Motivation vs. causation

[Bob's World]

Of course it has never been about either Iraq or Afghanistan either one. Afghanistan was just a convenient place to go after the symptom of AQ and to bring some well earned revenge down on their heads.

Iraq was just the retarded kid playing in middle of the street that got run over. A tragic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

No, what it is about is securing the United States and developing new Ways and Means to promote and preserve our national interests in a manner that is far less controlling (Cold War era), arrogant ( Clinton era) or aggressively violent (Bush era). In a manner that backs down to no one, but at the same time does not excessively press anyone without just cause either. To stand for concepts of liberty and self-determination; to apply the great natural and human resources of this great nation to overcome our current fiscal and security challenges and to emerge stronger, more vibrant, and more of a leader by our very example: and not by the promise of force or the threat of withholding favors.

This is the nation we see ourselves as, and this is the nation we can once again become. I am confident of that. After all, unlike any other nation in the world, the U.S. has the perfect ideology of popular empowerment to excel in the world emerging around us.

[Dayuhan]

what it is about is securing the United States and developing new Ways and Means to promote and preserve our national interests in a manner that is far less controlling (Cold War era), arrogant ( Clinton era) or aggressively violent (Bush era). In a manner that backs down to no one, but at the same time does not excessively press anyone without just cause either. To stand for concepts of liberty and self-determination; to apply the great natural and human resources of this great nation to overcome our current fiscal and security challenges and to emerge stronger, more vibrant, and more of a leader by our very example: and not by the promise of force or the threat of withholding favors.

This is the nation we see ourselves as, and this is the nation we can once again become. I am confident of that. After all, unlike any other nation in the world, the U.S. has the perfect ideology of popular empowerment to excel in the world emerging around us.

Excellent principles. Of course moving from principles to policy in the complicated and challenging environments presented by Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Mindanao, Colombia, etc is a difficult and uncertain effort, and moving from policy to successful implementation is much harder.

[Bob's World]

Excellent principles. Of course moving from principles to policy in the complicated and challenging environments presented by Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Mindanao, Colombia, etc is a difficult and uncertain effort, and moving from policy to successful implementation is much harder.

America is an excellent example of what a nation rooted in "excellent principles" can achieve.

When we were clawing our way up from the obscurity of being a break-away penal colony of Great Britain we held to our principles and did not go about trying to impose them on others. There is great wisdom in the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (1 and 2), and Wilson to name a few that is as relevant today as it was in their respective times.

Once we emerged from the pack at the end of WWII and we fell into the roll of implementing control-based policies to Contain the Soviets; all that slowly began to change. We first became comfortable with mandating moral and governmental judgments on others, then came to see it as our right. We were growing up and becoming our parents.

I think those Presidents who served this nation prior to the Cold War would be very surprised at how we've come to see our role in the world today. The good news, though, is that we still possess that strong foundation. We just need to take a hard look at recent interpretations shaped by the Cold War experience and recalibrate them for the world that exists today.

[Ken White]

I really hate to tell you this -- or perhaps remind you of things you know but would rather forget -- but both Roosevelts were as imperialistic and meddlesome in the affairs of others as anyone who came after them.

Teddy and his dispatching Taft to Asia in 1905 arguably created many problems in the Pacific for the US that you tend to ascribe to the Cold War. A lot of them are still with us. That and the Great White Fleet were Empire building at its finest...

As for FDR, all the illegal crap he did to get the US into WW II and his deliberate actions to bankrupt the United Kingdom and France to get both out of the Colony business so US commerce could get into those former colonies make him a major troublemaker by your lights.

You often make some good points but your desire to sugar coat US history undercuts your efforts all too often.

[Dayuhan]

When we were clawing our way up from the obscurity of being a break-away penal colony of Great Britain we held to our principles and did not go about trying to impose them on others. There is great wisdom in the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (1 and 2), and Wilson to name a few that is as relevant today as it was in their respective times.

Native Americans might disagree, as might Filipinos, and a few people in Latin America who saw the Monroe Doctrine from a side US history books don't generally portray. The Japanese might want to mention Commodore Perry sailing into Edo with warships and a few demands. That's off the top of my head, I suppose there are a few other examples around.

There is nothing wrong with an excellent principle, and one can have no better starting point. It pays, though, to be alert to the ease with which a bit of sophistry can twist the most admirable principles into justification for the most barbaric of acts.

[Bob's World]

Ken and Dayuhan,

No sugar applied. Building empires is what "big countries" did back then, and we wanted to be a big country in a big way.

We do not have clean hands, and as the doddering Spanish empire dangled before us, we could not resist the temptation of claiming what parts of it we wanted as our own. To control the seas required deep water ports and coaling stations, to find out where these facilities existed then, look for odd places where one often finds US flags to this day. The best deep water ports across the Pacific were Pearl Habor in Hawaii; Apra Harbor in Guam, Manila Bay in the Philippines, and Pago Pago Bay in American Samoa.

We took a strategy and tactics used to defeat native Americans and applied it to the people of the Philippines. I get it. I have studied my history too.

Both Wilson and FDR called for an end to colonialism and for the right of self-determination for all. Both were vetoed by their Eurpean counterparts in those initiatives who had far too much to lose to such a radical scheme.

Somewhere over the past 60 years "self-determination" became replaced by "democratization." Some may find that nuance insignificant.

Alway driven by commerce, as we grew more powerful we too began to manipulate governance in order to lend certainty and security to critical points of commerce and key terrain for lines of communication.

When the British held sway in the Middle East, we undercut them on the contract to develop Saudi oil by not making the same moral demands (end slavery) that the Briitish were making, and by also offering them a much fairer price for their product. We said we had no right to make such moral demands of another sovereign.

Today we not only see making such moral demands as our right, but also as our duty. To bring to rule of law and democracy to others.

In the law, they call this the "slippery slope." The problem is that we picked up a great deal of speed, and of late are encountering a great deal of friction as well. Yes, we quite willingly started down that slope. But that is no reason to ride it out to the bitter end like those empires who have gone before us. We can learn from their mistakes, and take steps to reduce the friction. Right now we are just slapping at the smoke and flames.

So yeah, I do think that prior to the end of WWII American leaders saw our rights and duties in the lands of other differently than they do today. Those were different times.
There was a time to expand the US across the North American continent. There was a time to dabble in colonialism and estabish a global footprint, there was a time to exert controls to contain the Soviets. The burning question is, what time is it now?

[Dayuhan]

Both Wilson and FDR called for an end to colonialism and for the right of self-determination for all. Both were vetoed by their Eurpean counterparts in those initiatives who had far too much to lose to such a radical scheme.

Somewhere over the past 60 years "self-determination" became replaced by "democratization." Some may find that nuance insignificant.

Were we really pushing for self-determination in those days, or was that a noble-sounding way of saying we wanted to break up the colonial system so we could trade into markets that the system locked us out of? Once Latin America was de-colonised we lost much of our interest in self-determination; I've no reason to believe it would have been any different elsewhere.

Alway driven by commerce, as we grew more powerful we too began to manipulate governance in order to lend certainty and security to critical points of commerce and key terrain for lines of communication.

Did that happen as we grew more powerful, or as the old colonial powers that once performed that function became less powerful and gave it up... or a bit of both?

When the British held sway in the Middle East, we undercut them on the contract to develop Saudi oil by not making the same moral demands (end slavery) that the Briitish were making, and by also offering them a much fairer price for their product. We said we had no right to make such moral demands of another sovereign.

Again, I think not making moral demands had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with business: we wanted the contract. The Brits manipulated the US a bit as well, most notably in Iran.

In the law, they call this the "slippery slope." The problem is that we picked up a great deal of speed, and of late are encountering a great deal of friction as well. Yes, we quite willingly started down that slope. But that is no reason to ride it out to the bitter end like those empires who have gone before us. We can learn from their mistakes, and take steps to reduce the friction. Right now we are just slapping at the smoke and flames.

So yeah, I do think that prior to the end of WWII American leaders saw our rights and duties in the lands of other differently than they do today. Those were different times.
There was a time to expand the US across the North American continent. There was a time to dabble in colonialism and establish a global footprint, there was a time to exert controls to contain the Soviets. The burning question is, what time is it now?

Post cold war foreign policy management has been a mixed bag. We've not done all that badly in Latin America, where we've scaled back on direct intervention and learned to live with a broad political spectrum without completely losing influence or compromising national interests. We've not done all that badly in East Asia. There's a rough crescent running from Pakistan through the ME and parts of Africa that remains a total mess... but that's not altogether our doing by any means.

[Ken White]

The burning question is, what time is it now?

Dayuhan said it better than I could, particularly on Monroe's and Roosevelt's quite commercial versus even mildly altruistic approach -- even though both were shrewd enough to publicly couch it as the latter instead of the former. As for Wilson, a classic case (like Carter) of idealism gone amok. You might want to think about that.

I'll just reiterate that I believe your vision of what you think we should do seems unduly colored by your version of what you think we did. That version of events before your birth does not square with my recollection in many cases or with actual history in a great many more.

As I've said before, a good idea predicated on a flawed perception can go awry. You also still seem to ignore the venality of Politicians in your prescriptions...

[Bob's World]

Dayuhan said it better than I could, particularly on Monroe's and Roosevelt's quite commercial versus even mildly altruistic approach -- even though both were shrewd enough to publicly couch it as the latter instead of the former. As for Wilson, a classic case (like Carter) of idealism gone amok. You might want to think about that.

I'll just reiterate that I believe your vision of what you think we should do seems unduly colored by your version of what you think we did. That version of events before your birth does not square with my recollection in many cases or with actual history in a great many more.

As I've said before, a good idea predicated on a flawed perception can go awry. You also still seem to ignore the venality of Politicians in your prescriptions...

Ken the way I look at it I should not have to tone down what I think needs to be done to move forward simply becuase it suggests actions required of elected officials that they historically prove themselves unlikely to take on. I'll set the bar where it needs to be, not where I think they can clear it.

It is incumbent upon an informed populace to demand more of its governance when it falls short. Consider this my demand.

Was Wilson an idealist? certainly. Were his French and British counterparts realists? No, they were bitter, angry, visionless men and by trumping Wilson they forced terms on Germany that made WWII inevitable.

I'm comfortable with my knowledge and interpretations of history. I'm not a memorizer, so don't ask me to regurgitate dates, names, etc. I am more what I would call an "understander." I think about things and relate them to other things, challenge book solutions, and look for deeper meanings. Sure, I get it wrong at times, and I certainly probably sometimes see things that aren't really there. I'm comfortable with my track record.

I put these ideas out for others to consider in their own quests for understanding. Party lines and status quo answers are sold elsewhere. I'll be the first one to admit that America has stepped on a lot of toes over the years. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes just being a bit clumsy. I'm simply saying that we might want to step back a few inches and be a bit more tolerant of others a bit less intrusive in the governance and morality of the world.