Very well said!Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
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.
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.
popular
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.
@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.
Last edited by Fuchs; 06-12-2008 at 09:13 PM.
political capital
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.
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.
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.
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).
Failure of Europe ...
... 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.
Last edited by J Wolfsberger; 06-13-2008 at 01:49 AM.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
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.
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
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
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.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....
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?
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.
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.
Tu Quoque
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. 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.…
"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.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
A middle ground?
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:
To close with more memorable words from Bill and Ted: "Be excellent to each other," and "Party on Dudes!"Billy the Kid: Here's the deal. What I win, I keep. What you win, I keep.
Bill, Ted: Sounds good, Mr. The Kid!
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
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.
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.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Two pet peeves ...
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.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
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?
apology and questions
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks