And Libya goes on...

[motorfirebox]

But we're never going to be loved or deeply respected. We're too big and clumsy to do the things required to instill either emotion in most.

This may be six of one / half a dozen of the other, but I think it's the fact that we're an empire. Our approval offers too great an advantage, and our disapproval comes at too great a cost, for us to have friends. The one possible exception to that rule is the UK, and even that 'special relationship' is frequently strained.

[Pete]

Officer Krupke, you're really a slob.
This boy don't need a doctor, just a good honest job.
Society's played him a terrible trick,
And sociologic'ly he's sick!

Armed forces are blunt instruments that kill people and break things, they're not social service organizations that can go overseas and cure all the evils in the world. It's unrealistic to expect that the U.S. Cavalry will always be willing to sally forth to resolve every crisis that might arise in the world. At present the American public and DoD are tired of interventions, not yearning to get into more of them. Perhaps those overseas should realize that a change has taken place, instead of implying that we're "breaking promises." The U.S. Armed Forces will only be committed when the U.S. decides to do it, not when others think we should.

[Ken White]

This may be six of one / half a dozen of the other, but I think it's the fact that we're an empire.

I agree with your post but do take minor exception to the "empire." We have a lot of trappings -- and habits -- of an empire but really are not nor will likely be one. To rule or guide and empire, a nation has to be willing to be ruthless on occasion and we just are not so inclined. As Bill M. has said, we aren't mean enough...

The size and wealth factor is a near equivalent. I've herd folks from South America, several nations, different times, refer to us as "El monstruo del Norte." The tones used implied size, not a monster per se but were still not complimentary. Colussus of the North.

South and Central America are good examples of the foreign policy problems of the US. Several Presidents, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Nixon, Reagan all tried to patch things up and pay as much attention to South and Central America as I and others think we should -- all got interrupted with other things in other places and the priority accorded to the South dissipated.

Pete:

I think you're right. Hopefully, anyway. What we've been doing hasn't worked too well.

The Troops are always willing to give it a shot and give it their best but a lot of flawed policies and idea have been forced upon them. Not to mention the costs. No single war or operation has cost us that much but maintaining the force eats a big whack of dollars. We will not be able to afford too many interventions.

A Viet Nam era troopie cost about $500.00 bucks to clothe and equip -- today, it's pushing $25K. Everything else has gone up accordingly...

[Dayuhan]

I think it's the fact that we're an empire.

We're not. Per OED:

1 an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state

[mass noun] supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority

Unless we rule over other countries or hold supreme political power over other countries, we're not an empire.

[motorfirebox]

Re: US as empire--That seems like a technicality when we've shown a ready willingness to topple governments to get what we want. We're not using our military to do it, a lot of the time, and we're not installing our citizens in positions of rulership, but the net result doesn't seem to be much different than if we did. We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.

[Ken White]

Re: US as empire...We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.

More often it did not and we don't do that much nowadays. That is so partly due to the fact that methodology often did not provide the desired results, partly because the world is a bit nicer, partly because we've realized it is not a really efficient or effective way of operating. Mostly it is due to the fact that we as a nation do not really have the political will to do it and we as a nation are now far more aware of what our government is doing or trying to do (and, Boy, does the increase in knowledge and the 'What do you think you're doing?' queries upset the Mandarins inside the Beltway...).

That's a good thing.

[Dayuhan]

Re: US as empire--That seems like a technicality when we've shown a ready willingness to topple governments to get what we want.

Has it actually gotten us what we wanted? Where?

We're not using our military to do it, a lot of the time, and we're not installing our citizens in positions of rulership, but the net result doesn't seem to be much different than if we did. We don't rule other nations; rather, we shape them so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose.

Who exactly have we successfully shaped "so that they rule themselves in the manner we choose"?

[Steve the Planner]

Dayuhan:

Ditto with this "Whole of Government" BS. Where has that ever worked?

They do love that whole "Three Cups of Tea" charade, but actual governance is just plain hard and messy---everywhere.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan:

Ditto with this "Whole of Government" BS. Where has that ever worked?

They do love that whole "Three Cups of Tea" charade, but actual governance is just plain hard and messy---everywhere.

Governance is certainly hard and messy, and even hard and messy governance has to evolve to suit the conditions in any given place. It cannot be installed or provided. We can drink all the tea in China and then some,and we still can't "create" a stable state or stable governance in Libya, Somalia, or Afghanistan.