The Decline in America's Reputation: Why? [Archive]

franksforum

06-12-2008, 05:30 PM

Wasn't quite sure where to post this and I apologize in advance if this is a duplicate. This is a committee reprint from the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The link to the 47-page document in PDF format is below.

http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/42566.pdf

Executive Summary:

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attack there was world-wide
sympathy and support for the United States. This was best summed up in
the headline in the French newspaper Le Monde—Nous sommes tous
Americains. (“We are all Americans now.”)

Since then, polls conducted by the U.S. Government and respected
private firms have revealed a precipitous decline in favorability toward the
United States and its foreign policy. The generally positive ratings from the
1950’s to 2000 moved to generally negative after 2002. As the very first
witness in a 10-hearing series with pollsters and regional analysts told the
Subcommittee—“We have never seen numbers this low.”

The reversal is unprecedented and widespread:
• A 45-percentage point drop in favorability in Indonesia; 41 in
Morocco; 40 in Turkey; and 27 in the United Kingdom;

• Among Muslims in Nigeria, favorable opinion fell 33 points, from
71 percent to 38 percent, within an eight-month period;

• A 26-point increase in Europe of the view that U.S. leadership in
world affairs is undesirable;

• Unfavorability rose to 82 percent in Arab countries and 86 percent
of Latin American elites now rate U.S. relations negatively; and

• 83 percent of countries in 2002 had a plurality of citizens judging
the United States favorably; by 2006 only 23 percent of countries
had a plurality saying that U.S. influence is positive.

While the United States can’t base its foreign policies on opinion polling—
either at home or abroad—this consistently negative view of U.S. foreign
policy is both a liability and a sign that something has gone seriously awry.
What happened? Why, as the question is often posed, do they hate us?

Comment:

Having leafed through the document, the answer seems to be one of two:

--We are hated for who we are.
--We are hated for our policies in the world which are perceived as hypocritical and in violation of our values.

And it's not just the Middle East that holds these views. The report cited a Russian high school text:

"American foreign policy is designed to dominate the strategic minerals of the Middle East through alliance with dictatorial regimes. In Asia and Latin America, it uses military force to threaten governments who challenge its commercial interests."

As a former US Navy Intelligence Specialist (IS), I would be interested in hearing any comments on this report.

Stan

06-12-2008, 05:51 PM

And it's not just the Middle East that holds these views. The report cited a Russian high school text:

"American foreign policy is designed to dominate the strategic minerals of the Middle East through alliance with dictatorial regimes. In Asia and Latin America, it uses military force to threaten governments who challenge its commercial interests."

Russian high school text books ? Indeed, a profound source of unbiased thoughts there. Recall when Boris Yeltsin removed all the history books from Mother Russia (due to purported mistakes), only to be again replaced by Putin to (ahem) correct history :rolleyes:

Check out what the North Koreans taught (still teach?) beginning with kindergarten regarding capitalistic America(ns). I agree, we are not the most popular nation on earth, but utilizing Middle Eastern disgust/thoughts, Russia's high school books and French journalists to create and substantiate a USG report seems shoddy.

Fuchs

06-12-2008, 06:13 PM

This "Why?" is a rhetorical question, isn't it?

The U.S. foreign policy is the greatest problem in international affairs to date.
Iran, North Korea and even Syria combined are by comparison harmless.

You could make a representative poll in Europe:

Who shall remain leader of his country till 2020?

A) G.W.Bush.

A) The leaders of Syria, Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sudan, Turkey and Lybia.

Bush would lose, with certainty.
That's my perception.

Why? U.S. foreign policy.

Steve Blair

06-12-2008, 06:16 PM

The US also exists as a handy whipping boy/scapegoat for various failings (foreign and domestic) on the part of many nations. Not to say that we don't make poor decisions at times, but we're also pretty handy for others to hang their bad decisions on.

Fuchs

06-12-2008, 06:22 PM

Steve Blair

06-12-2008, 06:31 PM

@Steve:
That's a typical point of view of Americans. Fact is that this might apply to some countries, but has no relevance about the general situation.

One could also contend that popularity polls have no relevance on the general situation. Also, I'd say that your laundry list of policy errors could equally apply to the Soviets at their peak (in spite of your assertion to the contrary), or just about any major power at any given point in time. Nothing new there.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. It's always easier to look on the US as the great evil without examining some of the poor policy decisions on the part of other nations that allowed this situation to come to pass.

Fuchs

06-12-2008, 06:35 PM

BRUZ_LEE

06-12-2008, 07:09 PM

It's always easier to look on the US ....

Having Greater Power means also having Greater Responsibility.

Or, to put it like this: The Foreign Policy of the US is somewhat more important than that of Madagaskar and will be therefore looked at more closely.

Stan

06-12-2008, 07:12 PM

Few great power in history were much liked, but many were respected and were influential with diplomacy.

Btw, when did the Soviet Union do this?
- Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides.
- Cheating the world economically.
- Disrespect towards U.N.

I'm sure they did not this:
- Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia.

While I don't agree with you (and as Steve indicated, you're certainly entitled to your opinion), I'm interested in knowing which great powers were respected and influenced historically with diplomacy? That is, documented examples free of opinion (presumes America was never respected nor diplomatically influenced even to this day).

I think a quick look at present day will solve most of the questions regarding Russia, her sales/finance programs, economic 'blundering' (ever hear of the 3 fat pigs ?) and outright discontent with the U.N. (not that I consider that a significant or unique issue regarding the popularity of a nation).

BTW, Russia need not spy on corporations and/or individuals... They own or control all of the above.

Ken White

06-12-2008, 07:29 PM

...That's more than the Soviet Union had as foreign policy sins at its peak.However since the USSR -- and a few others I cuold name in other times -- have engaged in exactly the same things to a greater extent than we ever have, you blew it when you added that.

With respect to your list, I suggest:

Torture. -- some, not systemic or widespread.

Heating up of international conflicts by threatening other countries (which is illegal). -- Illegal? How so? By what laws? Morally wrong in the view of some, perhaps but illegal? Nah...

Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia. -- That's funny.

Disrespect towards U.N. -- that's even funnier. If you can produce any organization that does more to earn disrespect, please tell me what it is...

Spying on corporations and individuals even in allied countries. -- and you don't? Most other nations don't??? :D

Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides. -- Let me count the Leopards...

Repeated friendly fire on allied troops. -- Yep, we are trigger happy. Poor training, no excuse. Not even that it's a fact of war that can occur even with the best trained troops.

Cheating the world economically. -- Do Daimler and BMW know this?

Over-stressing natural resources with wasteful consumption and economic behaviour. -- that's possibly true; that's why Mercedes and BMW sell so many cars here.
The U.S. government needs to learn respect, quickly. Powers who don't respect others cannot expect good relations.That's true. We can't.

J Wolfsberger

06-12-2008, 07:44 PM

I have a terrible feeling that "Why?" was probably a honest question and needs a more elaborate answer...

Lying to us in the U.N. assembly.

Invading a sovereign country.

Refusing co-operation in many international treaties.

Bullying and disrespecting even close allies.

Kidnap of free individuals overseas.

Violating captured person's rights by denying both criminal and POW rights.

Torture.

Heating up of international conflicts by threatening other countries (which is illegal).

Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia.

Disrespect towards U.N.

Spying on corporations and individuals even in allied countries.

Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides.

Repeated friendly fire on allied troops.

Repeated attack on civilians by fighter-bombers "in self defence" (few accept this justification)

Cheating the world economically.

Over-stressing natural resources with wasteful consumption and economic behaviour.

That's more than the Soviet Union had as foreign policy sins at its peak.
The U.S. government needs to learn respect, quickly. Powers who don't respect others cannot expect good relations.

@Steve:
That's a typical point of view of Americans. Fact is that this might apply to some countries, but has no relevance about the general situation.

... to your list is that the anti-American propaganda campaign has been obviously effective.

To take just one point, "Disrespect towards U.N.," I have held the UN in contempt since Biafra. Self righteous posturing on nearly every humanitarian crisis since has only confirmed my opinion.

My point on this one, and I could make one similar on each of the issues raised, is that someone should explain, using concrete examples of quantifiable alleviation of human suffering, just exactly why the UN deserves any respect?

I grant you, the US commits more than its share of screw ups. But that's what happens when somebody steps forward, takes a moral position, and actually tries to accomplish something in the real world.

Fuchs

06-12-2008, 08:15 PM

@Wolfsberger;
That's a typical mistake that Americans do. The attitude is not anti-American, but anti-U.S. policy. The difference is crucial, and those who don't see it are blind to the real problem, excuse it away with the assumption that others are at fault.

I grant you, the US commits more than its share of screw ups. But that's what happens when somebody steps forward, takes a moral position, and actually tries to accomplish something in the real world.

Well, the problem is that during GWB's government there was no accomplishment, just ruins and wrecks visible.
It's quite obvious that this causes a decline of reputation and relations.

However since the USSR -- and a few others I cuold name in other times -- have engaged in exactly the same things to a greater extent than we ever have, you blew it when you added that.

With respect to your list, I suggest:

Torture. -- some, not systemic or widespread.

Actually, there's a zero tolerance towards torture in the civilized world.
The tolerance for torture is also limited in the USA, that's why the government alleges that waterboarding and other stuff is no torture.

Heating up of international conflicts by threatening other countries (which is illegal). -- Illegal? How so? By what laws? Morally wrong in the view of some, perhaps but illegal? Nah...

Article 2.4, Charter of the United Nations, signed by the USA and in force*.

Unnecessarily promoting a conflict with Russia. -- That's funny.

Not if you have less than an ocean between yourself and Russia. The major Euroepean countries want a good relationship with Russia, and U.S. foreign policy (ABM, influence in Ukraine and Georgia) is a significant troublemaker in that area.

Disrespect towards U.N. -- that's even funnier. If you can produce any organization that does more to earn disrespect, please tell me what it is...

Others respect it, U.S. doesn't => respect for U.S. declines. It's that simple.
Btw, the U.S. could leave the UN - and would lose most of what's left of its influence by doing so.
Maybe the respect for that institution is so low because the USA exploited the UN so easily for decades to further its own agenda.

Spying on corporations and individuals even in allied countries. -- and you don't? Most other nations don't??? :D

The U.S. intelligence budget is on the same order as the defence budget of Germany. Seriously, quantity counts.
And I do strongly doubt that European intelligence services listen to domestic U.S. phone calls.

Huge arms sales into crisis regions, to both sides. -- Let me count the Leopards...

Both sides? The Greek got them, not the Turks. And that's a minimal conflict among allies. There are certainly no Leopard2 sales to Israel, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia at once. Maybe you can give a single example of Germany exporting to both sides of a crisis region?
I ask because arms sales into crisis regions are almost impossible for Germans at all...

Repeated friendly fire on allied troops. -- Yep, we are trigger happy. Poor training, no excuse. Not even that it's a fact of war that can occur even with the best trained troops.

That doesn't change that certain people dislike it strongly, that's what this thread is about.

Cheating the world economically. -- Do Daimler and BMW know this?

I'm not aware what you refer to, but Daimler and BMW certainly didn't exploit the world financial system by financing their consumption with self-printed money. Daimler and BMW also didn't cause a single world economic crisis because of greed.
(Is it possible to have quotes non-italic and comment quotes in italic?)

Re-electing GWB didn't help and electing McCain would most likely increase the problems, but there's a chance that a turnaround under Obama would pretty quickly delete the troubles. This is possible because the problems are connected to policy and politicians, not to the nation by most who despise the USA today.
The Arab world is an obvious exception to this, though.

*:
"Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

skiguy

06-12-2008, 08:18 PM

... to your list is that the anti-
I grant you, the US commits more than its share of screw ups. But that's what happens when somebody steps forward, takes a moral position, and actually tries to accomplish something in the real world.
Very well said!

Hasn't our reputation in Africa significantly improved mainly because of our assistance with the AIDs crisis?

I think most of this alleged "hatred" is just jealousy, envy, and respect. JMO.

Surferbeetle

06-12-2008, 08:49 PM

This "Why?" is a rhetorical question, isn't it?

The U.S. foreign policy is the greatest problem in international affairs to date.

Fuchs,

Your list and comments are interesting and worth thought. Holding up Russia as a contrast to the US is perhaps reflexive given our past history, however I would steer you towards an book entitled "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy (ISBN 0-394-54674-1) published back in 1987 for additional comparison/contrast material. (I welcome any references, German is fine, that you are willing to share)

German history and methods as recorded in the history of the Catholic League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_League_%28German%29) and Protestant Union in proto-Germany during the 1600's appear to have some interesting similarities to things we see on a marco-scale today. Human nature seems to be constant despite geographical and temporal location in my eyes.

What is your proposed solution to the inequities of today that you see?

Regards,

Steve

patmc

06-12-2008, 08:58 PM

Does it matter if a MAJOR world power is universally LIKED because of its foreign policy? Everything is relative. You can buy popularity; you can use threats to scare; but ultimately you have to earn respect. Is there a survey of respect for America?

The US is not the Bahamas or Switzerland. We currently have the most power and influence of any state in the world. We use that power for what we perceive to be good for us, and good for the world. The mission and duty of the US government is to protect and manage OUR country. Foreign policy is an off-shoot of this duty.

The world is not a nice place. Countries lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get ahead. A democratic republic, like ours, hold its leaders accountable through free speech, media, and elections. Americans decide our leaders, not the world. If we perceive poor foreign policy, we elect a new administration; we protest; we write letters and articles, etc...

It would be great if all the states of the world united and cooperated for the common good, but that is international communism, and not the preferred course of action. America makes mistakes and does bad things at times, but that is what happens when you take action. (Right or wrong, make a plan and execute vs sitting in the back of a truck mouth breathing) Our mistakes generally stem from misunderstanding and good intentions gone wrong, versus direct hostility. Did we invade Normandy to gain access to French markets? Maybe, but the bigger reason was probably to expell Nazi Germany. Did we invade Iraq for access to oil? Maybe, but the bigger reason may be an attempt to change the middle east (if you believe Scott McClellan's new book) and make it a "better place." You don't have to like it or agree with it, and if you don't, use your voice or vote. Even better, serve in the foreign policy community to make a change.

Fuchs

06-12-2008, 09:06 PM

@patmc:

One of the most relevant factors is in my opinion the loss of political capital. That diminished the diplomatic influence.

As someone once said, Baker accumulated capital by building the coalition against Saddam in 1990, GWBush spent all political capital by building the "coalition of the willing" and attacking Saddam again.

And I believe you are wrong with your assertion that the U.S. has most influence in the world. That's a shadow of the past. I don't see any country being significantly ahead in influence to date. China, UK, France, Germany, Russia and the USA all have significant influence, albeit in different regions and with different methods.
The USA failed with too many diplomatic initiatives in the past years to be considered very influential.

@Surferbeetle:

I don't see a parallel to your example.

My suggestion is to return to normality, which includes mutual respect.

---

Btw; it's not relevant whether Americans think that the world is unfair to them. If they want to recover to a better standing and to more respect, then they need to do something about the causes.
Few foreigners will be impressed by "you treat us unfairly" or "you are anti-American" complaints. That does simply not work, it's a waste of time.

Stevely

06-12-2008, 09:23 PM

Fuchs

06-12-2008, 09:33 PM

Hey, this was of course opinion and personal perception.

It may even be true that it's as you believe a typical position of Germans.
I believe if there were not so gross problems we'd look at smaller problems and point them out instead. But the political situation would be much better.

My list was no list of evil actions, but of reasons for "The Decline in America's Reputation".
I know some British and Canadians who like to emphasize the friendly fire problem, that's why I mentioned it.

And I believe you underestimate the problems caused by U.S. diplomacy in Eastern Europe. That's the backyard of the EU, and U.S. policy is a problem there. The Europeans are working on integration with the Eastern European countries, the U.S. continues to contain Russia and tries to establish bases close to it, provoking Russia thereby.

I know that I'm not diplomatic here, and my experience is that centre to right-wing Americans (and all military forums are dominated by these) tend to fiercely oppose ideas that their nation is at fault. They tend to blame others with this "you are anti-American", "they envy us" "they hate our freedom", "that is unfair" pseudo-arguments.
Left-wing Americans tend to agree more often than not.

The key is that it's not relevant whether you are good or right - the perception of others counts. And the perception of the U.S. by foreigners was a disaster for years. The deterioration in contrast to Clinton years is obvious.

patmc

06-12-2008, 10:06 PM

Loss of political capital compared to what? What does political capital actually mean or achieve?

In 1990, we built a coalition and expelled Iraq from Kuwait. in 2003, we built a coalition, and took control of a country. We had more international support the first time (political capital?), but all that support prevented us from going farther than expulsion of Iraqi forces. In 2003, with less support, we invaded and took control of Iraq in a few weeks. Has the occupation cost us capital? Maybe, but with who? Libya openly abandoned nuclear programs bc of OIF, and it appears Iran suspended theirs for the time being because of OIF. Eastern Europe wants our bases and money. Asia wants our bases and money. al Qaeda is being rejected by other militants door to its aggressive actions, and performance on the front lines in Iraq.

Throughout the ages, groups and countries have invaded Afghanistan. In 2001, we sent in troops and firepower to assist the non-Taliban forces, and expelled the Taliban from power. Today, though not perfect, there is a nominal central government, that is slowly improving the security situation. If nothing else, we may be the first foreigners to ever be reluctantly welcomed by most Afghans. That's capital.

@patmc:

One of the most relevant factors is in my opinion the loss of political capital. That diminished the diplomatic influence.
As someone once said, Baker accumulated capital by building the coalition against Saddam in 1990, GWBush spent all political capital by building the "coalition of the willing" and attacking Saddam again.

We probably lost some "political capital" from OEF and OIF, but it was probably with countries that were already lukewarm friends to begin with. Conversely, strenghth and commitment have given us capital. Colombia, Ethiopia, Georgia, and other states are more confident in taking action now because they have our support. Is that a loss of political capital? The President of the United States may be booed and protested when he enters a foreign country, but what other leader has sent his/her forces across the globe and taken over 2 separate countries, despite the complaints?

China, UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc... are still largely regional powers now, though they all were once world powers. The UK, Germany, and France can barely meet their commitments in Afghanistan and Africa. China is buying influence with investment, and military ties. They are a strong power, but they still can't cross water and take back Taiwan. The US took back its breakaways 2 centuries ago. Russia has size and oil, but is still tied down in its backyard, and in playing spoiler elsewhere.

And I believe you are wrong with your assertion that the U.S. has most influence in the world. That's a shadow of the past. I don't see any country being significantly ahead in influence to date. China, UK, France, Germany, Russia and the USA all have significant influence, albeit in different regions and with different methods.
The USA failed with too many diplomatic initiatives in the past years to be considered very influential.

Name the diplomatic initiatives that have failed, and they can probably be met with initiatives that have succeeded. Are these failures enough for the country with the largest economy and most active military to not be very influential? I doubt that. The US in not perfect, and criticism is not necessarily knee-jerk Anti-Americanism, but it is better to use facts and examples rather than abstract theories such as perceived loss of political capital, which is largely an opinion, not fact. I may be wrong, so please show some evidence.

Norfolk

06-12-2008, 10:30 PM

I think most of this alleged "hatred" is just jealousy, envy, and respect. JMO.

I think that pretty much sums it up. When you dig deep, most of the "reasons" to hate America are mainly excuses for other things. Some legitimate grievances to be sure, and more than a few of them genuinely very serious. But on the whole, the U.S. is a far more benevolent Great Power than any before, during, or after the British Empire, which likewise endured much the same international scorn, for much the same sorts of reasons. In their day the Brits may have performed the role of Imperial Power rather better than the U.S., perhaps even better than most indeed, but they were also a good deal less squeamish than present-day Americans are in the exercise of Imperial power.

Fuchs

06-12-2008, 10:47 PM

Sargent

06-12-2008, 11:04 PM

Given the philosophies under which American foreign policy has been conducted for at least the last century (democracy, freedom, human rights, international cooperation, free trade, etc.) and the image of itself that it seeks to portray abroad (land of the free, home of the brave, truth, justice and the American Way, give us your poor..., etc.), ultimately it is very important how we are viewed by others, especially insofar as we desire effective foreign policies. Everything that is done that contradicts these philosophies and undermines the image damages our foreign policy efforts.

It is not particularly useful to say that others are bad or worse -- they don't tend to advertise these same values.

If we did not wish to be held to these standards there was a very simple path laid out nearly two hundred years ago by John Adams the Younger:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

However, as we have chosen to eschew his wisdom, we are at great peril if we do not pursue our policies of intervening around the world with the greatest of care. Yes, it's a burden, but it was a chosen and selected burden.

If you're going to tell the world you're a Boy Scout then you need to behave like one. If you want to be a bad ass, fine. But don't put on the Boy Scout's uniform and behave like a badass -- you'll be in for world of criticism.

I would have preferred a more Adamsian approach to our foreign policy -- eg, don't invade other countries to rid them of their bad leaders -- but since that's not an option right now, in order to be effective in our foreign policies, we are saddled with having to be a good guy. Everything we do that detracts from the good guy image makes our job tougher and the policies we pursue more difficult to implement.

Regards,
Jill

J Wolfsberger

06-13-2008, 01:29 AM

Attempts to negotiate in the conflicts about Israel - failed

Attempts to get more auxiliary troops from European countries - failed in several countries, little success in others

Attempt to get Georgia into NATO - failed

Attempts to keep "coalition of the willing" auxiliary forces in Iraq - quite failed, the number of non-U.S. coalition forces is shrinking

Attempts to mobilize Europe for an attack on Iran - failed, Europe prefers non-violent means

U.S. relevance in African conflicts (Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, Kenya)?
Marginal, except when it incited a conflict (the U.S.-backed invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia).

U.S. relevance in Latin America? - Probably close to the level of Venezuela...

U.S. relevance in Asian conflicts? Marginal, East Asian allies prefer their silent diplomacy with North Korea and PR China over U.S. diplomacy.

Situation in Europe? Almost all Bush-friendly governments lost to opposition (an exception was Major, who was still replaced).

Attempt to prevent North Korean nukes? - grand failure, the U.S. gave up and accepted that NK is likely now a nuclear power

Attempt to turn Pakistan against the Taleban? - miserable failure

Attempts to prevent several international treaties (like the Den Haag trials) - failure

Attempt to install a stable government in Iraq - still not successful

Attempt to install a stable government in Afghanistan - still not successful

Attempt to 'ally' with India - India was nice, but stays neutral.

It's naturally more difficult to tell about the failures because politicians don't talk much about denied demands in front of the press after the talks. But this list is still impressive in my opinion. It focuses on the security policy area, an area that received a lot of attention by the U.S. government in the past years. Still, lots of failures to exert influence.

The relevant successes happened in the 2002-2004 time frame (bases and overflight rights in Central Asia, Lybia scrapping a questionable nuclear arms program, support for GWOT, limited support for Iraq invasion).

... to accept any responsibility is what this list boils down to.

Here's a question. Where are the European troops intervening in Darfur?

If there is any such thing as an international community, it requires the structure of "community:" shared values and a commitment to enforce them. Such as "Rape is evil. If you build a rape camp, we'll hammer you into the ground."

Now go to another thread and tell Sarajevo about the moral superiority of the "European Community."

Fuchs, I am sure you, personally, are a good guy. But you are advancing a set of arguments,that, in my opinion, serve only to list the complete lack of moral stature in the world in general, and Europe in particular.

When the rest of the world demonstrates a capacity to behave in a moral manner in international relations, as has the US, Australia, the Netherlands, the Danes, and a very few others, I'll pay attention to their opinion. Until then, you're asking me to respect the opinion of moral midgets.

The rest of the world needs to understand, if they really want the US to act according to their standard of moral posturing:

a. Not likely.

b. They won't like it if we do.

patmc

06-13-2008, 01:30 AM

Fuchs, you suggest the US has failed at the following. True, but lack of political capital not necessarily the reason, and I would argue that many are world issues, not just US. The fact you are holding American responsible for all of these shows our influence in the world:

Israel: no country will ever force Israel to give up its security, nor force an Arab neighbor to make an agreement. US can work behind the scenes and hold meetings, but ultimately the warring parties have to reconcile. Following the US democracy plan for the Middle East, the world allowed Palestinians to elect their own leaders. Hamas and Fatah are drowning, but infighting and struggle are sadly a common reality in young democracies. Israel is waiting for Palestinians to elect a government that will reasonably negotiate. May take way too long for anyone's liking, but I think that is there goal. It took the US decades to work out the original kinks, took a civil war to resolve further issues, and has still needed decades of work on civil rights. The fact that Israel won't make peace with Hamas is the fault of Hamas or Isreal, not lack of US political capital.

More troops from Europe: Europe spent decades on defense welfare, and was called out on it with the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Lack of forces has more to do with the failure of European defense than our lack of capital. How many other countries contributed forces to the British, French, or Soviet middle east/central asia adventures? Nobody wants to go to Afghanistan for obvious reasons, but the US did, and continues to send troops. That is action.

Georgia into NATO: Georgia has contributed troops, but still has too many domestic political problems. It could also snare NATO into a direct conflict with Russia, as Russia is psuedo-annexing the breakaway Georgian areas (1914 Serbia, Round 2?). This political reality discourages admitting Georgia, rather than a lack of US focus. If the US was steadfast about getting Georgia in, we probably would have. We are waiting for their political reality to mature. Side note: I served with Georgian troops in Iraq; the fact that they are even there shows which polar direction former Soviet states are moving to.

"Coalition of the Willing"- true, our allies are tired and leaving, but that also speaks to their political/military weakness, not specifically our political capital strength. Having allies contribute troops is nice, but generally there has to be an immediate reward for those allies. We're fighting with less and less support, but could any other nation fight these wars without tremendous Allied support?

Iran: we would prefer that Iran abandon its program without an attack, and Europe is moving to our position in supporting more sanctions. Our diplomacy is working on sanctions, despite Russia and China, so this is not a failure.

Africa: that the world has largely abandoned Africa is a tragedy, but not an indication of US policy failure. George Bush's best legacy overseas will be his work on fighting AIDS in Africa. We are involved in African countries where we suspect terrorism (North Africa and the Horn) but we've left the rest to their former colonial powers (ie: France). I am a firm supporter of more US engagement in Africa, but not really a popular policy. China has the most influence on Sudan, but they have not stopped Darfur, because money talks. The US actually negotiated the north-south Sudan peace treaty that is under strain right now, but is still holding. The US could do more, but already does more than it gets credit for.

S. America: just like Africa, we need to put more US attention back into S. America, but we still have forces in many LA countries training and working with local governments. Colombia is confronting its neighbors bc of our support. Voters in Venezuela and Bolovia are rejecting the dictatorial socialism being imposed. We could do more, yes, but we're still involved. I would also argue that lack of political capital has nothing to do with Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales winning elections. Latin America went from left to right, now back to left. Kind of like Europe, but not our fault or choice.

Asia: Japan and Korea still want our forces. NK and SK have been negotiating for 50 years, thanks to the presence of these forces. NK made and broke deals throughout the 90's, so Bush administration called them out on it, and waited for NK to come clean. US then engaged China in dealing with NK, which they originally would not, so I would say that was a US success. Also, I would argue nuclear proliferation is a world failure, not just the US, or are we the only one enforcing it? China has not attacked Taiwan. Why? Domestic politics and lack of sufficient military capability? Yes. Because of US security assurance? Yes. China is building a submarine and missile fleet because we are so influential in Aisa, and that would be our weak spot.

European governments: Sarzoky and Merkell won by being Pro-American, rejecting earlier Bush-bashing. Eastern Europe wants more engagement and ties. Europe is realizing that they are losing their traditional continent to the left and Islam. Result of decades of socialism, not Us capital loss. On President Bush's current European tour, he has actually been quite well received.

Pakistan and Taliban: eastern half of Afghanistan is Pashtun, as is western Pakistan, so good luck at stopping cooperation with just talks. We unwisely supported Musharraf because we saw him as bringing security and stability. In reality, the Pakistani military and intelligence forces helped support and train the Taliban, just as we supported the mujahideen in the 1970s and 80s. That policy is now biting Pakistan, as some argue it bit us. Many Pakistanis realize that the genie is out of the bottle, but are unwilling to make the committment to fix it, if possible. That Pakistan has even attempted to control their Federal Tribal Areas is a big deal, as all armies that have moved in their have lost.

International Treaties: I have little knowledge of these, but I do know that the US has been able to win protection for its forces in the ICC from most countries, and the US stood strong against Kyoto, not giving in to feel good environmentalism rather than sound policy.

India: was a Soviet bloc country in previous decades, but has opened with democracy and economics (who would have thought?) The world's largest democracy and growing economic power. We've never been an ally, but now India is not openly oppossed to us, and is even considering military purchases and contacts, in addition to the nuclear deal still be worked out. We are moving in right direction, but again, we're negotiating and working with them, not just throwing money.

Iraq and Afghanistan: Iraq's government is growing abler and stronger as time passes. Basra, Sadr City, and Mosul offensives are showing growing confidence. Political progress is being made as well. Our Iraq policy originally was regime change, and we succeeded in that. It has now morphed into building a democracy. Only time will tell, but recent success sheds some glimmers of hope. Afghanistan has never had a strong central government, and probably never will. Life is much better for many Afghans than under the Taliban, and the country is slowly recovering. Will it even be a modern western society? No, because it is Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the people are not prospering or happy. Again, our policy was regime change, and we succeeded in that. If anything, we're pretty good at regime change, just not the next phase.

I completely agree that US actions should match our words, but I would argue that they largely do. Do we claim to be a Boy Scout? I've never heard that, usually heard us called a policeman though. Unfortunately, we've lived up to the policeman identity too often and find ourselves involved all over the world. That's more to the American spirit of believing you can and should help others and make changes though. If a cop hits a suspect too hard, he is held accountable. If the suspect deserved it, that's another question. He'll get charged, but most people will tell him, "Nice hit."

Good discussion. Too bad our candidates are not having it.

J Wolfsberger

06-13-2008, 02:15 AM

Attempts by European Union to effectively negotiate in the conflicts about Israel - nonexistent

Attempts to get more auxiliary troops from European countries - failed in several countries, little success in others - due to moral failure of Europeans to participate in a REAL international community

Attempt to get Georgia into NATO - failed - thanks to EU

Attempts to keep "coalition of the willing" auxiliary forces in Iraq - quite failed, the number of non-U.S. coalition forces is shrinking - due to moral failure of Europeans to participate in a REAL international community

Attempts to mobilize Europe for an attack on Iran - failed, Europe prefers non-violent means - that allow them to feel good about themselves when they say them, but require zero effort and accomplish nothing. And by the way, the only people talking seriously about an attack on Iran are the hard core left - when they make up the accusation that the US is planning it.

U.S. relevance in African conflicts (Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, Kenya)?
Marginal, except when it incited a conflict (the U.S.-backed invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia). - And largely the same as the UN efforts. Or less. See Biafra. Also see the UNs spectacular failure in Rwanda - when the US (mistakenly) deferred to the international "community."

U.S. relevance in Latin America? - Probably close to the level of Venezuela... - vote is still out

U.S. relevance in Asian conflicts? Marginal, East Asian allies prefer their silent diplomacy with North Korea and PR China over U.S. diplomacy. - A failure due to the US attempting to work with the international "community."

Situation in Europe? Almost all Bush-friendly governments lost to opposition (an exception was Major, who was still replaced). - Exactly wrong. Look at who won the last elections in France and Germany.

Attempt to prevent North Korean nukes? - grand failure, the U.S. gave up and accepted that NK is likely now a nuclear power - thanks to Clinton and reliance on the international "community." And by the way, North Korea is a slow motion train wreck, but again, the international "community" approves.

Attempt to turn Pakistan against the Taleban? - miserable failure - I think a lot of people need to keep silent on Pakistan until they learn something about its internal politics. The test of their learning is that, if they have, they will voluntarily stay silent.

Attempts to prevent several international treaties (like the Den Haag trials) - failure - no comment: I don't know what you're referring to

Attempt to install a stable government in Iraq - still not successful - vote is still out, but looking good

Attempt to install a stable government in Afghanistan - still not successful - vote is still out, but looking good

(And on these last two, it took the US 11 years, afte the Revolutionary War ended, to establish its constitution. Iraq and Afghanistan get a few more years, in my book.)

Attempt to 'ally' with India - India was nice, but stays neutral. - vote is still out, but looking good

Schmedlap

06-13-2008, 03:08 AM

Fuchs,

Your first list reminded me of a comment by William F. Buckley, when he told Johnny Carson that, "to say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around."

Your list was a good example of the type of equivocation that he was referring to.

Regarding your second list, what are we to conclude when you collect a list of failures and then point out that, ah ha - they're all failures! If I pick a bushel of apples, will you be surprised to find no oranges among them?

Cherry picking your facts does not really further your argument because it is, by definition, not a sample representative of the whole. It is just a sample representative of your view. Thus far, it seems reasonable to remain skeptical that your view is accurate, given your decision to ignore anything that does not fit neatly into it.

snapperhead

06-13-2008, 03:14 AM

Fuch, firstly I disagree with you. Nevertheless, you don't need to listen to the rest of the intellectual juggernauts on this thread who are comparing other nations failings to the U.S. (as if that somehow absolved the U.S. of their cockups).

It's the Tu Quoque fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html). You don't need to respond to their claims when they use any crappy argumentation like "BUT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE WORSE WAAAAAAH."

Their logic is similar to Osama Bin Laden's bad argument from the above link:

Q: Now, the United States government says that you are still funding military training camps here in Afghanistan for militant, Islamic fighters and that you're a sponsor of international terrorism.… Are these accusations true? …

Osama Bin Laden: …At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his right, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army at the White House as a political leader, while woe, all woe is the Muslims if they cry out for their rights. Wherever we look, we find the US as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world. The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs at nations thousands of miles away, when it would not be possible for those bombs to hit military troops only. These bombs were rather thrown at entire nations, including women, children and elderly people and up to this day the traces of those bombs remain in Japan. The US does not consider it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of food or medicine. So, there is no base for what the US says and this saying does not affect us.…

Ken White

06-13-2008, 04:21 AM

Actually, there's a zero tolerance towards torture in the civilized world. The tolerance for torture is also limited in the USA, that's why the government alleges that waterboarding and other stuff is no torture.True on the tolerance in the civilized world bit (not that the US is all that civilized) but there's also zero tolerance for major theft and for murder -- those things still occur. People can be pretty evil. Waterboarding is seen as torture by many. We have acknowledged using it on, IIRC, three people and have said we no longer will do so -- that in reaction to worldwide condemnation. So you can condemn us for transgressing but not for systemic or widespread torture -- which was what I said.
Article 2.4, Charter of the United Nations, signed by the USA and in force*.That's an agreement, it is not law, thus not adhering to it is not illegal, it does not have the force of law in the 'internationla law' sense; a law requires an enforcement agency and the UN is emphatically and by design not such an agency. However that Charter is ratified by the US Senate and thus has the force of US Law (which could make such threats illegal -- if they were uttered). I'm prepared to prosecute -- if you'll just tell me which nations we threatened, I'll get right on that. Statement similar to "We will not rule out the use of force" are not threats, BTW...
Not if you have less than an ocean between yourself and Russia. The major Euroepean countries want a good relationship with Russia, and U.S. foreign policy (ABM, influence in Ukraine and Georgia) is a significant troublemaker in that area.I'm sure you do. We'd like one as well, perhaps not to as great an extent but it would be nice. Russia could help with that but they, like we pursue own interests. Funny how nations do that. Frequently annoys other nations when they get caught in the crossfire.
Others respect it, U.S. doesn't => respect for U.S. declines. It's that simple.Do others respect it or see it -- as does the US -- as needed but requiring really significant reform?
Btw, the U.S. could leave the UN - and would lose most of what's left of its influence by doing so.Taking our payments to the UN with us? You may disagree but our contention is that if we're paying most of the costs, a little sensible performance is not too much to expect.
Maybe the respect for that institution is so low because the USA exploited the UN so easily for decades to further its own agenda.There's that old 'nations do not have friends, only interests' thing again. Been my observation that applies to most all nations most of the time.
The U.S. intelligence budget is on the same order as the defence budget of Germany. Seriously, quantity counts.
And I do strongly doubt that European intelligence services listen to domestic U.S. phone calls.Yes, quantity counts -- but ineptitude decreases its value... :D As to the last sentence there, is that due to altruism or capability?
Both sides? The Greek got them, not the Turks. And that's a minimal conflict among allies. There are certainly no Leopard2 sales to Israel, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia at once. Maybe you can give a single example of Germany exporting to both sides of a crisis region?
I ask because arms sales into crisis regions are almost impossible for Germans at all...[quote]Good point, can't do that -- however, if I had acces to the classified stuff I bet could point out illegal sales to Iraq and Iran a few years ago. ;)[quote]That doesn't change that certain people dislike it strongly, that's what this thread is about.Nor does it change the fact that I sidlike it strongly; so do most Americans. Most military people work hard to prevent fratricide and it is a longstanding problem which is why many nations including us are working on ways to reduce it to the maximum extent possible. We, as i acknowledged are more aggressive than most -- and have more people involved, so the potential for error is greater, no question.
I'm not aware what you refer to, but Daimler and BMW certainly didn't exploit the world financial system by financing their consumption with self-printed money.Nor did we -- we borrow from China.
Daimler and BMW also didn't cause a single world economic crisis because of greed.Nor did we -- in most senses -- but we're handy for blame purposes.

Granite_State

06-13-2008, 07:50 AM

Given the philosophies under which American foreign policy has been conducted for at least the last century (democracy, freedom, human rights, international cooperation, free trade, etc.) and the image of itself that it seeks to portray abroad (land of the free, home of the brave, truth, justice and the American Way, give us your poor..., etc.), ultimately it is very important how we are viewed by others, especially insofar as we desire effective foreign policies. Everything that is done that contradicts these philosophies and undermines the image damages our foreign policy efforts.

It is not particularly useful to say that others are bad or worse -- they don't tend to advertise these same values.

If we did not wish to be held to these standards there was a very simple path laid out nearly two hundred years ago by John Adams the Younger:

However, as we have chosen to eschew his wisdom, we are at great peril if we do not pursue our policies of intervening around the world with the greatest of care. Yes, it's a burden, but it was a chosen and selected burden.

If you're going to tell the world you're a Boy Scout then you need to behave like one. If you want to be a bad ass, fine. But don't put on the Boy Scout's uniform and behave like a badass -- you'll be in for world of criticism.

I would have preferred a more Adamsian approach to our foreign policy -- eg, don't invade other countries to rid them of their bad leaders -- but since that's not an option right now, in order to be effective in our foreign policies, we are saddled with having to be a good guy. Everything we do that detracts from the good guy image makes our job tougher and the policies we pursue more difficult to implement.

Regards,
Jill

Great post, I was hoping someone would drop the "in search of monsters to destroy." Read the other day that George Kennan (who had the kind of wisdom we're so sorely lacking now) popularized that quote.

I'd only question where you write "that not an option right now." Do you mean because we're stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, or something broader?

Fuchs

06-13-2008, 11:34 AM

Just two details:

Article 2.4 of U.N. Charter defines international law. I know that U.S.Americans have a strange relationship to international law, but that's as I said one reason for their drop of reputation.

Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.
It consists of Schröder's SPD and Merkel's CDU. Merkel is chancellor now, but unable to do much or anything against the will of the SPD.
Merkel is playing nice, but does nothing that helps Bush. In fact, she's waiting for a Bush successor and merely avoids useless conflicts in the meantime.
She was a decisive obstacle to getting Georgia into NATO.
And yes, a better U.S. government might have succeeded in convincing us to let Georgia into NATO. But this one isn't trusted any more.
Prominent politicians of all parties have openly criticized Bush during the recent visit and expressed their expectation of improvement after the election. That has never happened before.
The French government is not truly US-friendly. Sarkozy is merely erratic, which yields some superficially U.S.-friendly actions.

Come on, I was asked to provide a list of failures, with the implied assumption that I couldn't. I provided a long list in few minutes of writing and thinking, but the responses are excuses, effectively denying that these are U.S. failures albeit I mentioned lots of high-priority political initiatives of the U.S. that failed.

Most of what I read here is a mix of

- "others are at fault"

- "Europeans are pussies" (which is an embarrassing misunderstanding of facts. The mere idea that the Europeans wouldn't have been powerful enough in the past years is a joke. Several European countries could have crushed Yugoslavia on their own.)

- some ignorance about realities, using interpretations which are solely accepted in the U.S. and irrelevant in 95% of the world.

- misinterpretation using a pre-fabricated opinion and ideology instead of accepting the words that I read as what I meant

That's quite disappointing, but it's also typical for military-related U.S.-dominated environments. It's quite easily possible to discuss such matters much more fruitful in other arenas, even with Americans.
This topic is really one that doesn't need much discussion. Most people easily agree. Just centre/right Americans have problems to understand it, as it collides with their fancy understanding of the USA.
Make the test. Travel around, ask foreigners whether they think that the reputation of the USA has declined and if yes about the reason.
You can actually go into forums on the internet. European or Australian ones for convenient English but few Americans.
Go into an English soccer/football forum, for example. Every forum has an off-topic are. Post your question about U.S. reputation's decline in a new thread. See what happens.

J Wolfsberger

06-13-2008, 12:49 PM

It's the Tu Quoque fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html). You don't need to respond to their claims when they use any crappy argumentation like "BUT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE WORSE WAAAAAAH."

Their logic is similar to Osama Bin Laden's bad argument from the above link:

"Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge."

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Quoque).

marct

06-13-2008, 01:15 PM

Come on, I was asked to provide a list of failures, with the implied assumption that I couldn't. I provided a long list in few minutes of writing and thinking, but the responses are excuses, effectively denying that these are U.S. failures albeit I mentioned lots of high-priority political initiatives of the U.S. that failed.

The crucial thing that is happening here is that everyone seems to be concentrating on the reality of Fuch's laundry list, rather than on its rhetorical status. At the level of rhetoric, and that is where a lot of "reputation" lies, it doesn't matter if the list is "true" or if other nations do/did it either; all that matters is that the US is perceived as doing it.

If you boil all of the points down, one main pattern comes out: a dissonance between rhetoric and action - basically, the "talk" and the "walk" don't jibe for the international audience. International politics, at the level of influencing the general populace of other nations (Strategic Communications as Mountainrunner like to call it), requires a constancy between rhetoric and action that is quite different from the realpolitik behind closed doors.

On the tu quoque defence, specifically dealing with the old Soviet Empire, it doesn't work because almost everybody expected them to be lying bastids. No one with two neurons to rub together thought that their system could or would produce a better life for the people under their control or in their sphere of influence (aka imperium). But most people do expect the US to be better, and feel betrayed in that expectation when something happens that disabuses them of that expectation.

06-13-2008, 01:20 PM

"Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge."

The quoted posting on the licit and illicit use of tu quoque, points to the overall character of this thread. Each side has a view that may have some relevance. However, the actual truth of the matter quite probably lies somewhere in between the two polar extremes that this thread's posts seem to display. The dogged adherence by posters to their positions reminds me of a great exchange from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure:

Billy the Kid: Here's the deal. What I win, I keep. What you win, I keep.
Bill, Ted: Sounds good, Mr. The Kid!

To close with more memorable words from Bill and Ted: "Be excellent to each other," and "Party on Dudes!"

Schmedlap

06-13-2008, 01:48 PM

The US has held a leadership role in the world and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The attitude of many leaders when their Soldiers start getting irritable is one of "I don't care if you hate me; I just care that we accomplish the mission and you all go home alive." Let's concede for argument that all of Europe dislikes the United States and even dislikes most Americans. Who cares? Europe still ACTS like an ally and it is a good trading partner.

And if it is so important to be liked by other countries, then I am still not losing any sleep at night, because Japan, India, South Korea, and other populous, economically powerful countries across the world are friendly with us. What is Europe going to do, lob a nuke at us? I don't think so. Begin a trade embargo on Dannon yogurt or BMWs? Oh no. Let them whine. So long as they're not running al-Qaeda training camps, their hissy fits seem pretty irrelevant. When it comes time for their political leaders to catch a breath and think about things like adults, they will always find themselves concluding that their interests align with ours. And that is all that matters: interests, not emotions. Hate us all you want. Just keep growing your economies and don't kill each other.

Steve Blair

06-13-2008, 01:50 PM

The crucial thing that is happening here is that everyone seems to be concentrating on the reality of Fuch's laundry list, rather than on its rhetorical status. At the level of rhetoric, and that is where a lot of "reputation" lies, it doesn't matter if the list is "true" or if other nations do/did it either; all that matters is that the US is perceived as doing it.

If you boil all of the points down, one main pattern comes out: a dissonance between rhetoric and action - basically, the "talk" and the "walk" don't jibe for the international audience. International politics, at the level of influencing the general populace of other nations (Strategic Communications as Mountainrunner like to call it), requires a constancy between rhetoric and action that is quite different from the realpolitik behind closed doors.

On the tu quoque defence, specifically dealing with the old Soviet Empire, it doesn't work because almost everybody expected them to be lying bastids. No one with two neurons to rub together thought that their system could or would produce a better life for the people under their control or in their sphere of influence (aka imperium). But most people do expect the US to be better, and feel betrayed in that expectation when something happens that disabuses them of that expectation.

And, sadly, given the nature of the US system I don't think you're going to see many of those perceptions engaged or actually changed. Our political system focuses almost exclusively on internal perception (as in the voting public...no matter what campaign lip service might want outsiders to believe), and lacks the policy continuity to focus on anything other than getting back in office. It is what it is, and I suspect many just don't understand how dangerous that process is to focused policy. And major perception changes require focused policy.

There are times when I think the US would be better off disengaging from much international activity....:wry:

selil

06-13-2008, 02:17 PM

The quoted posting on the licit and illicit use of tu quoque, points to the overall character of this thread. Each side has a view that may have some relevance. However, the actual truth of the matter quite probably lies somewhere in between the two polar extremes that this thread's posts seem to display. The dogged adherence by posters to their positions reminds me of a great exchange from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure:

Actually I don't believe there is a middle ground. You have to call it where it lies not in between where the two teams think it should be.

On one side you have Germany the country that started two world wars, as a country has an split personality disorder, and is the site of the number one abomination in the last century the holocaust. Add to that the fact that Europe has relied on the United States for a large component of its national defense and Germany especially.

On the other side you have the nation that until WW2 forswore large scale combat, only truly got involved after a major attack on it, and as a consequence of that basically rebuilt the entirety of Europe. The United States has always rejected effete continental metropolitanization of international politics for workman like behavior. If a hammer doesn't do it get a bigger hammer. United States foreign policy has always been "define the enemy, kill the enemy, go home", it is only when we deviate from that script that we seem to run into issues.

Though I'd have to agree with Fuchs. Those who are more political animals than thinking individuals would disagree with me, but I think the United States will shutter its bases in Europe and other locales. The collective gasp of punditry heard around the world is amazing. Thinking outside the box, not restricted by political obsession, nor held by the straw man of "what about", I think the case will be made for stripping our foreign bases and bringing all troops home.

Of course what about Korea? Well, I know there are bunch of people who say we have this obligation. I'm not sure the next generation of Americans are going to be willing to pay for that obligation regardless of the current political culture. The situation in Korea hasn't been resolved in 50 years it is time to go home. Fulda Gap? So we are to pay for an Army to sit next to spot on a map based on WW2 maneuver warfare tactics in a nation that is obviously hostile (including trading with our actual enemies) to our interests.

There are a variety of technologies, techniques, skills, methods, incentives, and outright bribes that are cheaper, easier, and faster than the current politics of leprosy we have.

The refrain of "You're an isolationist" is almost as evil "You're a communist" and usually only followed by the more tenacious "that is childish" as far as pejorative phrases and ad hominem attack. The problem is that todays children are going to inherent the running of the United States tomorrow. It has nothing to do with "my" politics or feelings, but the reality of what will become U.S. domestic politics in the future.

Regardless of the emotion history is on my side it is only a matter of time. From the Philippines to the Panama canal the United States has left. Of course Fuchs will not want to look at what happened in both locations after the U.S. left. Regardless of the emotions, feelings, "political expediency", I think that the economic issues currently in play and the brittle supply chains to a world wide national force are going to force a draw down. My hope is that we can maintain the standing force because I perceive that in a vacuum of projected power all heck will break loose.

Time will resolve the argument one way or the other.

patmc

06-13-2008, 02:17 PM

Fuchs, there was no assumption that you couldn't. The US is involved everywhere in the world, so of course there are failures, but many of the ones you listed were either not US failures, or failures at all. You stated that the US has no more influence than any other major power, which is clearly false by your own list, which demonstrates that we are expected to solve the world's problems. Yes, the US has lost influence in some areas, but has gained in others. Other major powers are on the rise due to population and economies, while traditional powers are losing theirs, in zero sum arena.

When multilateral attempts are made, failure can be shared by multiple parties, so "others can be at fault." I don't believe anyone on here chose those words to insult Europeans (as you did), but reality is that European defense has weakened. If other European countries could have handled Yugoslavia, why didn't they? Having a rifle doesn't mean much if you're unwilling to load or fire it.

Polling people on the streets often nets great material for late night comedy shows, but is it an accurate test for the success of US policy? The fact that world citizens even have an opinion on US policy shows our influence, which you claim we lack.

Snapperhead, when people run out of facts, they resort to name calling, so thanks for showing your cards.

Respectfully,
A psuedo-intellectual juggernaut

Just two details: Come on, I was asked to provide a list of failures, with the implied assumption that I couldn't. I provided a long list in few minutes of writing and thinking, but the responses are excuses, effectively denying that these are U.S. failures albeit I mentioned lots of high-priority political initiatives of the U.S. that failed. Most of what I read here is a mix of

- "others are at fault"

- "Europeans are pussies" (which is an embarrassing misunderstanding of facts. The mere idea that the Europeans wouldn't have been powerful enough in the past years is a joke. Several European countries could have crushed Yugoslavia on their own.)

Make the test. Travel around, ask foreigners whether they think that the reputation of the USA has declined and if yes about the reason.
You can actually go into forums on the internet. European or Australian ones for convenient English but few Americans. Go into an English soccer/football forum, for example. Every forum has an off-topic are. Post your question about U.S. reputation's decline in a new thread. See what happens.

J Wolfsberger

06-13-2008, 02:53 PM

Regardless of the emotion history is on my side it is only a matter of time. From the Philippines to the Panama canal the United States has left. Of course Fuchs will not want to look at what happened in both locations after the U.S. left. Regardless of the emotions, feelings, "political expediency", I think that the economic issues currently in play and the brittle supply chains to a world wide national force are going to force a draw down. My hope is that we can maintain the standing force because I perceive that in a vacuum of projected power all heck will break loose.

The first is calling the US an "imperial" power. If so, we're the only one in history that packs up and goes home when asked. Sam points to two cases, and I'll add France and Austria. (And yes, we intervene in other countries when we think it's in our interest. Then we go home.)

The second is that our general tradition is isolationism. Regardless of his reasons, B. Obama is tapping into a long standing theme in US history. If he's elected, I expect Sam's forecast to play out.

And I don't expect the rest of the world to be happy when it does. Zimbabwe? Darfur? Sri Lanka? North Korea? A war in South America? AIDS? Malaria? Famine? Not out problems.

marct

06-13-2008, 03:09 PM

The first is calling the US an "imperial" power. If so, we're the only one in history that packs up and goes home when asked.

Yup - it's one of the reasons you guys confuse people ;):D!

The second is that our general tradition is isolationism. Regardless of his reasons, B. Obama is tapping into a long standing theme in US history. If he's elected, I expect Sam's forecast to play out.

And I don't expect the rest of the world to be happy when it does. Zimbabwe? Darfur? Sri Lanka? North Korea? A war in South America? AIDS? Malaria? Famine? Not out problems.

Hmmm. It's not your problem until you need something from those areas :wry:. Isolationism is all well and good, and you're right, it's an old US tradition, but I suspect that if you were to try it in practice, your economic situation would make today look like paradise. You might be able to do a form of social isolationism, but certainly not economic isolationism. Sorry JW, but you're stuck with interacting with the rest of the world whether or not you like it :p.

Steve Blair

06-13-2008, 03:22 PM

The US has never really been economically isolationist...at least not in the sense that I think you mean, Marc. Trade has always been an issue, except possibly for some traditionally isolationist parts of New England (and even there seaborne commerce was a big part of their historical background and profitability). But we have certainly been militarily and politically isolationist...and like Sam I'm starting to see a fair chance that we will return to such policies. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the majority of our overseas bases closed down...and it would be interesting to see how long the quiet lasted before others started shouting for US "help" (mostly funds and the like) to deal with some of the world's problem spots.

There's also a segment, I think, that likes the idea of having the US "handy"...in other words sitting quietly on the sidelines yet willing to come when called (with money and/or military force if needed) to deal with things that others don't want to deal with directly. The fact that from time to time we don't want to play in that role makes them nervous. The roots of much of this are quite deep, and there's enough of it to go around.

Ken White

06-13-2008, 03:25 PM

Just two details:

Article 2.4 of U.N. Charter defines international law...I again ask you who is the enforcement agency for that 'law?'
Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.Agreed.
- "Europeans are pussies" (which is an embarrassing misunderstanding of facts. The mere idea that the Europeans wouldn't have been powerful enough in the past years is a joke. Several European countries could have crushed Yugoslavia on their own.)True -- but they did not due to lack of political will. Then got annoyed at the US for having the will.
- some ignorance about realities, using interpretations which are solely accepted in the U.S. and irrelevant in 95% of the world.Perhaps on the part of some, for myself and many others it's not ignorance but a total lack of concern for what the rest of the world thinks. The world has broadly been anti-American for many years, certainly all my lifetime and I first went overseas in 1947 and have spent over 12 years in one part of the world or another. The feeling is not as intense now as it was at the heighth of Viet Nam. Now we're just disliked, then there was almost hatred in some place. That stuff comes and goes.
That's quite disappointing, but it's also typical for military-related U.S.-dominated environments.May annoy you but it seems like a quite logical reaction considering the environment, I'm unsure what else you would expect.
It's quite easily possible to discuss such matters much more fruitful in other arenas, even with Americans.Fruitful in that you get more agreement with your opinions elsewhere?
This topic is really one that doesn't need much discussion. Most people easily agree. Just centre/right Americans have problems to understand it, as it collides with their fancy understanding of the USA.I'll give you my favorite quote from Ms. Christy Blatchford, a Canadian newspaper Columnist; "...most Americans don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks."

And no, Marc, I will not quote McQuaig to him... :D

Steve Blair

06-13-2008, 03:38 PM

to the discussion. Full story is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449663.stm), but this quoted snippet was an interesting summation/comparison. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but Frei makes some interesting points and observations.

The world needs to come down to reality and experience the cold turkey of American electoral politics.

Despite the lofty dreams ringing in campaign ears this remains the 50-50 nation.

American elections tend to be decided by a whisker-thin majority in the swing county of one swing state.

Obama may be a global citizen but to voters in West Virginia or parts of Ohio that sounds as pretentious as a double decaf Venti latte.

But before the German politician who wrote that Obama was a cross between John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King gets too sniffy about those hillbillies in America, just remember this:

Germany has a minority of four million Turks, but has elected only a handful of ethnic Turks to the Bundestag.

An ethnic Pakistani Prime Minister taking up residence at Number 10 Downing Street is even less likely than England winning the World Cup.

In Beijing, the overt racism shown to African students brought over under the bygone days of international Communism is truly shocking.

Even if America is not ready to elect a black president, the rest of the world has no right to point the finger.

And there is always the possibility that Obama failed not because he was black, not because he was too global, but simply because his vision of America's future did not add up.

marct

06-13-2008, 03:39 PM

Hi Steve,

The US has never really been economically isolationist...at least not in the sense that I think you mean, Marc. Trade has always been an issue, except possibly for some traditionally isolationist parts of New England (and even there seaborne commerce was a big part of their historical background and profitability).

You're quite right; I used the wrong term - isolationist when the proper one would be protectionist (i.e. erecting trade / tariff barriers on incoming goods while trying to undermine them in other countries). I'm thinking of the stance in the 1820's and again in the 1870's-90's, mainly in manufactured goods.

But we have certainly been militarily and politically isolationist...and like Sam I'm starting to see a fair chance that we will return to such policies. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the majority of our overseas bases closed down...and it would be interesting to see how long the quiet lasted before others started shouting for US "help" (mostly funds and the like) to deal with some of the world's problem spots.

Hmmm. Well, I wouldn't be surprised to see a fair number of your overseas bases closed either, but I think you will see new ones opening up. My gut guess would be that there will still be quite a few US troops on foreign soil, regardless of any political isolationist tendencies. As for groups shouting for help, it would probably start before any draw down ;). OTOH, you might also want t think about what various US multi-national corporations would do in response to such a draw down (maybe I should invest in Blackwater stock!:cool:).

There's also a segment, I think, that likes the idea of having the US "handy"...in other words sitting quietly on the sidelines yet willing to come when called (with money and/or military force if needed) to deal with things that others don't want to deal with directly. The fact that from time to time we don't want to play in that role makes them nervous. The roots of much of this are quite deep, and there's enough of it to go around.

I'm honestly not sure if it's that or not :confused:.

marct

06-13-2008, 03:43 PM

I'll give you my favorite quote from Ms. Christy Blatchford, a Canadian newspaper Columnist; "...most Americans don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks."

And no, Marc, I will not quote McQuaig to him... :D

.........

J Wolfsberger

06-13-2008, 04:11 PM

Isolationism is all well and good, and you're right, it's an old US tradition, but I suspect that if you were to try it in practice, your economic situation would make today look like paradise. You might be able to do a form of social isolationism, but certainly not economic isolationism. Sorry JW, but you're stuck with interacting with the rest of the world whether or not you like it :p.

I was agreeing with Sam's prediction, not advocating. The point I was getting at is that I think we'd make the attempt. Having done so, when it didn't work out, we'd lurch way to far in the other direction.

Just to add to the confusion. :D

marct

06-13-2008, 04:14 PM

I was agreeing with Sam's prediction, not advocating. The point I was getting at is that I think we'd make the attempt. Having done so, when it didn't work out, we'd lurch way to far in the other direction.

Just to add to the confusion. :D

LOLOL - okay, got it and I think that's exactly what would happen :D.

Ken White

06-13-2008, 04:26 PM

To include Fuchs' (but not snapperhead who has contributed nothing other than pseudointellectual bon mots). Though I have to admit most of you take the issue more seriously than do I. We have been on the nasty list for most of the world for most of our existence. Rarely, we are if not loved, either accepted or respected -- but mostly we're slammed. I've seen so much of it here and there I don't pay much attention to it. It goes in cycles. That's why I think this is sort of important:

Originally Posted by Steve Blair:
There's also a segment, I think, that likes the idea of having the US "handy"...in other words sitting quietly on the sidelines yet willing to come when called (with money and/or military force if needed) to deal with things that others don't want to deal with directly. The fact that from time to time we don't want to play in that role makes them nervous. The roots of much of this are quite deep, and there's enough of it to go around.To which Marc responded:
I'm honestly not sure if it's that or not .I submit that Steve is correct.

At the ripe old age of 14, I was in China (B.M. - Before Mao) and a British Officer pointed to a "Yankee go home" graffiti on a wall. I told him I was from Kentucky, so that didn't apply to me and he was totally uncomprehending. That was the beginning of a revelation. Very few people in the rest of the world can understand the US (many in the US don't understand it...), Canadians probably come closer than anyone but even they think we're beyond tacky and really rather weird (both truths). Surprisingly, I think Asians understand us a little better than do Europeans. So too do South Americans, many of whom harbor some earned resentment toward us -- but they all still want to come here. We totally baffle most Europeans I've met..

Given the fact that we contributed to the defeat of Germany in two wars, Japan in one; we effectively forced the British and French out of the Colonial business and messed up Suez for them and have managed to annoy most nations in the world at one time or another in pursuit of US interests and you have plenty of reasons for us to be on many a nasty list. Add to that a really ignorant and pathetic media face to the world which tends to emphasize our clownish side coupled with the fact that we're big and over prone to try to throw our weight around when it is to our benefit and ignore those issues that are note seen as beneficial (always with an eye to domestic politics) and we're seen an inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical pain in the tail too many. That is unlikely to change.

So are we.

In the immortal words of J Wolfsberger:
...I think we'd make the attempt. Having done so, when it didn't work out, we'd lurch way to far in the other direction.

Just to add to the confusion.

Yep... :D

patmc

06-13-2008, 05:53 PM

That is a pretty good one paragraph summary of it. Well put.

Given the fact that we contributed to the defeat of Germany in two wars, Japan in one; we effectively forced the British and French out of the Colonial business and messed up Suez for them and have managed to annoy most nations in the world at one time or another in pursuit of US interests and you have plenty of reasons for us to be on many a nasty list. Add to that a really ignorant and pathetic media face to the world which tends to emphasize our clownish side coupled with the fact that we're big and over prone to try to throw our weight around when it is to our benefit and ignore those issues that are note seen as beneficial (always with an eye to domestic politics) and we're seen an inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical pain in the tail too many. That is unlikely to change.

So are we.

Stan

06-13-2008, 06:09 PM

... Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.
It consists of Schröder's SPD and Merkel's CDU. Merkel is chancellor now, but unable to do much or anything against the will of the SPD.
Merkel is playing nice, but does nothing that helps Bush. In fact, she's waiting for a Bush successor and merely avoids useless conflicts in the meantime.
She was a decisive obstacle to getting Georgia into NATO.
And yes, a better U.S. government might have succeeded in convincing us to let Georgia into NATO.

Please don't pretend for a second former Minister Schröder, as a German diplomat, has done battle with President Bush by precluding Georgia's nomination to NATO (for the sake of Germany). He's been in bed with Putin for years... Remember the '3 fat pigs' I mentioned ?

One being Gazprom (or for the German government - Nordstream). In spite of overall opposition from every country between Russia and Germany, Schröder and his cronies (and invested interests) are groping around over a pipeline and Russian gas, without mere regard for the former German and Soviet States and their concerns.

Let's get the story straight while we're accusing the USG of foul play abroad.

JQP

06-13-2008, 06:54 PM

As a non-military person, I'd like to take a whack at some of the items on your list. Like all other nations around the globe we have made many mistakes. I think repairing/ rebuilding our relationships will be difficult for many reasons, but one of the biggest may be because of how differently we "think". To put it simply: You like to talk, we like to act. Your focus is the "communal whole", our focus is the "independent individual". Neither one is completely right or wrong- just different. Onto your list:

1. Refusing cooperation in international treaties: Are you referring to cooperation with already signed treaties or the signing of new treaties? If it is the former, please provide more specific detail. If it signing new treaties, I'd like to know why we should feel compelled to sign a treaty that may not be in our best interest. Doesn't every country involved have that basic right? One example: For years the European community has bashed America for not signing the Kyoto Treaty. We refused to sign until the issue of India and China were addressed. Considering that both of them are going to be the biggest players on the field that should be a common sense no brainer.

2. Kidnap of free individuals- I assume this refers to individuals picked up on e battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan? Those individuals made a free choice to join one side of the war. All choices come with consequences. Should these individuals have no consequence for their choices? What exactly should those consequences be?

3. Which of course leads to the "violating captured rights......"
I don't know if placing and holding prisoners at Gitmo was right or wrong. I don't like it and I don't think it was the best choice, but I also don't have a better solution to offer up. How about the European community- you have been quite extensive in your criticism, how about offering up some solutions? And as a caveat-as long as our military is in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan, they cannot be set free.

4. Torture: Yep- a small group of Americans is certainly guilty of this. And thanks for noticing and appreciating that we are working hard to sort this out and find solutions. Since this is such an important issue for the international community I do have a few suggestions. Perhaps it would be more beneficial for the world if energy was devoted to updating the Geneva Conventions to match the realities of the modern world. And even better, once they have been updated, may I suggest that they be presented to and ratification be required of ALL members of the United Nations?

5. Disrespect of the UN- Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea culpa.
It would be much easier if you were to list the successes of the UN, as their failures are too numerous to post. Let's instead focus on the fact that almost any issue brought before the UN Security Council will be stalemated by China and Russia. The "idea" of the UN is a worthy one. Nations should gather and talk and attempt to reach agreements. However, talking and creating agreements is only effective if there is in fact a successful outcome. I'm encouraged by reports of changes in Iran, and would like to believe that the existing sanctions will work BEFORE Iran obtains nuclear weapons. I would also like to believe in the tooth fairy.

There have been recent reports about the need for a new UN building. The old building is full of asbestos. Apparently safely removing the old and building a new will cost the American public billions of taxpayer dollars. I know very few Americans who have any respect or trust for the UN. If you really want Americans to respect the UN- send money.

I think Americans have been up front about the fact that we have made mistakes. Most of our attention is focused on fixing some of the problems, so I'm not sure what else you expect of us.

You are entitled to have and to voice your opinions (a freedom greatly under appreciated in the West). I have no desire or need to access any of the sites you mention. I would, however, like to know if any Americans on them tell Europeans how to vote in their elections?

davidbfpo

06-13-2008, 09:43 PM

Executive Summary:

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attack there was world-wide sympathy and support for the United States. This was best summed up in the headline in the French newspaper Le Monde—Nous sommes tous Americains. (“We are all Americans now.”)

Since then, polls conducted by the U.S. Government and respected private firms have revealed a precipitous decline in favorability toward the United States and its foreign policy. The generally positive ratings from the 1950’s to 2000 moved to generally negative after 2002.

Many of the comments do not explain why the 9/11 sympathy evaporated, but list all sorts of causes and arguments. Yes, the sympathy for the USA was never really that evident with "the man on the street" in many countries and I exclude a string of democratic countries (not just Western Europe and the usual suspects e.g. Japan).

In those democracies, like the UK, "the man in the street" knew he and she were the target for the terrorists. Not our governments behind their defences, who rarely use public transport and wander the streets.

The declaration of a GWOT I suspect started doubts, no-one views a potentially never ending war with relish. When military might is easily visible, a power largely unknown and understood to the viewer - the costs simply appear too much.

Imagery and image just disappeared. Instead "shock & awe" in Afghanistan, then Iraq and frankly stupid tactical or were they strategic decisions, e.g. a kidnap attempt in Italy comes to mind.

America in my opinion, aided by countless visits, wants to be loved or admired. For many reasons most Americans look inwards first and cannot understand why others do not love them.

Have to think what is needed to change this, answers make take time!

Anyway that's my point of view.

davidbfpo

JQP

06-13-2008, 09:46 PM

I had finished writing my post and was interrupted before I could send it. I should have read updated posts before I posted. I apologize for interrupting the new direction of this thread.

I continue to learn much from you guys and I must say I agree with most of you.

Once a week I usually spend a day reading articles as well as comments concerning politics and foreign affairs in MSM sites and on various blogs. I view it as my personal poll. I have been stunned by the amount of passionate and heated comments by non Americans to this particular election. I am afraid I have never focused on a foreign election with such passion. Be that as it may, my point is merely how the internet and global communications will effect the choices America makes.

Forgive me if I am historically inaccurate, but wasn't it true that FDR wanted America engaged in WWII well before Pearl Harbor but did not have the political will of the people until after Pearl Harbor? Americans were fatigued from WWI and had big issues to confront at home.

So today, Americans seem to be fatigued from the Iraq War and focused on issues at home. Now add to this all of the anti-American articles, comments and videos from around the world that are now at our fingertips. Will this make us less likely to engage or reengage if we have withdrawn? I fear that if we disengage too much, we will have to experience another Pearl Harbor or 9-11 before the "return lurch" occurs.

Sargent

06-13-2008, 10:52 PM

I fear that if we disengage too much, we will have to experience another Pearl Harbor or 9-11 before the "return lurch" occurs.

1. Your comment assumes that American intervention would have changed the trajectory of Japanese or German policies. However, these policies were driven by their own domestic circumstances that were a response to the post WWI international regime, which the US was involved in creating. By the time these two countries became bellicose it is unlikely that an American show of force would have changed their policies.

2. Your comment further ignores the fact that the US was in fact engaged in the events unfolding in Europe and Asia. Perhaps not so much as they would be after 1941, but American policy had certainly chosen sides and was acting accordingly. With particular respect to the Japanese, the attack upon Pearl Harbor was in response to the policies chosen by the US that amounted, for them, to serious economic warfare -- specifically, the policies regarding oil and steel.

3. The Pearl Harbor attack was based upon the mistaken assumption that the US lacked the will to fight in response.* I doubt anyone would make a similar mistake any time soon.

And to preempt the inevitable question, no, I don't think that Al Qaeda believed the attack would make US pack up and leave the Middle East. In fact, if I were forced to guess at what they wanted to happen, I would say they wanted the US to lash out, because eventually this would cause the sympathetic tide to turn against the US. They knew full well the terms of American operational doctrine -- collateral damage would become a problem. They further could probably have deduced that the US would have a hard time adapting to insurgent warfare, with a fair amount of pain to civilians occuring during the lag time -- it would have required that they read one or two books on the Vietnam War.

Regards,
Jill

*A lesson we ought to have considered prior to OIF: don't go to war based on the best case scenario of your initiating actions. And don't forget the corrollary: no plan survives first contact with the enemy. There's also my favorite, which hasn't quite made it to aphorism: in the modern era, the side that initiates military action hasn't fared well. ("Don't cross the line of departure first," would be its pithy iteration.)

Ken White

06-14-2008, 01:02 AM

Agree with your first two paragraphs.
...
3. The Pearl Harbor attack was based upon the mistaken assumption that the US lacked the will to fight in response.* I doubt anyone would make a similar mistake any time soon. That may be correct but I would suggest that based on history we not bet the farm on it.
And to preempt the inevitable question, no, I don't think that Al Qaeda believed the attack would make US pack up and leave the Middle East. In fact, if I were forced to guess at what they wanted to happen, I would say they wanted the US to lash out, because eventually this would cause the sympathetic tide to turn against the US.Agree -- but think they expected the target to be solely Afghanistan and they were prepared for that. They also thought, I believe, that an attack by us in Afghanistan would offer all the advantages you cite plus the added advantage of not disrupting the ME as the 'Stan is not in or of the ME. Our attack in Iraq caught them off balance (they recovered rapidly, they're far more agile than big bureaucratic behemoth us) but not as far off balance as it might have had not Bush delayed (IMO at Blair's request) to go back to the UN.
They knew full well the terms of American operational doctrine -- collateral damage would become a problem. They further could probably have deduced that the US would have a hard time adapting to insurgent warfare, with a fair amount of pain to civilians occurring during the lag time -- it would have required that they read one or two books on the Vietnam War.Possibly. I suspect they realized that our ability to go heavy in Afghanistan was limited and therefor trounceable. Note that in Iraq, they (AQ et.al.) had almost as much trouble and took almost as much time getting militarily organized as we did. Saddams loyalists and the local crimianl gangs were better prepapred but were not a part of "them" (AQ et.al.). The different approach than they expected also took a toll on them in Afghanistan and I suggest that it took them longer to get organized there than it took us. As I said, they are more agile and flexible than us; therefor I think their slowness in adaptation in both theaters is a sign of some weakness. Saddam's folks just got worn down and were running low on money.
A lesson we ought to have considered prior to OIF: don't go to war based on the best case scenario of your initiating actions. And don't forget the corrollary: no plan survives first contact with the enemy.We draw far different conclusions from the same data. One should not go to war based on any preconception of what may occur; such a decision should be based solely on a need to go to war. We did have a need -- induced by the failure of four prior Presidents to properly respond to 22 years of provocations from the ME (NOT Afghanistan, the ME, a critical distinction) -- and we went. The hopes of some politicians are broadly and certainly militarily irrelevant IMO.

The old saw that no plan survives first contact with the enemy is incorrect. It should be "Only a good plan will survive the first contact." Because that is true; the other is not.
There's also my favorite, which hasn't quite made it to aphorism: in the modern era, the side that initiates military action hasn't fared well. ("Don't cross the line of departure first," would be its pithy iteration.)Given the fact that the initiating North got a draw out of Korea; the other initiating North effectively got a default win out of Viet Nam and that we got nominal wins after initiating the Dominican Republic, Grenada and Panama incursions, I'm not sure that's correct. I'd also posit a point and then ask a question re: Afghanistan and Iraq. Point; We haven't had the proverbial cake walk but it seems we're some distance from not faring well in either place.

The question; In both current cases, who crossed the LD first?

Ken White

06-14-2008, 02:01 AM

check this (LINK) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2122182/Britain-should-get-rid-of-the-monarchy%2C-says-UN.html) and remind me again why the UN deserves respect...

J Wolfsberger

06-14-2008, 02:37 AM

check this (LINK) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2122182/Britain-should-get-rid-of-the-monarchy%2C-says-UN.html) and remind me again why the UN deserves respect...

They're still POed at the US because we cut off the bribes from Saddam.

If the UN Human Rights Council had an ounce of integrity, it would recommend disbanding itself because of its threat to human rights. :mad:

Sargent

06-14-2008, 03:03 AM

Ken White wrote: Possibly. I suspect they realized that our ability to go heavy in Afghanistan was limited and therefor trounceable. Note that in Iraq, they (AQ et.al.) had almost as much trouble and took almost as much time getting militarily organized as we did. Saddams loyalists and the local crimianl gangs were better prepapred but were not a part of "them" (AQ et.al.). The different approach than they expected also took a toll on them in Afghanistan and I suggest that it took them longer to get organized there than it took us. As I said, they are more agile and flexible than us; therefor I think their slowness in adaptation in both theaters is a sign of some weakness. Saddam's folks just got worn down and were running low on money.

If you want to hear my most cynical side, I would say that they were blindsided by Iraq because they could not possibly imagine the US would lob them such a gimme. I've never prayed so much in my life as I did between October 2002 and March 2003 that we would not go into Iraq. I firmly believed that it would not work out so well as we hoped it would. I remember being mocked in April, May, and even June of that year, because it seemed to be going so splendidly. But I am firm believer that Humpty Dumpty originated as a true story, a bit of military history taught to children as a nursery rhyme, and I just knew that once broken, Iraq would pose nearly insurmountable problems in its reconstruction. And these would be especially difficult problems unlike those posed by Germany and Japan, because we would not have the mandate to do as we wished as the victorious can over the bad guy aggressors. But if you really look closely at the post-war history of those two countries, at the end of the day we gave them most of what they needed and had clumsily sought in war.

I wish I had been wrong. But unfortunately I don't think I was. And I do not fear to say that the Iraq intervention was the worst mistake of American foreign policy.

There, I've bared the depths of my historian's soul.

Regards,
Jill

Sargent

06-14-2008, 04:34 AM

Ken White wrote: check this (LINK) and remind me again why the UN deserves respect...

Because it's a noble idea. Furthermore, it's a noble idea that we promulgated. If it has gone awry, then we should treat it as one might his child who has lost his way.

Furthermore, even if the UN has lost its way, even if we don't think that it serves the purposes for which it was established, even if it does not serve our needs, even if it is beyond the redemption we think necessary, what we ought to recognize that the weak and many states of this globe find it valuable, and if only for that we ought to respect and support it.

Regards,
Jill

Stevely

06-14-2008, 04:44 AM

Because it's a noble idea. Furthermore, it's a noble idea that we promulgated. If it has gone awry, then we should treat it as one might his child who has lost his way.

How would that work, exactly? I am not sure if that is a helpful way of thinking of the problem.

Sargent

06-14-2008, 04:56 AM

Stevely wrote: How would that work, exactly? I am not sure if that is a helpful way of thinking of the problem.

It's a philosophical answer to Ken's question. If you have a child, and that child goes off the rails, do you stop loving that child? You may realize and acknowledge the errors, but you don't stop loving the child, you don't renounce him, you don't abandon him. The UN was our idea, we brought it into this world, we believed it in it, and we worked very hard to get the other states of the world to believe in it as well. It would be petty to forsake it because it hasn't become exactly what we want. If we believe it has gone wrong, then we must work to reform it. But again, even if we can't, go back and read my second paragraph - for the pragmatic reason that the small and weak states of the world believe in it it is valuable.

Regards,
Jill

Ken White

06-14-2008, 04:59 AM

If you want to hear my most cynical side, I would say that they were blindsided by Iraq because they could not possibly imagine the US would lob them such a gimme.That too is possible but I'm not at all sure they now look at it as a gimme. I have little doubt they'd say they do but I suspect the reality is they're still nonplussed by the Iraq incursion. They ran it out and they aren't gone but their prognosis isn't good.
I've never prayed so much in my life as I did between October 2002 and March 2003 that we would not go into Iraq.Not being a praying type, I was merely incensed that it was being done so clumsily. I agreed with a need to do something in the ME; Iraq made strategic sense but the fumbling in the doing was apparent. He should have said nothing about Iraq, waited until his second term and gotten a better handle on things. My guess is that he feared if he did not get a second term, he was afraid his successor might not do something he thought needed doing. In any event, I wouldn't have done it the way it was done but I do believe it or something very near it was both necessary and overdue.
I firmly believed that it would not work out so well as we hoped it would.Me too, at least as it was being touted -- I gave it a 60:40 shot at success, decided Bush was a risk taker (he's also a an inveterate smart ass and since I'm both those things, I'm a little more receptive to him than many -- even though I disagree with much he's done) and figured it'd take three or four years. After Bremer fired the Iraqi Army and Police, I upped that to five years. 2008. I also think we're up to a 70:30 shot or thereabouts. We'll see...
I just knew that once broken, Iraq would pose nearly insurmountable problems in its reconstruction. And these would be especially difficult problems unlike those posed by Germany and Japan, because we would not have the mandate to do as we wished as the victorious can over the bad guy aggressors. But if you really look closely at the post-war history of those two countries, at the end of the day we gave them most of what they needed and had clumsily sought in war.I'm not sure one can compare the post war WW II / Iraq situations in any meaningful way for many reasons; not least that Iraq does not feel beaten; that gives a different mind set as you noted. That and the religion angle plus the interplay of other States in the Region mean a very different environment. Add in todays mass and instant communication capabilities and parallels are difficult to discern. Of course, you did not compare them, noting the difference but to even use them as a corollary or a starting point is, I think, perhaps a bit misleading to one's own thought processes.

I also think our (well, some -- not you or I, obviously and among others) initial idea of 'victory' and a democratic highly secular Iraq have run into the wall of reality. No 'victory' in insurgencies, an acceptable outcome is all that's possible (and I hope we relearned that). Still, we could leave today and most of our strategic aims will have been achieved; it'd give the opponents a propaganda scream but the myth of "America won't fight, they'll leave when it gets tough" has been sort of put to bed -- that is totally unimportant to western thought; it is extremely important in the minds of those in the ME. Very different thought processes.
I wish I had been wrong. But unfortunately I don't think I was.Too soon to tell but I see the half full side...
And I do not fear to say that the Iraq intervention was the worst mistake of American foreign policy.On that, I disagree; there were many blunders in the process but the strategic issue, a response to and continuing presence in the ME, was going to be necessary at one time or another. It would have been easier in 1991; not easy, just easier. It was easier in 2003 than it will be later -- and if we leave too soon and too completely or on the wrong terms; we'll be back within ten years or so and it will be harder...
There, I've bared the depths of my historian's soul.And made sense doing it. Thank you for the good response. I understand where you're coming from, we may disagree on some issues and I'm very much aware there are probably more people who agree with thee than with me but we're all products of where we've been and age makes a difference.

My defining moment was Pearl Harbor; my wife's was the Kennedy assassination, my second son's Desert Storm (or maybe OEF/OIF, he just says the ME?), my daughter's was 9/11. "My war" was Korea, after it Laos, Viet Nam and the other places were easy. Point being that age skews your historical perception. My pick for the greatest foreign policy fiasco of my life would be Viet Nam. It cost the US more in every respect (including respect...) than have the last seven years and it still reverberates 46 years later. My belief is that Iraq will be looked much differently and more favorably in all respects in another 40 years. Again, we'll see. In any event, being a historian, I expect you to write the definitive book on it!

Thanks again for the response.

Uboat509

06-14-2008, 05:01 AM

I get so tired of hearing about how we should respect the UN. As far as I am concerned we have already shown more repect than the UN has earned.

Furthermore, even if the UN has lost its way, even if we don't think that it serves the purposes for which it was established, even if it does not serve our needs, even if it is beyond the redemption we think necessary, what we ought to recognize that the weak and many states of this globe find it valuable, and if only for that we ought to respect and support it.

Certainly the UN has done some fine charitable work around the world but so do Doctors without Borders and UNICEF and while I certainly appreciate the work that these organizations do I wouldn't consider subordinating US foreign policy to them. That is precisely what we are being asked to do by getting UN approval for our actions. Pardon me if I can't get behind the idea of France, China and Russia getting a vote in our foreign policy. Maybe it's the cynic in me but I just don't feel like they have our best interests at heart.

SFC W

JQP

06-14-2008, 05:13 AM

First: Ken thanks for the link, the absurdity of it all made me laugh so hard that I nearly fell off of my chair.:D

Jill: Thank you for your informative comments- they were dead on and absolutely correct. I am afraid that I used a poor choice of words. What I was really trying to focus on was public support for US military involvement. As you have said, we were already engaged in supporting one side and American intervention would not have altered the policies of Japan or Germany. Certainly what we face today is totally different. But I must admit to some "what if" ponderings. "What if" back then the American public was exposed to the instantaneous media blitz and worldwide access to global communications that exist today? Would it have changed the any of the events?

I agree with you that the AQ 9-11 attack was a provocation. There is no doubt that AQ has waged a magnificent PR war. I would also add that just by carrying out a large successful attack on US soil, they empowered and recruited quite a few followers.

Iraq: I must confess that I never believed that WMD's were the reason we went into Iraq, I always believed it was to create a new dynamic in the ME and we know how well that went. You are right- it definitely has been a foreign policy nightmare.

That said, it seems as if we have a second chance to turn things around, stabilize Iraq and do some Foreign Policy damage control- if there is public and political support for the opportunity to do so. How can we not be encouraged when we hear that AQ is losing the battle for "hearts and minds" in Iraq (if they ever really had them to start with).

I am less hopeful about the media war/global communications blitz and how it will effect American public opinion and our willingness to engage in diplomatic or military intervention in the world.

Goodnight, Brenda

Uboat509

06-14-2008, 05:16 AM

Stevely

06-14-2008, 05:21 AM

It's a philosophical answer to Ken's question. If you have a child, and that child goes off the rails, do you stop loving that child? You may realize and acknowledge the errors, but you don't stop loving the child, you don't renounce him, you don't abandon him. The UN was our idea, we brought it into this world, we believed it in it, and we worked very hard to get the other states of the world to believe in it as well. It would be petty to forsake it because it hasn't become exactly what we want. If we believe it has gone wrong, then we must work to reform it. But again, even if we can't, go back and read my second paragraph - for the pragmatic reason that the small and weak states of the world believe in it it is valuable.

Regards,
Jill

I don't think it's appropriate to anthropomorphize the problem like this. I would always love my child, regardless of how bad he went, because that's a natural and normal response of a parent for his child. The child is flesh of my flesh, after all. But the relationship between a nation of 300 million people and the international organization it helped found a couple of generations ago is far too abstract for feelings like that, there is nothing actually there to love. It is a mistake to treat organizations as if they were people, they exist only to serve people, so the feelings should be directed to those the organization serve. Thus an organization can and should be scrapped, bent, radically reformed, and so on for the sake of the served if the situation requires it. It's just a tool, really. Directing affection to a tool is misplaced, and may only end up doing no service to the people the tool was supposed to help.

Yes, it would be great to reform it, but UN reforms have never gone anywhere in the 60+ years of its existence. What happens when reform doesn't work out? I am also skeptical about its value to the many and weak states of the world - who is it really valuable to, the downtrodden and suffering who make up the bulk of the people in those states, or the kleptocrats who lord it over them? I am not calling for it to be disbanded or for us to withdraw, it probably still useful on the balance, but I would never regard it now as anything other than something we stay in for cold, pragmatic reasons, it is long since ceased to be anything like noble, really it's just a den of corruption.

Ken White

06-14-2008, 05:33 AM

I think uboat's got it right. Having been 1/3 of a typical two parent American family (My wife gets two votes to my one... :( ) I can attest to the difficulties of a twosome determining disciplinary efforts for a recalcitrant kid.

The UN has five parents with veto authority and generally two of whom will disagree with the others just for GP. That makes disciplinary decisions almost impossible...

I can love the kid in the garage but I don't have to like her and I have to acknowledge that my enabling her is detrimental to the kid herself. It does little good if I cut off her ability to get to the refrigerator and my wife is sneaking her food. Of course, my wife refuses to buy her anything so I have to slip her a few bucks every now and then...

Yep, I can love her -- but I don't have to like her and I can have lost my respect for her. I probably won't gain that back until she develops some self respect...

Sigh. Being a parent isn't easy.

JQP

06-14-2008, 05:44 AM

I have no fondness for the UN. I agree with most of you that it is inept, ineffective, costly and corrupt but I don't think we can abandon it either. We do need some type of international framework with which to build diplomatic relationships and create agreements. So- do we focus our energies on reforming the UN? Or do we create a "coalition of the willing" each time we need some type of multi-national assistance? Do we make NATO our main diplomatic framework? Or do we create something like a "League of Democracies"?

Ken White

06-14-2008, 05:56 AM

abandon it; if we didn't have it we'd have to invent it.

My vote would be to work for reform; I think the elevating NATO or the League of Democracies options would be counterproductive. Coalitions will be necessary in the near term and possibly always for some things; you're never going to get that many voting members to agree on much.

Reform will take years -- thus, it would seem to me we need a long term plan that will take several US administrations to bring to fruition.

Yo, State -- you got the lead. ;)

Uboat509

06-14-2008, 06:12 AM

I also agree that we shouldn't abandon the UN. It does do some things really well, sort of like a really expensive NGO. And the concept is not without merit but we definitely need to lower our expectations, a lot. We have enough trouble building building a consensus for anything we do domestically. Trying to build a consensus on anything with France, China and Russia is probably a bridge too far(three of them actually). The sooner people realize that the better it will be for everyone involved.

SFC W

snapperhead

06-14-2008, 09:54 AM

J Wolfsberger quoted:
"Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge."

Let us say the following claim:

(p1) "A's reputation is declining."
(p2) The counter claim is "well B, C, D, and so on are worse."

How does p2 make us aware of an inconsistency or contradiction? The original claim, and issue on the thread, was P1. P2 is irrelevant to refuting anything inherent to P1's claim. For it to show us "an awareness of inconsistency" it would need to show that P1 and P2 couldn't both be true and couldn't both be false, which is clearly wrong as they both are true. America's reputation is declining (p1) according to that report. There are also countries far, far worse than America (p2), as other posters here have pointed out. But that doesn't refute the truth of P1.

You might be able to argue that P2 narrows the scope and criteria of P1. Which I would agree with. However, that doesn't refute the original claim. It only calls into question the crappy measurements to which P1, or the report, used.

patmc said:
Snapperhead, when people run out of facts, they resort to name calling, so thanks for showing your cards.

Respectfully,
A psuedo-intellectual juggernaut

Touche. It was an ad hominem on my behalf. It won't happen again and I will strike out the offending sentence. However, I haven't run out of facts. I was calling into question the irrelevant arguments that were being presented. Facts don't win arguments when the individuals use them fallaciously.

Ken White said:
To include Fuchs' (but not snapperhead who has contributed nothing other than pseudointellectual bon mots).

Incorrect. I pointed out a species of red herring fallacy many of the posters have displayed. Refute his claims (as you have done) not address the irrelevant claim of whether or not other countries are worse than the U.S. The issue on the thread are claims about America's reputation yes? Not the reputation of other countries.

EDIT: It appears I'm either clueless at editing on this particular forum, or you can't edit old posts. Either way my preceding post, which include the ad hominem, stands for all to see as a signpost of my idiocy.

Stan

06-14-2008, 04:00 PM

It appears I'm either clueless at editing on this particular forum, or you can't edit old posts. Either way my preceding post, which include the ad hominem, stands for all to see as a signpost of my idiocy.

There's a time limit of approx. two hours for editing your posts.

BTW, as time permits you, please go here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441&page=33) and introduce yourself.

Regards, Stan

Ken White

06-14-2008, 04:58 PM

...How does p2 make us aware of an inconsistency or contradiction? The original claim, and issue on the thread, was P1. P2 is irrelevant to refuting anything inherent to P1's claim. For it to show us "an awareness of inconsistency" it would need to show that P1 and P2 couldn't both be true and couldn't both be false, which is clearly wrong as they both are true. Ahhhh :wry:
Touche. It was an ad hominem on my behalf. It won't happen again and I will strike out the offending sentence. However, I haven't run out of facts. I was calling into question the irrelevant arguments that were being presented. Facts don't win arguments when the individuals use them fallaciously.Possibly true but how pertinent is it?
Ken White said:

Incorrect. I pointed out a species of red herring fallacy many of the posters have displayed. Refute his claims (as you have done) not address the irrelevant claim of whether or not other countries are worse than the U.S. The issue on the thread are claims about America's reputation yes? Not the reputation of other countries.

EDIT: It appears I'm either clueless at editing on this particular forum, or you can't edit old posts. Either way my preceding post, which include the ad hominem, stands for all to see as a signpost of my idiocy.My point was that lectures on academic debate technique are pointless and add little to a discussion of the topic at hand which as you say pertain to the reputation of America. ;)

Sargent

06-15-2008, 05:07 PM

On the point of OIF as an AQ gimme, Ken wrote: That too is possible but I'm not at all sure they now look at it as a gimme. I have little doubt they'd say they do but I suspect the reality is they're still nonplussed by the Iraq incursion. They ran it out and they aren't gone but their prognosis isn't good.

I was referring to the idea that our intervention in Iraq, as a whole, was a gimme. That AQI has managed to shoot itself in both feet with its intervention is a piece of luck we could not have relied upon. They were entirely too brutal with the general population -- perhaps they ought to have read a bit more of Mao. It does, however, speak to the fact that there are not nearly so smart (and thus, not nearly such a formidable enemy) as we give them credit for being. On the other hand, AQI is not the only source of trouble in Iraq, so that even if we've managed to reduce that problem to a manageable size, we are still left with the fact that the our intervention unleashed a whole host of other radicalized forces and factions. We could still have major problems with the domestic forces who aren't particularly keen on our intervention or continued presence. (See below re chances for success viz. the SOFA.

On my comment about pre-OIF prayer, Ken wrote: Not being a praying type, I was merely incensed that it was being done so clumsily. I agreed with a need to do something in the ME; Iraq made strategic sense but the fumbling in the doing was apparent. He should have said nothing about Iraq, waited until his second term and gotten a better handle on things. My guess is that he feared if he did not get a second term, he was afraid his successor might not do something he thought needed doing. In any event, I wouldn't have done it the way it was done but I do believe it or something very near it was both necessary and overdue.

Ken, I'm a devout agnostic. What amounts to prayer in the rest of my life are the occasional conversations I have with whatever might be out there about the state of things in general. I suppose this piece of background ought to have been provided with the original comment, in order for you to understand the extent to which I did not want us to go into Iraq in the manner we seemed to be. The last time I was so prayerful was during the Reagan administration, as a young teenager, when the prospect of nuclear war seemed quite large.

On the prospects for success in OIF, Ken wrote: I also think we're up to a 70:30 shot or thereabouts. We'll see...

And yet, every time things seem to be getting better, we seem almost to want to screw them up again. In this case I am referring to the SOFA discussions. 50+ bases, immunity for our personnel (military and contract), and control of airspace up to 29K feet, to name a few, seems a bit in excess. I mean, if I only consider the basing issues, almost 60 bases is just incredible to me -- we are BRACing the US and proposing a near profligate number of bases in Iraq. It also doesn't really make sense to me from a logistical point of view -- so many bases just requires that many more people to service them. I would love it if someone could explain the thinking on this to me -- or point me to a source that explains it.

On the question of post-war occupation, comparing WWII and OIF, Ken wrote: I'm not sure one can compare the post war WW II / Iraq situations in any meaningful way for many reasons; not least that Iraq does not feel beaten; that gives a different mind set as you noted. That and the religion angle plus the interplay of other States in the Region mean a very different environment. Add in todays mass and instant communication capabilities and parallels are difficult to discern. Of course, you did not compare them, noting the difference but to even use them as a corollary or a starting point is, I think, perhaps a bit misleading to one's own thought processes.

My exact point was that we could not compare what we did in Germany or Japan to Iraq. In the former we had the victor's mandate, which we most assuredly do not have in Iraq. Thus, how we can act there is far more constrained, and we must tread very lightly and differently. Furthermore, we can't justify our future presence in Iraq on the history of our presences in Germany and Japan (or Korea).

Ken wrote: I also think our (well, some -- not you or I, obviously and among others) initial idea of 'victory' and a democratic highly secular Iraq have run into the wall of reality. No 'victory' in insurgencies, an acceptable outcome is all that's possible (and I hope we relearned that). Still, we could leave today and most of our strategic aims will have been achieved; it'd give the opponents a propaganda scream but the myth of "America won't fight, they'll leave when it gets tough" has been sort of put to bed -- that is totally unimportant to western thought; it is extremely important in the minds of those in the ME. Very different thought processes.

One thing that kept us in Vietnam so long was that we feared that our allies and enemies would doubt our credibility if we gave up the cause. What we didn't realize was that after a certain point our credibility was being damaged for not recognizing that the cause was irremediable. The point is, credibility cuts both ways.

On the need to do something in the ME, Ken wrote: On that, I disagree; there were many blunders in the process but the strategic issue, a response to and continuing presence in the ME, was going to be necessary at one time or another. It would have been easier in 1991; not easy, just easier. It was easier in 2003 than it will be later -- and if we leave too soon and too completely or on the wrong terms; we'll be back within ten years or so and it will be harder...

Perhaps. But I believed (and still do, though now it would be so much more difficult to do -- perhaps under a different administration) that if we really wanted to do something of value in the ME, our much better choice would have been to settle the Israel-Palestine problem. My wild-eyed optimist's, American military can do good, utopian idea was for the US to broker a peace guaranteed, particularly on behalf of the Palestinians, by a military presence. That is, we could have helped to settle things down by serving as the Palestinian defense force. (Sort of how the UN provides forces to sit in the Sinai.) This would have provided both sides with a sense of security, and would have been such a huge boon to our standing in the region. It also would have snatched a huge piece of AQ's propaganda and recruiting energy right out from under them.

On the magnitude of the error in deciding to interven in Iraq, Ken wrote: My defining moment was Pearl Harbor; my wife's was the Kennedy assassination, my second son's Desert Storm (or maybe OEF/OIF, he just says the ME?), my daughter's was 9/11. "My war" was Korea, after it Laos, Viet Nam and the other places were easy. Point being that age skews your historical perception. My pick for the greatest foreign policy fiasco of my life would be Viet Nam. It cost the US more in every respect (including respect...) than have the last seven years and it still reverberates 46 years later.

Vietnam was a colossal error. The differences between Iraq and Vietnam revolve around two points which, from a foreign policy perspective, are significant to me: Vietnam had an extant conflict which we did not create and there was a putative ally which had asked for our intervention. Neither of these obtained in Iraq. It goes back to my point about not being the party to cross the line of departure first. I just think it's bad, bad in just about any case I can imagine, and a rule we ought to just consider inviolate. If we ever come to a point where it ought to be broken, it will be so obvious as to be of the character of the exception that proves the rule. Bottom line, I do not believe in preemptive war. It's just war with an excuse. And recent history hasn't been kind to those who have started wars.

Ken wrote: My belief is that Iraq will be looked much differently and more favorably in all respects in another 40 years. Again, we'll see. In any event, being a historian, I expect you to write the definitive book on it!

I am not so partisan that I want Iraq to fail simply to be proven right.

I do worry that eventual success in Iraq might give people the idea that preemptive war is something to give serious consideration to. It would be bad enough if we started to think this way, but such a development in thinking would be hugely dangerous if our potential enemies came to the conclusion that preemption was a good idea.

As for the historian comment, don't make me get all "aw shucks" on you. After I finish the dissertation, I would like to take a crack at a social history of the officer corps -- turns out it's fairly virgin territory. I'd also like to do something with my husband about his advisory deployments -- I just think it would be really cool -- how often in history can you put that sort of thing together, a husband-wife team of officer and historian. It's like a perfect storm. By the time all that's done it might be a good time to take a crack at a real historical analysis of the decision to intervene in Iraq. I promise to do my to keep an open mind.

Ken wrote: Thanks again for the response.

No, no, thank you!

Seriously, this is where these sorts of fora work best -- when differing points of view can be hashed out seriously and without dopey rancor. Let's pat ourselves on the back!

Regards,
Jill

Ken White

06-15-2008, 06:00 PM

...It does, however, speak to the fact that there are not nearly so smart (and thus, not nearly such a formidable enemy) as we give them credit for being.I don't think 'we' think they're all that smart or formidable; dangerous, yes; difficult to predict, yes -- but not formidable -- I think they may be that to not too bright Politicians some of whom use that as a bludgeon. They and the inept media that reports their blathering as if it were real.
We could still have major problems with the domestic forces who aren't particularly keen on our intervention or continued presence.True and certainly highly possible but I think the Iraqis have finally realized what my son kept telling all he met during OIF 2 "You guys knock this stuff off and we'll be gone quickly..."
In this case I am referring to the SOFA discussions. 50+ bases, immunity for our personnel (military and contract), and control of airspace up to 29K feet, to name a few, seems a bit in excess. I mean, if I only consider the basing issues, almost 60 bases is just incredible to me -- we are BRACing the US and proposing a near profligate number of bases in Iraq. It also doesn't really make sense to me from a logistical point of view -- so many bases just requires that many more people to service them. I would love it if someone could explain the thinking on this to me -- or point me to a source that explains it.Can't say for sure but what I can say from my limited ME time is that haggling is the national sport for every country; they live to bargain. The rules are unlike US horse trading; ask for ten, expect seven and take five. In the ME, it's ask for 200, expect 100 and take ten. Everything is exaggerated. This effort by us will force the Iraqis to take more responsibility for internal defense -- but they know they are not yet capable of external defense and therefor do not really want us to leave (yet) -- and my bet would be a fairly sensible and standard SOFA agreement will result, I note the Iraqis obtained copies of those we have with Japan, Singapore and South Korea. If we had started off asking for 5 bases, we'd have ended up with one; by asking for fifty, we'll probably get the five. Same thing with the airsapce management, they aren't capable of controlling it now so they'll let us do it and set a target for themselves to take over. It's all haggling...
Furthermore, we can't justify our future presence in Iraq on the history of our presences in Germany and Japan (or Korea).Totally agree but regrettably, the idiot politicians can speak without you or I clearing their speeches for basic logic and common sense.
One thing that kept us in Vietnam so long was that we feared that our allies and enemies would doubt our credibility if we gave up the cause. What we didn't realize was that after a certain point our credibility was being damaged for not recognizing that the cause was irremediable. The point is, credibility cuts both ways.[I think Johnson's fear of looking 'soft on Communism' was a bigger factor than US cred; with Nixon, doing it on his terms was the driver. Viet Nam was a cluster but who's at fault? Eisenhower for signing a treaty Ridgeway tried to get him not to sign? Kennedy taking advantage of that treaty and circumstances to boost the economy and develop some tough guy credibility? Johnson for expanding it? Harkins, Westmoreland and the US Army for blowing it for seven long years?

Yes, credibility does cut both ways but perception rules credibility.

In the case of Iraq, your points are well taken with respect to western attitudes but they are really wrong, IMO, with respect to ME attitudes where pride is a far, far stronger driver of attitude. You may have noticed that the Asians who are more ME than western in that respect have been muted about what we're doing there and why -- they understand. Those in the ME who rail against what we're doing there or putting on their public face; under that, they know what we're doing and are, if not impressed, at least aware. Nothing in the ME is as it seems. Afghanistan is a separate thing in almost all aspects but there, too, little is as it seems.

While westerners can logically find many faults with what we did and are doing, the folks in the ME look at it quite differently -- they'll adopt the western rhetoric in public and in English but behind that facade, they know -- and have learned. I suspect more probes from the ME but I also am willing to bet they'll be few, mostly ineffective and soon cease. That's what it was all about, that and those three to five bases.
...My wild-eyed optimist's, American military can do good, utopian idea was for the US to broker a peace guaranteed, particularly on behalf of the Palestinians, by a military presence. That is, we could have helped to settle things down by serving as the Palestinian defense force. (Sort of how the UN provides forces to sit in the Sinai.) This would have provided both sides with a sense of security, and would have been such a huge boon to our standing in the region. It also would have snatched a huge piece of AQ's propaganda and recruiting energy right out from under them.Unfortunately, I think you are indeed be wildly optimistic. I'm afraid that would turn into a 50-60 year occupation...
...It goes back to my point about not being the party to cross the line of departure first. I just think it's bad, bad in just about any case I can imagine, and a rule we ought to just consider inviolate. If we ever come to a point where it ought to be broken, it will be so obvious as to be of the character of the exception that proves the rule. Bottom line, I do not believe in preemptive war. It's just war with an excuse...Preemption has to be an option IMO, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that score.
And recent history hasn't been kind to those who have started wars.Nor has ancient history, yet, other than WW I and WW II (with several FDR-related caveats... :D ) and possibly Korea, most of our wars we have started after some provocations (to include the Civil War)...
... such a development in thinking would be hugely dangerous if our potential enemies came to the conclusion that preemption was a good idea.Heh. Based on history and what we know of the doctrine of some likely candidates, I think they already have that thought.
...I promise to do my to keep an open mind.No can ask for more than that -- and I'll try to do the same (if I can remember where it is; I'm old... :o ).

Thanks again.