The video and group discussion surely tested what the class already knew about leadership. As for the video, professionals gathered together to discuss US leadership and their "correct" use of power. Of course they took extreme examples that would not apply to everyday life, but they did make some valid arguments. As for US power, the entire audience agrees that the US military is incomparable to the sizes of the other smaller militaries around the world. The United States spends a fortune on its military, and yet it only takes up less than 20% of its total spending. This ability has given it the role of the world police however in my point of view. The video's argument stated that although the United States has this ability to pretty much destroy countries that come in conflict with the great nation, the United States should not be throwing its military and influence everywhere since it would cost the country too much of a financial burden. However, this contradicts a point made earlier on how the United States would make much more money economically for companies that supply war materials.
As for our debate group, we immediately fought for power to see who is the best person to lead the group. We mostly used soft power such as persuasion to get our needs completed. However, since we are all equals and students, this didn't work necessarily well with the other students (this was a good learning experience I had for the future!) We all ended up compromising and agreeing to meet with each other to finish up the project and make a powerful argument next week wednesday.
I would agree with the video's argument that the US has a ton of power, but we don't have all of the economic resources to use our influence. We already are in great debt and war would just add to this. I don't recall the point made prior- are you referring to US companies selling the US government war materials? or to other countries?
ReplyDeleteHi Allie, I was referring to US companies making products that is to be used for warfare to the US government. This allows more space for jobs in the economy. From economics, the demand for these products is increased tremendously and therefore the price increases, allowing companies to have more wealth during this time.
DeleteDebt isn't always necessarily a bad thing; in fact debt is how money is made and how countries remain anchored to each (according to Kissinger). I would agree with you, Allie, on the point the US is not in a place to extend our resources, but power is relative meaning if the US is suffering one could safely assume the rest of the world is not much better off. Further, if you believe Albright, the US derives much of its power from its moral authority so inaction could be potentially more harmful on our diplomatic ties than any economic failings. On the the other hand, if Kissinger is to be believed, non-involvement is the best course of action. Returning back to the original post, Camilia, the video didn't really contradict itself in saying the US would make money from exerting its military influence. Yes, US companies would make money from the government buying weapons, but the cost to the US and its citizens would not necessarily be equal to the amount of money circulating back into our economy from these companies. In short, war can be and usually is profitable, but prolonged conflict can be devastating.
ReplyDelete