Monroe Doctrine. Post WWII, we've flown around with a chip on our shoulder. What kind of shitshow would it be if a Chinese EW aircraft cruised 70 miles off the coast of Miramar? Nobody else does that but us; even the Soviets pretended their boats were winkwink nudgenudge fishing trawlers.
The Chinese do all sorts of provocative things and they have since their inception. And the Soviets did too. Probing Soviet defenses is useful for defensive purposes. The Soviets know we are looking for weaknesses which means we are ready to defend ourselves if they attack. That was part of MAD-- demonstrating the potential for offensive capability served defensive purpose in making sure the Soviets knew they could not win. Further, the US didn't barge onto the world stage in 1945 and start acting like a big bully. We got involved to stop Nazi and Japanese imperialism, which the rest of the world could not. Then we had the Soviet Union aggressively taking over Eastern Europe and pushing communist revolution around the globe. We could no longer retreat into isolationism. We made mistakes and did some bad things. Everyone complains about how the US screws up the world but where would the world be without the US? If the Chinese and/or Soviets were dominant things would be better? To criticize the US is fine, but who would have done better for more people in the last 70 years than the US? As for all the rest, I am mystified by your assertion that the invasion of Afghanistan was disproportionate to 9/11. I'm not a big fan of Bush II's foreign policy, but taking out the Taliban was a no brainer. I think any of the other presidents you mentioned would have done the same thing under the same conditions. And bin Laden was in Pakistan from 2002 on, the policies Obama followed re: Pakistan were Bush's. Obama caught heat for that.
You're getting all wrapped up in justification, validation and morality. Just a small example: Bush invited Taliban delegates to the White House in 2000 for their work in eradicating opium. I'm not fan of the Taliban and have been actively not a fan since 1997; Glamour Magazine (of all places) suggested embargoes against Afghanistan for their treatment of women five years before 2001 but their calls fell on deaf ears (those were our freedom fighters we were talking about). Benezir Bhutto warned about the Taliban before they were the Taliban in a speech to the UN in 1991 (something something "sowing dragon's teeth"). Nobody cared. That doesn't mean the Taliban aren't objectively bad. I'm not here defending the Taliban. I'm here pointing out that there were ample reasons to knock out the Taliban before September 11 but nobody gave a shit. I'm arguing that if the purpose is to get Osama bin Laden, invading Afghanistan was a failure. I'm arguing that if the purpose was to dethrone the Taliban, invading Afghanistan was a failure. My point - which you seem uninterested in engaging- is that the US practices aggressive, provocative foreign policy that gives us a lot of USS Maine/Gulf of Tonkin outcomes whenever we need them. "the Chinese do all sorts of provocative things" is the kind of statement you need to back up - China, since the fall of Chiang Kai Shek, has been focused domestically and on its surrounding territories. They've invaded Vietnam, yeah - but they sure haven't invaded Panama. They haven't invaded Grenada. Our foreign policy is not defensive. I'm an American. I benefit from this aggressive foreign policy. But I also know there are two sides to every story and that the good/evil narrative put forth by Americans is not held in high esteem in the rest of the world. It's much easier to understand someone's actions when you put yourself in their shoes and the shoes of every other country on the planet get their toes stepped on unequally by America. We're a big-footed dance partner. I'm happy to discuss that. But if you'd rather wave the flag than discuss specifics, I don't see that there's much point in talking.
I'm trying to address specifics with you. But I disagree with the way you present the factual basis of your argument. You were saying or implying that Bush overreacted regarding the P-3 incident and that the invasion of Afghanistan was an overreaction that other US presidents refrained from. The Taliban supported and aided bin Laden. Bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people here, more than the attack at Pearl Harbor. It's not flag waving to recognize that the US had a compelling interest in removing the Taliban from power. Pakistan was and is more complicated. The government is not in control of the mountainous region bordering Afghanistan. They are also a nuclear power. We knew that there were elements in the Pakistani intelligence that were helping bin Laden. Because the situation was different, we acted differently. One of the issues I wanted to raise with you was your criticism of American policy, the notion we "throw our weight around." It's easy to criticize, it's much harder to come up with a solution. It's not necessary to label the US as "good" or "bad" to recognize that there is a difference in many places where the US exerts influence and where it doesn't. Compare Western Europe to Eastern Europe from 1945 to 1989, or South Korea to North Korea. It's not just you that has benefitted from the US being an international power. Consider Germany and Japan in 1940 with the US in isolation: two of the most aggressive and repressive nations in the world, Germany attacked almost every neighbor they had, east or west. Japan was 10 years into a genocidal war in China. Today, both Germany and Japan are vibrant and peaceful democracies who are a threat to no one. Objectively, that's a good thing isn't it? And you still haven't answered my basic question: what would the world look like if the US had withdrawn in 1945 the way we did in 1918? I contend the world is a better place (not a perfect place, a better place) with the US involved. I'll close with this. I am not intending to frustrate you by throwing up empty patriotic rhetoric. You seem like an intelligent person with a different worldview and I respect that. If I didn't I would not have responded. I have enjoyed this exchange and find what you write to be thought provoking and engaging. I wanted to engage you on specifics without writing a book length response. I hope you will see my posts in this light even if we do not agree.
If you want to engage me, don't start with "what do you think about the Gulf of Tonkin" and then spool yourself up to "Consider Germany and Japan in 1940 with the US in isolation." You're not having a conversation. You repeatedly deflect. And you're lecturing me. I'm not going to block you, but no - whatever spirit you think you're presenting this discussion in, you're failing. I haven't enjoyed this exchange in the slightest. You've put words in my mouth, you've changed the subject numerous times away from the discussion at hand and when I tell you - point blank - my opinion about something utterly unrelated to the original question, you still can't pay attention long enough to acknowledge what I'm saying rather than what you want to hear. I see your posts in the light of someone who wants the whole world to know that he's right. And I have absolutely no reason to engage with that.