Taming Pakistan: Modi Effect

[Dayuhan]

Interesting way of explaining what observers across the world see as wild swings in policy and perceived "interests" with every change of President.

You totaly miss the point that it is the near total lack of policy continuity that serves neither the "national interests" of America nor the interests of the countries and regions on the receiving end of this lunacy.

Policy continuity has both positive and negative sides. Leaders often become personally invested in policies and find it difficult to accept that they aren't working. A new administration can be an opportunity to change direction and discard ineffective policies. Of course it doesn't always work that way, but policy continuity is not a universal good, especially if an existing policy involves beating one's head against walls, trying to "install" democracies in foreign countries, or other episodic lunacies.

In recent years at least the policy shifts are often less radical than they are sometimes cracked up to be: politicians of both parties have to play from the same book of options, and that book is often pretty limited, in the real world at least. Certainly the American left expressed vast disappointment with what they perceived as Obama's policy continuities with the previous administration.

In any event, policy discontinuity is a liability inherent in democracy, so we've little choice but to live with it. Whether or not that serves American interests depends on how you define American interests, and those who are deeply attached to their own preferred definitions sometimes find it difficult to accept that competing definitions are equally legitimate, or that the populace the US government is tasked to represent does not share their definitions.

PS: Issue probably best pursued on another thread before David comes along and reminds us (correctly) that it's straying off topic.

[JMA]

This is a classic response (and a keeper).

As you live outside the US one would think that you would be able to establish how the world sees American foreign policy actions (or interference).

There is a simple reason why the US 'empire' will last a short 75 years and that is because the US are both unable and unwilling to understand the realities of the world they live and see everything through myopic and parochial eyes.

You really expect the world which has been subjected to the ravages resulting from the incompetent foreign policy adventures of the US to be understanding of the US's domestic challenges (which you list)?

These comments are Germaine to this discussion as unfortunately the US still the power to interfere and really screw things up in the subcontinent.

Policy continuity has both positive and negative sides. Leaders often become personally invested in policies and find it difficult to accept that they aren't working. A new administration can be an opportunity to change direction and discard ineffective policies. Of course it doesn't always work that way, but policy continuity is not a universal good, especially if an existing policy involves beating one's head against walls, trying to "install" democracies in foreign countries, or other episodic lunacies.

In recent years at least the policy shifts are often less radical than they are sometimes cracked up to be: politicians of both parties have to play from the same book of options, and that book is often pretty limited, in the real world at least. Certainly the American left expressed vast disappointment with what they perceived as Obama's policy continuities with the previous administration.

In any event, policy discontinuity is a liability inherent in democracy, so we've little choice but to live with it. Whether or not that serves American interests depends on how you define American interests, and those who are deeply attached to their own preferred definitions sometimes find it difficult to accept that competing definitions are equally legitimate, or that the populace the US government is tasked to represent does not share their definitions.

PS: Issue probably best pursued on another thread before David comes along and reminds us (correctly) that it's straying off topic.

[Dayuhan]

As you live outside the US one would think that you would be able to establish how the world sees American foreign policy actions (or interference).

What I've been able to establish is that practically everyone in the world "knows" what's best for the US and "knows" what the US ought to do, and that practically everyone in the world is upset that the Americans don't do what they think the Americans ought to do. Of course all of these opinions are different, often widely divergent, and generally completely incompatible. You can hardly walk into a bar or an internet forum on this planet without hearing some blowhard discoursing at length on what the Americans ought to do and how the Americans are such fools for not following the prescription offered by the blowhard. Of course all of the blowhards have different prescriptions and most of them are grossly inconsistent with reality, but one gets used to that. I've occasionally introduced myself as Canadian just to escape the invariable lecture.

There is a simple reason why the US 'empire' will last a short 75 years and that is because the US are both unable and unwilling to understand the realities of the world they live and see everything through myopic and parochial eyes.

Non-Americans also see the world, and America, through their own parochial and often myopic eyes.

I don't think there ever was an "American Empire" in any literal or meaningful sense, and I don't think that American primacy was necessarily a good thing for America or the world. In any event the US no longer enjoys economic primacy (a good thing; a unipolar global economy is a very unstable thing) and a power that does not have economic primacy cannot reasonably aspire to military primacy, so there will have to be adaptation. Those who fail to adapt don't survive.

You really expect the world which has been subjected to the ravages resulting from the incompetent foreign policy adventures of the US to be understanding of the US's domestic challenges (which you list)?

The world can understand the domestic realities of the US or not, as it pleases. Just as it would be silly for India to submit it's policies to American review (or to expect automatic American support for its policies and leaders), it would be equally silly for the US to submit its own policies for foreign review and approval. Those outside the US (and most of those inside it) need to accept that the US government will not always do what they want. That would of course be impossible even if the US tried to do what they want, because they all have different ideas about what the US ought to do... and of course they all "know" that their particular slice of myopia and parochialism is the true and right one.

These comments are Germaine to this discussion as unfortunately the US still the power to interfere and really screw things up in the subcontinent.

The subcontinent also retains the power to screw things up on its own, although when they do somebody somewhere will invariably find a way to blame it on the US. Some things are inevitable...

[Ray]

BJP to invite Nawaz Sharif and other leaders for oath taking ceremony

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?source=s...ct=np&whp=3252

[Ray]

On taking the Muslim along, I think more than words by Modi, his actions should speak for itself.

Even as a Chief Minister, he did not make any policy religion specific. It was for all.

It maybe interesting to note that there are more Muslim policemen in Gujarat than any State in India!

It is time for Indians to think as being Indians, than live in the old Vote Bank formula that sustained the political parties on issue that divided each other on the basis of religion, caste, community, language etc.