Looking at the Anglosphere Part II - Page 5

A pundit recently pointed out that an army that combines the use of Dolphins and satellites is a tough army to beat. This is an army that is capable of using what is available to fight. Americans use old-fashioned “Yankee know-how” in war as effectively as they do in business. The entrepreneurial spirit that exists outside the military has now made its way into the military. Anglosphere nations power lies not just in its economics prowess but its military as well.

What Gulf War II showed is that the future war on terrorism will be fought with actual combat, imaginative diplomacy, and through actual subversion of terrorist sponsor states. The combat tactics of Gulf War II demonstrated that the United States has the capability to either strike with the thunder of armed columns or the lightning speed of special ops operating in the shadows. To win the war on terror in the 21st century we will need armed forces that can essentially fight under any and all conditions. Nothing replaces a well-trained soldier carrying out the policies of diplomats; but without the soldier, diplomacy is nothing more than an empty bluff.

India and the Anglosphere

Mr. Bennett does not yet consider India formally part of the Anglosphere but for the Anglosphere to dominate the 21st century, India must be cemented to the Sphere. Bennett writes, “In such a commonwealth (Anglosphere), should the Indian choose to engage it, It may well be that the Bangalore becomes a major center of the Anglosphere in thirty or fifty years time. Anglospherists do not fear this, knowing that just as London is still great today because it shares an Anglosphere with New York and Los Angeles, it and the American metropolises will be great tomorrow partly because they might share it with Bangalore.”


Indian writer Gurcharan Das remembers attending Henry Kissinger’s lectures at Harvard in the early 60’s and listening to Kissinger point out that Nehru was a dreamer and “it is dangerous to put dreamers in power.” Kissinger’s own views on Nehru may have been misplaced and he admitted it in his most recent book on Diplomacy. Nehru was not an idealist and certainly not a pacifist like Gandhi. When force was needed, Nehru was prepared to use it. Three wars with Pakistan, including the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971, one war with China, and pushing the Portuguese out of Goa showed that India was not afraid of using military force. What Kissinger called a foreign policy of dreamers was a serious attempt to buy time for the new nation, residing as it does in a tough neighborhood. Kissinger’s own opinion from his Harvard days changed when he stated that Nehru’s policy, “during the Cold War was not so different from that of the United States in its formative decades.” The difference is that in the United States formative years, there was an ocean between America and Europe. India, on the other hand, was located in a land populated by vipers and political rivals.

Continued on the next page Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4 — Page 5 — Page 6Page 7Page 8

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Nov 11, 2009

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for October

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs