Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75

Thread: The Decline in America's Reputation: Why?

  1. #21
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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).

  2. #22
    Council Member Sargent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    178

    Default

    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

  3. #23
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default Failure of Europe ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    Last edited by J Wolfsberger; 06-13-2008 at 01:49 AM.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    175

    Default

    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.

  5. #25
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default 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.

  6. #26
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    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.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    On a campus that father and mother pay for
    Posts
    5

    Default 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.…

  8. #28
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Another windmill...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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... As to the last sentence there, is that due to altruism or capability?[quote]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.
    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.

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sargent View Post
    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?

  10. #30
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  11. #31
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snapperhead View Post
    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:
    "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.

  12. #32
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default You know folks, he's right

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  13. #33
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default A middle ground?

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    "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!"
    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

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    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.

  15. #35
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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....
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  16. #36
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    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.
    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.

  17. #37
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sierra Vista, AZ
    Posts
    175

    Default failures

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.

  18. #38
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default Two pet peeves ...

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    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.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  19. #39
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    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 !

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    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 . 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 .
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  20. #40
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •