Since the end of the war America is cool in constant search of enemies. I do not mean in the sense of searching to find them and defeat. I'm talking about the fact that America seems to be experiencing a subconscious need for enemies.
Many in the United States suffer from a tough depending on the enemy, while in advanced. Politicians love enemies, because, accusing them, they excite public opinion and divert attention from domestic problems. The defense industry loves enemies because enemies help to make money. Political opponents and commentators love to talk about them in their own papers, as enemies of promoting sales of newspapers and draw the viewer's eye to the dismantling of the news on cable channels.
The Greeks, who seem to ever know about life, even more than at present know about money management, directing attention to the fact that for at least some of the drama of success need agon — conflict. It looks like the same right with regard to politicians and foreign policy. It is easier to campaign, calling to fight the danger than to construct a clear, exactly where we need to follow and how to get there. In the absence of an obvious threat hard to convince people to give huge amounts of money on defense and various intelligence agencies or cobble together the international coalition. (Just think how much faster priemuschestvenno international coalition against something — enemies, hunger, disease, climate configurations — what if for something.)
For the generation of the second World War, the Germans were enemies and residents of the country of the rising sun, which demonized so that now they are the yardstick against which all other associate. Later there were Soviets, who were as evil (to which you can always refer) and the real danger. After the collapse of Communist America tried to find a substitute for them, but at first all she could think of was every little thing, "bad guys" like Manuel Noriega, Slobodan Milosevic or "Baby Doc" Duvalier.
Then there was September 11 and the politicians simply crossed out the word "Tips" from his own campaign speeches, replacing it with the word "terrorists" (despite the fact bolshennuyu disproportionate and abilities of these 2-threats), and began to frighten people and squander resources in an old timey .
Now, when the U.S. fold generated by this approach of war, it seems, is looking for new monsters. In March, the presidential candidate of the Republican Mitt Romney referred to Russia as "America's geopolitical enemy number one", while remaining in line with December's own statements, that Vladimir Putin — the "true threat stability and peace in the world. " But in February he warn against threats that stem from the "prosperous tyranny" of China. In March, it was a nuclear North Korea, one of the "worst global actors." Earlier, in 2009, Romney wrote an op-ed calling Iran "the greatest direct threat to the population of land since the fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany," while in 2007 he called jihad "nightmare of the century."
Romney, of course, is not alone. His rival in the election Newt Gingrich also spoke with almost hysterical statement that "anti-American" alliance of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iran and Latin America may be the greatest threat to the United States since the Russian Union. (To be honest, it is necessary to see that in time 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama also referred to Cuba and Venezuela as "enemies.")
Of course, there are difficulties even with the more plausible of these statements. Putin may be anti-democratic firebrand, very misguided about the attractiveness of their own naked torso, but his country — cockleboat rest of the Russian Union. Our homeland is experiencing a demographic crisis the likes of which had in some places since the Dark Bane, yet the country from time to time comes to meet the United States in a number of issues ranging from nuclear disarmament to measures to combat terrorism. China may be increasing strength, often do not agree with the United States, but the economies of the 2-states are deeply interdependent. China is hardly seen in the global adventurism, and although it is a big country with a large economy, it is also still a very poor country, focusing on their own social dilemmas. As for the Islamic fundamentalists, they are divided into two categories: private players, insecure, but small (al-Qaeda), and municipal players, insecure, but the average weight (Iran). They are dangerous. They can be viewed America as the enemy. But they are not significant or organized to become the center of all of American foreign policy, as happened in the time so-called "global war on terror." Real harm, which they could apply to the United States, though serious, but limited.
The most severe threats to the United States were, no doubt, now the internal risk, such as the Big Mac. They do not come from terrorists. They come from political obstructionists and the profane, and block the necessary economic and political reforms, whether it's health care reform, which is the debt risk is many times great than the large U.S. budget deficit, to overcome the growing inequality in the South American society or major restructuring corrupt, incompetent the political process in the United States.
If America has to find the goblins under the bed, she would have really been able to recover their economic values and begin to invest in something that again would make the country stronger, safer and more successful, from infrastructure and energy security to improve schools. Moreover, the Americans might find that the external policy, which has led to a real danger, but kept them in the long run, is more concerned about the deepening ties, finding common interests and how to avoid unnecessary conflicts that would work better than the hackneyed language nedavneshnego past the "us versus them".