A New American Way, Part 2: The Power Of Legitimacy
NeilP99
In my first article of this series I explained why strengthening the economy would allow the eUS to develop a stronger military and I offered a few ideas on how to strengthen the economy. In this article I want to offer my view of what we should use that stronger military for. Once again the ideas I put forth here will be a departure from those that have seemed to run our country for as long as I can remember.
As Americans we have the ideas of freedom, independence, and justice running through our veins. In real life America has historically taken the side of justice when using it’s military. We fought the British for our independence in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. We fought ruthless imperialism in World War I. We fought fascism in World War II. In all of these major wars America took the side of those who fought for what was fair and what our society considered right. It didn’t necessarily benefit us, but because of what the American Spirit means we did it anyway. We sacrificed, we fought, and we died for the basic belief that every citizen deserves to be free from oppression in any form.
eUSA ≠ RL USA, Again
Here on eRepublik the US has stood for the exact opposite of what we stand for in RL. Rather than be the liberator we have generally been the oppressor. We have been Nazi Germany attacking Poland in WWII, we have been Germany attacking Russia and France in WWI, we have been China attacking Tibet, and we have been England attacking the American Colonies. If that offends you I say good, it should offend you, all of those aggressor nations were taking actions that were in no way moral. Unfortunately the eUS hasn’t been much better. We have repeatedly attacked nations that have done nothing to harm us and that posed no real threat to us. This isn’t American behavior and I believe that the un-American nature of this behavior is largely responsible for the hostile atmosphere here in the eUS.
I think that it’s time that we Americans start acting like what we are. Rather than try to invade nations just for the fun of it we should take a stand. Any candidate for President would earn my vote instantly if they promised to only fight wars that are truly necessary. This would be a return to that American Spirit that would rally the American people to our causes rather than divide them into bickering groups. We would know that when our great nation goes to war it would be for what is right and we would all feel the pride in fighting for it that we hear about from our grandparents in real life when they talk about fighting in WWII. I know what many of you will say, “Oh come on, it’s a game, nobody actually dies, and it’s all just for fun.” I realize that some will have a hard time approaching this with the seriousness that I am. However, I personally believe that whether you’re talking about a game or real life you should never do anything that betrays your beliefs. The American belief has always been in doing the right thing.
“But We Still Want To Fight!”
Of course the American people still want to fight. I understand that and I understand the benefits that fighting in wars offers. That’s why I believe that we should not remain militarily uninvolved. We should deploy our army and marines around the world to fight for just causes. I was incredibly proud when the eUS sent troops to fight for Australia’s independence several months ago. Admittedly that battle didn’t go as well as we would have hoped because of some confusion about strategy, but the reasons that we were fighting for were noble nonetheless. There are still causes like that to fight for today. Many eNations are mostly or completely occupied against their will. America could fight to free these people, and in the process change American international image, benefit from war in the same way we do when we attack another nation, and develop a sense of national pride in what we stand for.
Legitimacy Is Power
Perhaps the most important benefit from following a military policy like the one I have talked about in this article would be the legitimacy it would give to our eNation. We have all seen the PR machine of PEACE jump into action and turn international opinion against us. They return time and time again to calling us imperialists when we go to war with another country. When we read those articles here in the eUS we know that they’re right even though they’re being hypocrites. However, if we take that weapon away from them then we become a much more powerful nation. Again I’ll refer to the first and second World Wars. Both times America took the side of the group of nations that had a legitimate reason to fight. We were the defenders rather than the attackers and this allowed our public to identify with why we were fighting rather than question our motives. Creating a legitimacy to our nation’s causes here on eRepublik will have the same effect and will draw more nations to our side.
To be honest I’m a little nervous now that I’ve published this article. I could easily see the ideas I’ve proposed here being laughed at. I could easily see people calling me a pacifist wacko. Ultimately though I stand by these ideas because I want to feel that pride I felt about our efforts in Australia more often and I want to feel the shame I felt about our imperialistic efforts in Mexico less often. A defensive military policy that fights for the liberty of every nation, regardless of who the attacker is, is the only way to achieve that in my opinion. My next article will address some of the consequences a military policy like this one will have when it comes to our alliances. Sneak peak: Maybe it’s time for an alliance of a different nature. Thanks for reading.
UPDATE: Part 3 of this series has been published
Comments
Did you read a little too much into the propaganda from WWI and WWII? We joined France and Great Britain because they pumped our economy full of propaganda faster than Germany did. WWII we joined because Hitler declared war on us and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, never mind that we were slowly building troops up. The war of 1812 was a war we never should have been in, we just joined to give Great Britain and Canada a bloody nose.
I'll agree with you, RL-USA ≠ eUSA, but war in this game is like baseball. You go to the other countries stadium, you both try to get a higher score than the other, NO ONE gets hurt, and both economies get a boost. I don't see why we feel we need to fight to keep countries independent, unless it's so we can export to more places without American business competing with each other as much.
@Markus_A: War on eRepublik might not be like war in RL in the sense that no one gets hurt, but it still is incredibly important in shaping international opinion. If we can get most of the world behind us by only fighting wars where we are standing up for the right thing then we can use that support to improve our nation as a whole and make the nations that are agressors against our friends outcasts in the international community.
That's not going to stop the Indonesian propagandists. They were calling us Imperialists before we invaded Mexico with no reason at all for doing so. Now that they have an actual historical instance where the US (as a whole) feels bad about it's actions, do you think they will back off if it looks like we'll only fight in "good" fights?
Overall, shaping international public opinion is a good idea, but it makes for a very boring game as a whole if we wait for the right fights to join into. The hell if I'd keep playing this game through all of the bugs and overall slowness.
@Markus_A: You might be right, but then I'm picturing us deploying our forces around the globe quite a bit. With so many countries occupied by other nations we could keep ourselves busy for quite some time trying to free them all.
NeilP99 for president!
The problem with your ideal, Neil, is that I don't think you're really thinking about the monumental logistical task it would be to deploy all of America's troops with any sort of organization.
To cite an example close to my heart, I just got done working to bring back NG units from Portugal. We're talking less than 50 people, and yet it took days (and a large number of man-hours on the parts of me and my fellow Platoon leaders) to just make contact with these people.
I cannot even imagine attempting to deploy even a fraction of the Platoons within the NG to a foriegn conflict. Not to mention the exponentially increased cost that this would force upon the military.
Wars such as the one in Mexico, while stricken with poor oversight and strategic management, provide our soldiers the comfort and ease of being able to fight at their maximum (5 fights a day from Florida) at a minimal cost (at its lowest, absolutely none). Moving to a region that likely has no hospital forces our soldiers to continuously move back and forth from Florida to heal (Christ, I don't even want to think about trying to organize that on such a large scale).
I'd be in favor of supporting independence movements if we did so in a way that would actually work: declaring war on the occupier, conquering the occupied territory, and resistance warring it free. Similarly, signing MPPs with the little countries, like we did with India and Israel works.
Trying to 'deploy the army' hasn't ever had an effect except to convince Congress they needed to raise my taxes to give gold to their friend who's a 'tank'. Even that I wouldn't mind, except IT NEVER WORKS. The only times the US army has been successful even temporarily were when the whole country could get involved.
@Hari, we can deploy our troops a lot easier if we sign out a bunch of mpps. Then most of us will never have to leave Florida. There are ways to be play Hero. It is something I wanted eUS to do before we completely screwed up in eMexico. Thank you Neil for the article. It was well written and I vote.
We can also keep our troops and wellness at peak performance through planned mutual war games between nations. Mexico is out of the question for the time being as they hate us more than ever.
I guess I'd ask what nations Neil has in mind then.
I never saw an Indonesian called USA an imperialist ...
but we're okay to see a British article which promote British imperialism anyway ....
As President I would support fighting for oppressed nations such as Greece and Israel from the grips of the PEACE empires. The idea of Fighting wars of imperialism for the sake of experiance is two-faced at best. We could have war games with allies and send our brave troops to troubled regions of the world seeking a free society. America will once again become a beacon of hope to those who live without Liberty, Freedom, and Justice.
Dude, you're f%#^ing gay.
...? Quite a complex opinion there, LSH...
I love when people from Texas call me gay, no offence to those of you who are from Texas but when one of you resorts to such a pathetic and immature personal attack I know that I'm doing my job well. I love you too LSH!
@Hari: I don't have any particular nations in mind at the moment. I think that generally speaking we need to work to free any nation that has been occupied. However I realize that this would be very difficult so I think a more realistic expectation would be our working to defend and further liberate nations that are too small to defend themselves. Basically I would love to see us standing up for the little guy.
Don't worry Neil I'm from Texas and gay so I'm use to it. lol
great article!
voted & subscribed! 😛
Excellent article, Neil.
One difference I'll point out is that, in RL, Americans tend to be isolationists...they don't seem to want to be involved in the rest of the world until we are attacked. In WWI and WWII, it was "their war over there". WWI was from 1914 to 1918; we didn't get involved until 1917. WWII had destroyed half of Europe and the Pacific before Japan brought us in to it and then Germany declared war against us...then our people rallied for the moral of it.
As far as foreign and military policy goes, I am 100% in agreement with you and I am glad you wrote this article. This goes along with what I just wrote about the Mexican war:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/dire-diplomacy-the-mexican-debacle-757630/1/20
Voted, already sub'd.
Good article, but in this game, war is absolutely necessary for a countries economy. We need at least 1 battle a week, or we will just have sky-high prices for weapons and iron and we'll be weaker then when we started out.
the problem with activating MPPs to defend small countries is that there aren't that many small countries left. Israel has only one region. I don't consider it liberated yet. The eUS doesn't yet have the power to liberate these countries. It would need Atlantis help.
Voted. Great article as usual. The eUS is strongest using our military judiciously in support of diplomacy, peace (lowercase), and freedom. Our economic policy can follow the same route.
One point to hairsplit: PEACE will crank out negative propaganda whatever we do -- good bad or indifferent. Let's not base our actions on what PEACE will say.
Great article, Neil, I've become a fan.
I'll only comment on what I can talk about though.
As someone who has been in the eCIA for quite some time now I can assure you we -are- trying to help those countries while protecting eUS interests abroad. I'm afraid it's just one of those things that is easier said than done. That doesn't mean we'll give up on it though, and yes, for a group of countries that call themselves PEACE and want us to think they are preserving freedom around the eWorld, they have an unusually high amount of smaller eCountries under their control.
Keep writing!
you have a good point about reputation, but like what has been said before, we can not attack anywhere we want. Also, eRep is full of democracies. there are no persecuted people. If we made our philosophy to ensure national self determination, we would have to leave ATLANTIS, since many of its members have conquered regions. Alone, we are too weak to go around freeing nations and keeping them free.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/hope-change-and-good-old-fashioned-belief--755410/1/20
I'm running for conress, and one day i'd like to be president. I believe that eAmerica should only start wars that have meaning to them. Not for the LAWLS for for RWAR.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/hope-change-and-good-old-fashioned-belief--755410/1/20
I'm running for conress, and one day i'd like to be president. I believe that eAmerica should only start wars that have meaning to them. Not for the LAWLS for for RWAR.
I believe many people underestimate the power of a legitimate government. Imperialism has obvious benefits (more territory, more citizens, more everything), but is difficult to maintain. By being the liberator, we could avoid many of the downfalls of an expansionist society.
It is also possible we could still reap some of the benefits that you gain with imperialism. If we liberate an entire country, for instance, we might be able to negotiate retaining one of their regions with a high resource we need, in exchange for their overall freedom.
I do agree with the folks who've said that deploying the military overseas would be a logistical nightmare. The mechanics of the game simply make it impracticle. MPPs would be the way to go.
As for the training and strengthening argument, I think if we combined fewer, more meaningful "real wars" with as many war games as we could manage to pull off, we'd be better off in the long run. It would allow us to stockpile resources for when it matters without becoming weak and complacent.
Im still waiting on permission from my NG CO to actually go and help Romania. Im hoping to hear back before the fight ends but whos knows they get pretty busy. If everyone did what I did and payed for themselves most of thee problems wouldnt exsist.
I really wish I could pay for myself. I haven't reached that point in the game yet, I am still scratching 6 dollars daily net gain, of which I blew on a whole 3 weapons, during the lull in the Mexican war (prices miraculously were down to 11 dollars). Otherwise I would do the whole traveling freedom fighter thing. But for now I am stuck in place.
+1 to Lobe's comment. Even if this is just a game, it appears that most eAmerican's underestimate diplomacy. Why do you think Portugal was able to kick our butt? rediculous MPPs. Not only would we be liberating and protectorate force, we would also be a fortress on the home front. We can also negotiate territory swaps with countries to set up bases of attack in liberation movements (it would take a lot of diplomacy, and before we could be trusted we would need to reestablish our legitimacy in such maneuvers). Doing it this way though would allow our whole nation to fight as a whole without having to move, it would more or less be like over seas bases.
You can't blame all of the american people for the aggresion, I'm aware that the decision was based on the fact that many people wanted to fight but you should still put it into consideration
@smily132: I'm not trying to blame anyone. I think that the wars that America has fought have been started as a result of many factors, some outside of our control, I'm just trying to explain what I think a better use of our military would be.