*end quote

I never implied South America would *compete* with the US, only that they would cease to be a US dependency.

Hegemonic Stability Theory cannot account for why, actually, in this unipolar moment, the world is so chaotic and unpredictable. The idea is that US supremacy imposes order, ok, well where is the order? We have constantly changing patterns of behavior. Countries experiencing putsches and uprisings and changing their whole foreign policy outlook. States breaking down completely. Non-state actors creating havoc.

This isn't order. The system is entropizing, becoming more chaotic. The lack of high politics/inter-state war makes it even more unpredictable.

And our solution to crises, despite US hegemony, is to muddle through. Look at Europe and the financial crisis. Look at our lack of response to global warming. Hegemony sucks at solving problems.

Order is in the international system, not at the smaller levels. U.S. hegemony, or any hegemony for that matter, cannot do anything to quell uprisings or putsches, nor should hegemons care. Hegemons, according to the theory, are concerned with setting up an international regime that favors it. The U.S. has done this. Indeed, De Gaulle recognized U.S. global hegemony back in the 1960s. The world reserve currency is the dollar, the U.S. navy protects trade and ensures open trade routes, Treasury bills are the default collateral for large-scale loans and are a major form of world commerce, the UN is manipulated by the U.S, etc.

So Putin, while everything you mention about is correct, Hegemonic stability theory is that 1) Hegemons will set up an international system to their benefit, in essence removing the anarchy of the system and putting in a hierarchy.
2) While hegemons will gain in absolute terms from this system, other nations will gain more relative to their size and to the hegemon

I may point out though, that there were putshes and uprisings throughout history no matter what polarity it was in.

Prior to the unipolar moment we are living in now, civil wars and state collapses were much rarer. Now it appears that a large portion of the third world is run by failed or failing states.

There is not much in the way of order in the international system. Despite the US being a hegemon, the rules governing the system are relics of the bipolar Cold War era. The UN Security Council is the same. New institutions haven't really been created. I suppose the WTO Is kind of new, but really this institution had existed before. The main issue in the international system is terrorism, which is inherently unpredictable and chaotic. Whereas in the Cold War the Soviet Union's behavior was much more predictable.

Since terrorists are non-state actors, I don't think they're accounted for in Hegemonic Stability Theory. Indeed, realists don't give a crap about terrorists, as non-state actors don't care about them. Also, realists in general don't care about 3rd world countries. They care about Great Power stability.

Which now that I think about it runs contrary to the reasons I presented earlier for intervention in Syria. Hmm....still I feel that we have to stop the murder going on there now

Right well that's one of the big critiques of realism, it cannot account for much of what is actually going on in today's world.

If there is only one great power, when the heck is there to talk about with HST? What is the stability and order, exactly?

And really, if realism takes out smaller powers it has nothing of value to say. The reason Balance of Threat theory works pretty well is because it accounts for the fact that balancing still operates, but on a regional not a global level. Proximity matters. So whereas Saudi Arabia balances against Iran, and India balances against China, none are particularly worried about the US despite its power.

I suggest that anyone interested in Syria watch the comments of Henry Kissinger on the topic during a recent interview with Charlie Rose.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12132

Syria comes up in the latter part of the interview. The first part refers to Kissinger's recent trip to meet with Vladimir Putin.

Must see TV.

Well isn't balance of threat part of defensive structural realism? Because I'm not going to argue that balancing doesn't take place on a regional level.

But it could be argued that the U.S. has such a preponderance of power that it will always threaten a country, no matter where it is

"Because I'm not going to argue that balancing doesn't take place on a regional level."

My point was if realism only pays attention to great powers, a la Waltz, then it has little to say. Because Stephen Walt has expanded realism to include regional balancing, it is still relevant.

"But it could be argued that the U.S. has such a preponderance of power that it will always threaten a country, no matter where it is"

I agree, but what is interesting is proximity seems to matter a great deal in terms of perceptions of threat, so even if the US threatens everyone, most countries are consumed by defending against their neighbors.

Only countries directly in the US crosshairs, like Iran or North Korea, might be. But still North Korea more often than not threatens Seoul, not Washington.

Yeah, those are good points. I've enjoyed this discussion on IR theory. Not too many people would know the author references we're spitting out.

But back to the thread issue, check out the video embedded in this article

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/10359773-report-us-may-be-forced-to-militarize-syria-crisis

Something has to be done. It's just barbaric.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/assad-forces-mull-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-homs-opposition-says-1.411954

No way to know if this is true yet, obviously, but if Syria used chemical weapons against, well, any humans, then wouldn't that be enough to convince the world Assad had to go?

"Something has to be done. It's just barbaric."

Says the supporter of assassination. Forget that media reports have already been exposed for lying by the very Gulf States who hate Assad.

Hey, I just support measures that keep the world safer in aggregate. Another nation with nuclear weapons makes the world a more dangerous place. This is a civil war where people are getting killed, many of them civilians. And the government is doing it with tanks, artillery, and mortars. They have a whole city under siege. I want that to stop.

Nothing on the chemical weapons? Surely you'd give up on Assad if he used mustard gas, right Putin33? At least hypothetically?

Still nothing?

Come on. You're online. What would you do in the hypothetical situation where Assad used chemical weapons? Would you still support him?

Bump.

Support as in oppose imperialist intervention which has hitherto resulted in weapons like depleted uranium and other similar weapons being dropped on countries? Yes.

Your solution to violence is always 100 times more violence. Let countries deal with their own problems, especially in this case when the 'problem' was instigated by saboteurs, wreckers, and splitters paid by foreign agents.

More good news for Al Qaeda loving Assad haters who want to bomb Syria.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/10/138593/us-officials-al-qaida-behind-syria.html

Who knew defending al Qaeda would become the clarion call for "humanitarian intervention" by western liberals.

More "peaceful protests" and examples of "government atrocities".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-i9GpNUG8U&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlJxqlNEtbA&feature=related

All I asked was if you would still support Assad if he used chemical weapons. Apparently the answer is yes.

That tells us all we need to know about you.

How are you going to be a translation theorist if you cannot even read English without distortions and midrashing your own meanings?

To you unless you want to bomb a country to bits and arm Al Qaeda thugs with weapons, you "support" the actions of the leadership.

Evidently it didn't bother you that ousting Saddam Hussein resulted in a completely destroyed country, a civil war, the institution of an Islamic fundamentalist regime that persecutes gays and excludes women, and over a million dead. That says all we need to know about you.

Evidently it doesn't bother you that Syria is the most socially progressive Arab country in the region, and we're helping al Qaeda terrorists destroy it and engulf the entire region in flames.

That tells us all we need to know about you. You love death and destruction and look for any pretense to cause it.

Putin - I think this is more of a case of Al Qaeda latching onto an already popular movement in order to gain relevance again and to try and attract more recruits. From what I've seen, the suicide bombings (or just bombings) that were publicized in Damascus and Aleppo were Al Qaeda work, but the majority of the violence is being done by the Syrians themselves, and using tactics that Al Qaeda does not use. Where are the roadside bombs, the mosque attacks, etc. that Al Qaeda is infamous for? You don't see them. The attacks on mosques are being done by the Syrian army, not by the rebels.

So in short, while Al Qaeda says they support the Syrian people, I don't think that many, if any, of the people fighting the Syrian government are actually Al Qaeda