[snoots]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Democracy is usually upheld as the most naturally just system of government. Some historians argue that because it is just it is dearly prized by the people who share in the power of the state, and it is therefore very robust. People like Stephen Ambrose point to the victory of the Allies in the Second World War as an example of this. Besides the obvious point that the war against Germany could not have been won without the aid of Soviet Russia, I would argue that the democratic west has become weaker in several ways since the 1940s.

So far so good.

People in the west have become more comfortable, indulged and downright soft than ever before. The prosperity engendered by the last 50 years of economic growth has not helped the quality of our armed services. If a total war occurred which required conscription I'd be pessimistic about our fighting qualities. Can you imagine you and yer mates enduring a winter of trench warfare in Central Asia or hand-to-hand combat against moslem fanatics in a North African summer? I don't think many of us would be able to hack it.

As well as a physical softness, I would say that there goes a much more serious moral decay. A half-century of increasingly Godless hedonism has resulted in a short-sighted materialist mind-set. No one wants to do anything unless there's a buck or two in it. Our sense of what is right or wrong is criss-crossed by the modern dilemmas and obfuscations posed by pluralistic politics. Our open liberal democracies have also brought the benefits of a free press, which is usually held to be a good thing. But the down side is that the public know what happens out there in the 'Nam or Iraq, and often it is not all good news. The west's ability to take heavy losses in the field is not strong, and politicians who are blamed for large numbers of body bags are likely to be dumped in short order. The result is that no one in the west has a fecking clue what to do when a crisis occurs, and whoever decides to do something about it had better get real results real soon or forget about remaining in power. Every time there is a war that isn't won in an instant the shit hits the fan.

For these reasons I reckon the west has not the moral strength or stamina to stand up to a determined and well organised enemy. Having nuclear weapons will probably prove to be of no advantage in engaging the sort of enemy the west now faces, since the targets are no longer cities in hostile countries but desert camps or caves in friendly or neutral ones. Bombing from the air has the advantage of yielding low Allied casualties and does cause damage to enemy forces, but there are limits to what it can do and it is incredibly expensive. Ground troops are needed to achieve anything meaningful, and that means high Allied casualties. President Bush is desperate to get out of the mess the USA is in over in Iraq, but there are not enough trained and disciplined troops to do what is needed over there, and there is no public appetite for conscription.

Meanwhile, radical anti-western islamism in general and Al Qaeda in particular are gaining in support and strength. It is going to be a long struggle but there can only be one long-term winner. And it isn't us.

...but this seems to have littlel to do with Democracy and more to do with preparation for war - do you see both as the same thing?