optional bonus e1.b

[o]

As stated on the syllabus and in class, students may follow the
instructions for essay 1 again for optional e1.b, and the lowest score
will be dropped. An additional bonus of up to one-half point will be
awarded to those who complete all four portions (e1.1, e1.2, e1.3, and
e1.b). Students may select portions of Murphy’s points to contrast
with but may use also again the Prologue and Epilogue.

Boot, M. 2003, Mar. 12. Does America Need an Empire? 2003 Fleet
Admiral Chester Nimitz Memorial Lecture at UC Berkeley.
Transcript: http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2003/03/19_boot-transcript.shtml
Video webcast: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=9918

[o]

Angelica J
Ed O’ Connell
English 101
October 4, 2008
E1.3 Max Boot
In his transcript of lecture, Council on Foreign Relations, at the
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz Memorial Lecture at UC Berkeley on March
12, 2003, Max Boot asks “Does America Need an Empire?” By this
question he is stating that what America is doing now is playing a
global policeman role. Boot tells us that the fact that America is
playing a global policeman role. Boot tells us that the fact that
America is playing a global cop stirs oppositions from the left and
right at the homes and abroad the country. Boot suggest that America
plays a global cop skeptics replying that America had an isolated
past
with no desire to play a role in policeman. America had an isolated
past due to the cold war that suggest aberration since then, they
traditionally became isolated. America had a long record of military
action abroad. His reasons are based around American’s military
strength, powerful, ethical, and having resources into the military.
He points that we need to be the enforcers of international law. Boot
due to the way he expresses himself about the reasons why the
military
go to war and the reason being for this is that he mentions that we
all agree to the fact that we all need policeman as long as evil
exist
and to protect peaceful people from predators, were in my opinion
that
it’s okay but why take for granted the “dangerous robbers, rapists,
and murders” in our neighborhood it should be manage the same way as
the international system. Boot’s idea is to fulfill his goal on
making
America the strongest and undefeatable country. Telling us that the
idealistic liberals for a century had being that international
organization that would punish the wicked and protect the innocent
but
till this point it has been a failure. Boot mentions to us that the
best multilateral alternative is probably NATO unlike the U.N.; NATO
has the advantage to be compose exclusively of a democracy who share
heritage and perhaps share the same interest. Boot points out to us
that called out my attention is Who does that leave to be the world’s
policeman, if you agree, as I do, that the world needs one. Who has
to
play the role? With the answer that in today’s day the only one to be
capable or equivalent is the United States of America. The reason it
called out my attention was for the reason that I don’t believe that
the United States is capable of playing a policeman role due to the
circumstances that have being in Iraq war that is not going anywhere
but leading our people death and our community to a disaster.
Boot proposal in the global policing role according to him is not an
undertaking proposal. In the early 1990’s people thought that
globalization was an inexorable process that no mater what would
happen that spread markets and freedom would take the place and will
magically transform into America’s image. Boot points out that taking
a look at America history the isolationism was much more exaggerated
since the early days of America republic, traders, missioners and
solider that penetrated to the corners of the world. He believes that
part of the mission is to undertake the dreaded task known as nation
building known as state formation. A stable state capable of policing
in the area preventing terrorism, ethic cleansing, or human rights
violations is the kind of state that every state would want. America
Empire and global policing brings warnings on the blowback notion
that
strongly asserts the power of the United States turning the world
against us bringing the shores. That is why in Boots opinion he
mentions that the risk on being weak has a greater chance than the
one
of being strong. America affords to police our world, maybe yes maybe
not but the fact is that we don’t see much being worked out. We have
to speak out more so they can hear our opinions that way war is not
going to be the only solution.

[Dong O]

Dong Chul Oh
Eng.101, Sec. #0495
October 11th, 2008
Essay 1.b

In his March 12, 2003 Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz Memorial Lecture
at UC Berkeley posted on UC Berkeley News, “Does America Need an
Empire?” Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations asserts that the U.S.
must play a role of Globo-Cop, as the U.S. is the only nation in the
world to perform the role. Although Boot does not mention Cullen
Murphy in his lecture, his assertions clearly contradicts to what
Cullen Murphy argues in his book “Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire
and the Fate of America,” which claims the U.S.’s military is unsuited
for imperial responsibilities and its self-centeredness deforms
attitudes toward and perception of the rest of the world. Comparing
and contrasting Boot’s ideas with Murphy’s, it is clear that Boot
views the world in very America-centered viewpoints. He views the U.S.
and the world in such a self-centered views, with no regard or respect
for other nations or their ideas. He clearly overestimates what
America is capable of and what America should do in the world which is
very dangerous and arrogant considering his position as a Senior
Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who is also a current
foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for his 2008 U.S.
Presidential Election. Ultimately, Boot should look back on his
viewpoints and reexamine his ideas, with more broad views on the
world, which otherwise won’t do much good to the U.S.
Throughout his lecture, Boot emphasizes the importance of the
U.S.’s role as a global policeman, stating in order to protect the
world from dangerous nations like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Syria,
the U.S. must bear the foremost responsibilities as the leader of the
world. To support his claims, he mentions the war in Iraq is for the
U.S. to destroy weapons of mass destruction, to bring down an evil
dictator with links to terrorism, and to enforce international law.
Unfortunately, all his arguments to justify the war on Iraq are wrong.
First, there was no weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. The first Gulf
War destroyed nearly Iraq’s entire infrastructure to build weapons,
and even after the U.S. occupied Baghdad, no sign of weapons of mass
destruction was found. Second, bringing down Saddam Hussein in the
name of the U.S. is far near-sighted and self-centered idea, with no
respect for people of Iraq. If a change has to be made in a nation, it
has to be made by the nation’s own people, not by outside influences
of powers. Unless the change is made by the people themselves, it is
useless and only adds more foreign influences on the nation. In other
words, if Saddam Hussein were to be brought down, it should be done by
hand of Iraqis, not by hands of the U.S. Government. The idea of
providing helping hands to Iraqi people is nothing more than
ethnocentric and self-centered idea, disregarding Iraqi people’s wills
and capabilities to bring changes to their own nation. In one look
into Afghanistan, it becomes even clearer. After the war on
Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime, the U.S. established a new
government in Afghanistan and set Hamid Karzai as President of
Afghanistan, who has no real support from Afghans and is nothing more
than a puppet of the U.S. Government. As a result, the situation in
Afghanistan has worsened, even when compared to the Taliban regime,
and the world’s interests on Afghanistan have dwindled away. The U.S.
may have succeeded in bringing down Saddam Hussein, but it won’t ever
change Iraq in a good way. Third, Boot says the war was to enforce
international law, as Saddam Hussein violated 17 U.N. Resolutions by
building weapons of destruction. However, it is the U.S. that violated
the U.N. Charter by invading Iraq without any consent from U.N.
Security Council. Invading a nation without clear evidence, accusing
the nation of violating international law, but at the same time, the
U.S. violating the very law it claims to follow is paradoxical. These
are concerns that Murphy points out in his book. He points out that
the U.S.’s self-centeredness has deformed attitudes toward and
receptions of the rest of the world. Such self-centered and
ethnocentric idea of the U.S. has made the U.S. to be trapped in a
trap, with no end in sight, and huge amount of money being wasted.
Boot’s ideas toward foreign country, even allies are also
frighteningly outrageous and disrespectful. He says, ‘I think
occupying Paris will be a very pleasant assignment.’ (Para 4.) and
‘they can’t deal with Ivory Coast, let alone Iraq. The only thing the
French army is good for is teaching other armies to surrender
properly.’ (Para 20), which reflects his arrogant and imperialistic
idea. Furthermore, he does not hesitate to call the enemy aboard as
predators that are far more dangerous than ordinary robbers, rapists,
and murderers. (Para. 7) To justify his ideas of imperialistic America
and a role of Globo-Cop by America, he looks down upon every other
nation, including an allied nation, France, claiming the rest of the
world is ignorant and incapable to perform the great duty of global
policeman except the U.S. Such an idea of his again is one of Murphy’s
concerns why the U.S. is like Rome – that the U.S.’s self-centered
idea would cause nothing more than hatred and opposition from the rest
of the world. Policeman, by all means must be fair and righteous. With
such idea of self-centeredness and ethnocentrism, which has no respect
for other nations, the U.S. cannot, and must not perform the role of
Globo-Cop.
Boot further argues that lack of spending on defense caused
9/11. To a nation that spends more budget on defense than the next 18
nations combined, it is a standoffish and wasteful attitude. Even with
all the budgets, the U.S. still cannot defend all terrorism. The U.S.
has to look out and defend every corner of its soil with keen eye, but
on the contrary, it takes only one success for terrorists to succeed.
In other words, a vast amount of defense budget – which is an unwanted
present from the Cold War, won’t be able to prevent terrorism
efficiently. Even the U.S.’s strategy of war had to be changed after
the war on Iraq – a strategy that the U.S. could attack multiple
targets on the earth within a short time, as the U.S. has been
struggling with Iraq for so long. These issues unfortunately cannot be
solved by increasing the defense budget. Instead, the U.S. should try
to appease its enemies, providing necessary aids and helping hands to
where needed and spend that huge amount of money and effort on
convincing and persuading its enemies. Boot also says that nothing the
U.S. do will appease the frantic people of the Middle East, as they
hate everything the U.S. stands for: sexual, political, and
intellectual freedom; democracy; female emancipation; secularism – the
whole bundle of things known as modernity. (Para. 23) What Boot does
not understand is why the Middle East really hates the U.S. It’s not
the U.S.’s culture and politic they hate, but it’s the U.S.’s pro-
Israel attitude that neglects and ignores the Middle East’s rights on
their soil – the very place they have lived for thousands of years,
along with Christian idea that looks down Islamic culture as being
barbaric, and uncivilized. Added to that, the U.S.’s intention to take
control of the Middle East’s most valuable asset, oil, is the main
reason why the U.S. has provoked many hatreds and angers from the
Middle East. If the U.S. perhaps has kept a balance between Israel and
the Middle East to resolve conflicts in the region, (as the late
Yitzhak Rabin tried to do before the assassination in 1997 along with
the U.S. President Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat), accepted and
admitted Islamic cultures as they are, and did not try to control the
Middle East’s oil as it has done, things could have been much
different. As an important official in Council on Foreign Relations,
Max Boot clearly misses these important points, and his ignorance on
other nations, particularly the Middle East seems very dangerous not
only to the world, but to the U.S. itself. This is what Murphy fears
in his book – such self-centeredness of the U.S. will results in the
fall like Rome experienced.
Max Boot reveals his self-centered and ethnocentric ideas throughout
his lecture, claiming that the U.S. must carry out a role of global
policeman and get rid of all threats in the world, as no other nation
in the rest of the world can perform the duty as well as the U.S. can.
Such ideas of his are undeniably very dangerous, as it has an
imperialistic undertone to his ideas. He even states that liberal
imperialism is in the U.S.’s future. Unfortunately, his ideas would
lead the U.S. to the very same path Rome had gone through, and
eventually, the fall. The world does not belong to America alone, and
America certainly does not and cannot have a power to rule every other
nation as it wishes to. If America continues to go on a path of
liberal imperialism, it will only result in furthering America’s
isolation from the rest of the world, which is already a serious issue
for America and Americans. Furthermore, it could bring a catastrophic
result that no American even wants to imagine – the fall of America.
Our history has proven that how ignorance on others and arrogance
could result in the fall of even the greatest empire of their time –
from Rome to the British Empire. Many Americans, particularly
politicians, including Max Boot should bear that in mind, if they want
to avoid the same mistake those great empires experienced. Stagnant
water may be deep, but if it does not flow, it is destined to go bad.
If the U.S. does not try to change itself from inside, it will be like
stagnant water, and eventually decay from inside. If America truly
wants to be Globo-Cop as Max Boots insists, it should turn its eye to
itself and bring changes to itself. Right now, America is too arrogant
and ignorant toward the world to be a responsible, reliable Globo-Cop,
and if America is willing to continue the role of Globo-Cop as it is
now, America will be seen nothing more than a big bully to the rest of
the world. America must learn and remember what Emily Fredrix
(Associated Press Writer) wrote in her November 18, 2004 article “Task
Force alls for more study abroad by U.S. students to combat global
‘ignorance,’” on AP – “ America’s ignorance of the world is now a
national liability.”

[MG]

Marsella Gonzalez

Ed O’ Connell
English 101

October 11, 2008
1.b Max Boot

The Empire

In Boot, M. 2003, Mar. 12. Does America Need an Empire? 2003 Fleet
Admiral Chester Nimitz Memorial Lecture at UC Berkeley he identifies
the United States as an empire similar to Murphy. Instead of
comparing the US to Rome he uses a comparison from Neil Ferguson book
Empire which compares the US to the previous Britain empire. The
author states the fall of Britain occurred because Britain did not
invest enough in military defense. Like Britain against Germany, the
US can be confronted with a battle that can cost them the power they
have been holding for many years. Boots believes that it is better to
be feared by others to prevent other countries from attacking. The US
needs to maintain this power explains Boots. Murphy in the other hand
explains that having this strong millitary with cause problems in the
future. I would have to agree with Murphy in this situation.

Boots feels maintaining the millitary power has helped the US enforce
international law. Having this internal power has also helped the US
gain international respect. The US has become a savior to many
countries that are not financially fit or have destructive
governments. There are many countries that now depend on the US
millitary to protect them. Boots describes the US is playing police
for the rest of the world. I feel that playing police to the rest of
the world is a good and a bad thing. I believe its a good thing
because there are many countries out there that are in need of help
and have to the US to count on. I believe the bad thing is that the
people of the US are paying for other countries to get assistance and
during economic crisis like we are currently experiencing it might not
be in the best interest of the people to spend money on other
countries. Also, when other countries are depending on the US
assistance then it becomes a US obligation. The US is taking action
agaist terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and human-rights violations when
no other countries are willing face the issues.

Boots mentions that others have agreed that the US may fall like Rome
as Murphy compares it, but it will not be sudden or anytime soon.
Boots says the fall of the US will occur due to negligence. The US
needs to be aware of all enemies at all times. Fighting other
country battles and trying to improve them is a great deed in US's
behalf, but that is creating enemies as well. It is my fear after
reading this that others countries may unite to fight the US one day.
With this said it is very important that we do maintain a strong army
but to what extent. Thousands of people's life's are put in the hands
of our governemnet who are sending these soldiers to fight these
battles. This may cause people to turn on the governement and like
Murphy mentions it can lead to a breakdown in the millitary. If the
millitary breaks down and other countries invade it canlead to a lost
battle for the US. Like Murphy there are many factors that may lead
to the fall of the US and like Boots for the moment we need to
maintain the millitary as is and even improve it.

[o]

shay
Oct 11, 2:18 pm
Shenell W
English 101
Saturday, 9:00am-12:pm
Bonus Paper
In his 2003 Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz wrongly claims that the
United states should act as Global Policemen. He says that the reason
the U.S should tell the rest of the world how it should be ran is
because “Its the country with the most vibrant economy, the most
fervent devotion to liberty, and the most powerful army.” These are
the qualities that Nimitz thinks it takes to run the world. Nimitz
also believes that“America is an indispensable nation.”
America has the most vibrant economy, Vibrant means active
health and
well-balanced growth.
The U.S economy is a roller coaster with lots of ups and downs, in
1929 the great depression happened which was a horrible time for the
U.S economy many people lost jobs and a big portion of America was
in
a hard ship. Even in todays economy lots of people are worried about
what class of people are going to get tax breaks and what class will
get tax brakes. A lot of Americans are taking their money out of
banks
in fear that the bank will have to close down. Not to put the U.S
economy down to much It is a great economy for the most part, but
to
call it “Vibrant” is a bit of an xsaduration .
The country with the most fervent devotion to liberty. The U.S
is a
great country to be in but that does not mean that it is flawless.
Yes
we are all treated as equal (sometimes) .Whats right and whats wrong
changes, before the late 1800s the U.S thought it was okay for people
to own other people. It was legal for certain groups of people to
have no rights and to be treated a if they were animals. If you were
of a certain race you could not eat in certain places and people
could
legally treat you how they wanted with no punishment from the law.
Once apound a time the U.S thought it was okay for lemon not to vote,
the U.S thought that the only thing lemon were good for was being
house wives and taking care of their husbands. Although the U.S has
come a long way from those days but there is still has a lot to work
on. This is the country that says everyone is created equal but gays
still do not have the right to marry, I don't know how that makes
everyone equal but thats the U.S.
America is an indispensable nation?This is something that I
kind of
agree with it does appear that as long as America is around it is
going to be indispensable its kind of like this force that you cant
ignore no matter how hard you try. It probably sounds like I am going
both ways America bashing and at the same time giving it praise. Let
me make my self as clear as possible I love the U.S but that does
does
not mean that I am naive about the past and the present. I am not
looking at the U.S through rose colored glasses. The U.S is in no
position to play global cop. Be for the U.S goes off telling the
whole
world how it should be run it should probley take care all of the
problem that lie in the U.S. Such as police brutality I am just not
comfortable with having a police for rule the world the way that it
runs LA, that would be terrifying. The U.S has a lot of great
qualities that other country's don't have but other country have a
lot
of great qualities that the U.S does not have.
If the world does ever decide to ever get a global cop I would
sagest
that we as a whole world decide how to run it even though I don't for
one second believe it will work. Country's run their country's
according to a lot of different elements such a money, population
etc... As I stated before Chester Nimitz is wrong about his global
cop theory.

[o]

Students:

Please give me another week with your optional e1.b essays because of
a situation with the online section's bonus option. I'll return those
e1.b papers next week with your e2 drafts. If you'd like to go over
your writing together after class today, simply ask.

Thanks for your patience