Opinion Has America's Suez Moment Come? - A thoughtpiece by Pat Buchanan

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://archive.li/ZXsnh (Article)

2020 will surely qualify as an “annus horribilis” in the history of the Republic.


By New Year’s, one in every 1,000 Americans, 330,000, will be dead from the worst pandemic in 100 years. The U.S. economy will have sustained a blow to rival the worst year of the Great Depression.


And by the end of December, much of the nation will be back in lockdown, with Joe Biden repeatedly predicting a “dark winter” ahead.


Only at the apex of World War II has the U.S. deficit and debt been so large a share of our economy.


In the wake of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, the summer of 2020 produced riots the extent of which rivaled the week after the murder of Martin Luther King in 1968.


Also revealed by the BLM uprising of 2020 was an unknown depth of hatred many U.S. citizens have for their country’s history, as they pulled down and smashed statues of men once revered as the greatest leaders — Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lee, Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson.


By year’s end, tens of millions were denying the legitimacy of the designated president-elect, who was to take office on Jan. 20. Both parties were charging the other with trying to “steal” the presidency.
Can a nation so distracted, so divided, so at war with itself continue to meet all of the duties, obligations and commitments that are ours as the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world”? Are we still the people and country we used to be?


While we tear ourselves apart, we remain obligated to defend nearly 30 nations of Europe from Russia. We are committed to ostracizing and isolating Iran and going to war if she should seek to build nuclear weapons like those held by her neighbors Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia and China.


Why is this our duty?


We are strategically “pivoting” to Asia to contain a China that is the rising power of the new century and whose economy and armed forces rival our own, while its population is four times larger.

If South Korea is attacked by the North, or Japan or the Philippines find themselves fighting China over rocks in the South and East China seas, we are obligated to treat any Chinese attack as an attack upon us.


Three decades ago, historian Paul Kennedy used the term “imperial overstretch” to describe what happens to great powers when their global commitments become too extensive to sustain.


This happened to the British at the end of World War II when, bled, broken and bankrupted by the six-year war with Germany, she began to shed her colonies. In the fall of 1956, Prime Minister Anthony Eden, Churchill’s foreign secretary, was ordered by President Eisenhower to get his troops out of Suez under an American threat to sink the British pound.


The British Empire was finished.

The imperial overstretch of the Soviet Empire was exposed from 1989 to 1991, with the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain. The captive nations of Eastern Europe broke free. The USSR then disintegrated along ethnic and tribal lines into 15 nations.


Its diversity tore the Soviet Union apart.


On Dec. 2, at Brookings Institution, joint chiefs chair Gen. Mark Milley said: “There’s a considerable amount that the United States expends on overseas deployments, on overseas bases and locations, etc. Is every one of those absolutely, positively necessary for the defense of the United States?” The Defense Department, Milley added, must “take a hard look at what we do, where we do it.”


In a separate talk at the United States Naval Institute, the chairman added that U.S. permanent basing arrangements are “derivative of where World War II ended.”


Indeed, NATO was formed and its war guarantees were issued to Western Europe in 1949, seven decades ago. War guarantees to South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Australia were all issued from 1950 to 1960.


These commitments to go to war for other nations were issued when Stalin was in the Kremlin, a 400,000-man Red Army sat on the Elbe in Germany, and Mao and his madness had just come to power in Peking.


How long must we sustain all these alliances and soldier on in the “forever wars” of the Middle East? Do we Americans still have the national unity, sense of purpose, and disposition to sacrifice for the cause of Western civilization we had in the early days of the Cold War?


Or has our own Suez moment arrived?


President Trump did not extricate us from the “forever wars,” but he did draw down our troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq. And he did raise the question of how many more decades must we defend a rich Europe from a declining Russia that has a fourth of its population and a tenth of its wealth.
 
People said the same thing in 2008, then the US got out of that in better shape than the EU and pretty much everyone who wasn't China.
 
Yeah, but for Britain the Empire was a liability (India was the only profitable colony IIRC), for the US it's a lifeline. Without the ability to constantly debase the world reserve currency and covertly rob the entire planet thereby it would go bankrupt and collapse. Not an economist though, so take it with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:
Jews still own the US so it will continue to move from success to success and there's nothing Pat Buchanan can do about it.

Also pretty sure he has been writing this exact column multiple times a year ever since he got embarrassed by the Cocaine King in 1992.
 
Jews still own the US so it will continue to move from success to success and there's nothing Pat Buchanan can do about it.

Also pretty sure he has been writing this exact column multiple times a year ever since he got embarrassed by the Cocaine King in 1992.
With Jews you win? I thought this was a Stormfront colony /sneed
 
They said the same thing about 2008 and the USA recovered better than most of the rest of the world save China. (Which on paper grew substantially, but may be a big house of cards.)

Granted, there are still several systemic issues from 2008 that weren't dealt with and have gotten bad again. (Housing, near zero interest rates when they should be higher, wage stagnation getting a lot worse, etc.)

But for all the shit Trump gets, he didn't start any foreign land wars and was the first world leader to call out how spoiled Europe has been relying on military defense from the USA instead of actually funding their armed forces. (To the point that Germany did a study that showed Russia would absolutely annihilate them if tension flared up.)

A lot of people just don't understand how important the US military power projection is for maintaining open trade and commerce in the world. If the US dialed back miltary spending substantially, several major world hotspots would flare up and devastate the global economy. (Nevermind the US R&D system is second to none.)

America as a whole will go on and remain unified for awhile. Yes, the political divisions and ongoing demographic changes are pointing to eventual shit hitting fan areas but that wont really hit for another few decades.

I really question if the authors of these articles lived through the late 60's and 70's. We had WAY more issues and general instability back then compared to today. Open assassinations, rioting, domestic left leaning terror groups, and bombings were par for the course.
 
Yeah, but for Britain the Empire was a liability (India was the only profitable colony IIRC), for the US it's a lifeline. Without the ability to constantly debase the world reserve currency and covertly rob the entire planet thereby it would go bankrupt and collapse. Not an economist though, so take it with a grain of salt.
I mean, British profited pretty heavily from the dominions, the West Indies (for a while), Hong Kong, Malaya, and from their oil-rich dependencies in the Arab World. The US profits as the largest economy and having the most stable of the free-floating currencies, and unless and until China decides to convert the Yuan into a free-floating currency, they will continue to do so.
 
They said the same thing about 2008 and the USA recovered better than most of the rest of the world save China. (Which on paper grew substantially, but may be a big house of cards.)

Granted, there are still several systemic issues from 2008 that weren't dealt with and have gotten bad again. (Housing, near zero interest rates when they should be higher, wage stagnation getting a lot worse, etc.)

But for all the shit Trump gets, he didn't start any foreign land wars and was the first world leader to call out how spoiled Europe has been relying on military defense from the USA instead of actually funding their armed forces. (To the point that Germany did a study that showed Russia would absolutely annihilate them if tension flared up.)

A lot of people just don't understand how important the US military power projection is for maintaining open trade and commerce in the world. If the US dialed back miltary spending substantially, several major world hotspots would flare up and devastate the global economy. (Nevermind the US R&D system is second to none.)

America as a whole will go on and remain unified for awhile. Yes, the political divisions and ongoing demographic changes are pointing to eventual shit hitting fan areas but that wont really hit for another few decades.

I really question if the authors of these articles lived through the late 60's and 70's. We had WAY more issues and general instability back then compared to today. Open assassinations, rioting, domestic left leaning terror groups, and bombings were par for the course.
He did. He worked for Nixon in 1968.
 
Yeah, but for Britain the Empire was a liability (India was the only profitable colony IIRC), for the US it's a lifeline. Without the ability to constantly debase the world reserve currency and covertly rob the entire planet thereby it would go bankrupt and collapse. Not an economist though, so take it with a grain of salt.
India was mostly a liability too.
 
Suez happened because the British Empire was forced to back down by the US - they won militarily, but the US basically just threatened to crash their economy if they didn't withdraw.

The US isn't at threat of anything like that happening at the moment to be honest, as much as the paid china worshippers might have you believe.
 
If South Korea is attacked by the North, or Japan or the Philippines find themselves fighting China over rocks in the South and East China seas, we are obligated to treat any Chinese attack as an attack upon us.
While we tear ourselves apart, we remain obligated to defend nearly 30 nations of Europe from Russia. We are committed to ostracizing and isolating Iran and going to war if she should seek to build nuclear weapons like those held by her neighbors Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia and China.


Why is this our duty?
On Dec. 2, at Brookings Institution, joint chiefs chair Gen. Mark Milley said: “There’s a considerable amount that the United States expends on overseas deployments, on overseas bases and locations, etc. Is every one of those absolutely, positively necessary for the defense of the United States?” The Defense Department, Milley added, must “take a hard look at what we do, where we do it.”
But for all the shit Trump gets, he didn't start any foreign land wars and was the first world leader to call out how spoiled Europe has been relying on military defense from the USA instead of actually funding their armed forces. (To the point that Germany did a study that showed Russia would absolutely annihilate them if tension flared up.)

A lot of people just don't understand how important the US military power projection is for maintaining open trade and commerce in the world. If the US dialed back miltary spending substantially, several major world hotspots would flare up and devastate the global economy.
In the wake of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis, the summer of 2020 produced riots the extent of which rivaled the week after the murder of Martin Luther King in 1968.
Everyone in this thread should watch this up to timestamp 1:08:48 this instant. There's an archive of this section with residue below so you have no excuse. Watch a little before the linked timestamp if you want some more juice on how little Europe spends on it's military.

We can all put our hands down our crotches over how fantastic and expectation-defeating and Jewish America is, the fact of the matter is this; things are much worse now, relative to the world's agency. The fearmongers might have missed the shots they called a decade ago, and a decade ago Russia and China didn't really give a shit about climate change and America still had clout enough to incur the defence deficit. Now, with America being the only real world superpower currently, climate change culturing massive resource wars that we have already started to see, more unchecked subversion than ever before and only God knowing what kind of technological warfare occurs under our noses, this is worse than the 60's and the 70's. Reminder that just because the bombings and assassinations are in Middle East shitholes doesn't mean they've left the world stage America aims to run.
 
Last edited:
Doublepost because the last one and this one aren't desperately relevant to each other.
India was mostly a liability too.
India was where we drew much of the martial strength to form the Empire, especially as far as the East India Trading Co. was concerned. Whatever utility was sunk into Indian Pacification and the British Raj, that the empire got going and had its continent breaking military power to begin with is investment returned. Read 'The Anarchy' by William Dalrymple for more on that.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom