In response to your last list ...
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
You know folks, he's right
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
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.