Getting away from winning in Afghanistan, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
But you are correct different rules for different folks, China can kill as many "dissidents" as it likes but Libya can't.
Libya could, and did, for decades. That changed when Libyans held a revolution with an outside chance of success, and provided the option of intervention with an acceptably low level of commitment and expense. The Chinese haven't done that yet. If they do, maybe things will change, though it's unlikely that the commitment/expense level of intervention in China is ever going to be acceptable.
Nothing inconsistent or incomprehensible there at all. Libya provided an opportunity, China doesn't. There's no reasonable way for the US to impose its human rights standards on China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Bahrain can suppress its population while Syria can't. Russia can commit war crimes in Chechnya but Sri Lanka can't when suppressing the Tamil Tigers. I'm confused already.
Syria can and does suppress its population, and Sri Lanka could and did commit war crimes when suppressing the Tamil Tigers. What's the difference?
The US doesn't decree what others can or cannot do. It may at times act to support those doing things it likes or oppose those doing things it doesn't like, but such action is always constrained by the size, expense, and potential for adverse consequences of the proposed action. Pretty obvious, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
As an outsider I continue to be amazed that there is so little consensus in the US as to what constitutes US national interest.
In what democracy do we see consensus on what constitutes national interest?
"National interest" is an abstraction, rarely if ever agreed upon. Different factions within a nation have different interests and will naturally debate what the nation's interest at any given point. Perceived national interest is what is acted upon, and both interests and perceptions change.
Outsiders often find it difficult to grasp the extent to which foreign policy is a secondary consideration in US politics. There are times when it takes center stage, but those times are occasional and generally of limited duration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
This is why I suggest human rights as the basis for countries to move forward. Support those who do and side line those who don't (other than where it is in the national interest to tolerate those with poor human rights records.
The US doesn't have the capacity to "sideline" a Russia, a China, a Saudi Arabia. Their resources and/or capacities put them at center stage no matter what the US wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
If they backslide you have to apply the diplomatic equivalent of "tough love". They will squeal and look to China and Russia for help but that's just tough. Africa's initial post colonial problem was the cold war and the ability for states to turn to the Soviets and China if they could not get their own way. Now it is much less Russia and much more China and what does China care about human rights?
China doesn't care about human rights at all, and that makes "the diplomatic equivalent of "tough love" even more ineffectual than it was before. They squeal and look to China for help, and they get it. Then they tell us to stick our "tough love" where the sun don't shine. The US can't compel others to conform to our standards of human rights, like it or not.
The ISI has to get a pass if we are committed to ongoing operations in Afghanistan.
Quote:
Personally, I grow weary of appeals to see things from the side of the Pak Army/ISI. They got themselves into the worsening mess they are in and they could get themselves out if they cared to. They take our money and kill our guys with it. It is a little much to ask me to be understanding of the way they view the world and their loony view of Pakistan's interests. Our actions don't burn our relationship with this "ally", their murder of American soldiers does.
I am not an expert in the area’s affairs, but doesn’t any extensive military effort in Afghanistan necessitate a land corridor with a node in Karachi? That’s leverage the ISI is always going to have. And the ISI is so enmeshed in Pakistani political and social life that they aren’t going anywhere. I think you have to play ball with them or not play at all.