This is a classic response (and a keeper).

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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