Add a Comment
Email This
Thanks Dilly, I was sure I could rely on you for the Ugly American reaction, but you had me worried for a while there by leaving it for a few days. Nevertheless, you eventually showed up true to form. Thanks. You have nicely illustrated the kind of negative attitude to the world that we must strive to avoid in our leadership.
The USA has to learn to live in the world community, and by the same rules. The fact that we have the biggest GDP and military forces does not make us so special that we should do whatever we think is best for us and the rest of the world can like it or lump it.
Some of your examples are so wide of the mark. The world would not import our popular culture if they didn't like it, so that's fine. It is just a shame that our TV programs are so banal and make us look like wealthy decadent fools. Our fast food has about the same amount of nutrition as our TV. They may be sad for us for the effect of our gun laws on our society, but I don't think they really care about crime in the USA: other than to downgrade our credibility on the subject when we preach to them about crime and corruption in their country.
True, support for Israel is difficult to achieve through the UN because there is not much respect for Israel there. However if we were able to use our improved credibility and influence to achieve such support through the multilateral forums, it would be more likely to be lasting. Such support would not of course be as blind to the faults of Israel as the right wing in the USA. Which is good.
Your UN paranoia is highly relevant to what is wrong in our current stance. The UN does not select the presidents of any other countries, or ramp up their taxes and would never do so for us. You must know that, but I guess you were looking for something emotive - even if it makes you appear ignorant. The Bush administration undermined many of Koffee Anan's measures to reform the UN, so the USA has lost credibility in its complaints about UN inefficiency.
In spite of all that, I think there is a good point trying to escape from your puce prose. Would the USA lose a significant amount of its independence, national security, or wealth by playing a more popular role on the world stage?
I don't know. Perhaps! Let's hear the arguments in a calm rational manner.
That which is popular is not always right. Matter of fact, that which is popular often has a tendency to be wrong. Plenty, even most, Americans out there can't appreciate the complexity of our foreign policy, so it is not far fetched to believe that the world can't either. I suppose it comes down to that which is most important to you. A sweet little world that is harmonious on the surface, but maintains the evil undercurrents of tyrrants and warlords, or a world where the "big bad Americans" keep butting into everyone's business and bring the badness into the spotlights. I prefer the latter, as it keeps me and mine (the USA and my family, friends, and girls I sleep with) safe.
The fact that naive people in Europe don't understand my stance on security and foreign policy doesn't mean that I can't be friendly when I visit their country.
The fact that naive people in Europe don't understand my stance on security and foreign policy doesn't mean that I can't be friendly when I visit their country.
Well put. These are my sentiments as well.
That which is popular is not always right. Matter of fact, that which is popular often has a tendency to be wrong.
I prefer the latter, as it keeps me and mine (the USA and my family, friends, and girls I sleep with) safe.
Good points, and probably representative of the feelings of many Americans. I think you are saying that our Government's aim should be to do right for us and not to be overly concerned with being popular. Agreed.
I wish I could also share your feeling that our foreign policy makes us safer. For me the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. 911 was more scary for us than for Europeans, but our involvement in wars that don't otherwise affect us actually makes us less safe. Alienation of potential allies is usually unwise unledd there is a worthwhile return because we might need them one day.
The War on Terrorism has made terrorism worse. Although there was no evidence that Iraq was connected with Al Qaeda before we invaded, perhaps the President truly believed that Saddam's WMDs did threaten us back then, so we had to invade. I think that there is validity in that view, but with 20/20 hindsight we now know it was wrong and Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism against the USA then. I accept that it is connected now. Although there are these mitigating circumstances, starting that war was still a very bad move.
The cost of the war in Iraq has exacerbated the securities financial crisis and taken many of us ordinary Americans to the brink of personal financial ruin. That may mean fewer girls around for us to sleep with, if we can still sleep.
I agree with you to the extent that our aim should not be to be popular but to to do right by the world community according to our core values, as well as taking care of our own needs at the same time, and to be consistent about it. Every country puts its own interest first in its foreign policy, but most try to hide this in the interest of maintaining leverage in diplomacy. It is a devious business: has always been so, and will continue to be. I do not think that we are doing that very well. If we did it better our popularity might improve as a by product.
I also agree with you that our foreign policy is probably too complex for most Americans and Europeans to understand. Is blind faith in our government the appropriate response to that? We can expect that from many loyal Americans but not from Europeans.
I guess that it really doesn't matter for people who feel that our present style of international relations makes them safer. That would be enough to justify it if only it were true.
Acha! I've been gone from the O-nerd for a while, but remember Occams position on the war now. I will refer you to STRATFOR's assessment on the war in Iraq:
Our view was that the Bush administration would go to war in Iraq not because it saw it as a great idea, but because its options were to go on the defensive against al Qaeda and wait for the next attack or take the best of a bad lot of offensive actions (www.stratfor.com/analysis/iraq_terrorism_and_geopolitics). The second option consisted of trying to create what we called the "coalition of the coerced," Islamic countries prepared to cooperate in the covert war against al Qaeda. Fighting in Afghanistan was merely a holding action that alone would solve nothing. So lacking good options, the administration chose the best of a bad lot.
STRATFOR's assessment is accurate and well reasoned. We didn't have much of a choice, as the only effective way to fight is offensively - reference the Maginot Line.
I still hold that the war in Iraq has not had a significant impact on our economy and that the current economic decline is the result of dishonest bankers and crooked businessmen. Market watches that I read predict that we have reached the bottom and that the summer may well prove to be better. Time will tell.
The sad truth is that international political decisions will often not present you with any good choices, but instead will only leave you with less bad options.
Romanizzo
Thanks. Very interesting and food for thought. I usually have respect for STRATFOR analysis. I have to say though that this one does smack a bit of: "Hell, after 911 we have to make war on someone so lets pick the worst Arab bastard and attack him."
The second option consisted of trying to create what we called the "coalition of the coerced," Islamic countries prepared to cooperate in the covert war against al Qaeda.
You would have to admit that if that was the objective then the mission has been an abject failure.
It is interesting to see what STRATFOR is saying about the war now.The invasion of Iraq probably was a mistake, and certainly its execution was disastrous.
also: The motivation for the war, as we wrote, had to do with forcing Saudi Arabia to become more cooperative in the fight against al Qaeda by demonstrating that the United States actually was prepared to go to extreme measures. The United States invaded to change the psychology of the region, which had a low regard for American power. It also invaded to occupy the most strategic country in the Middle East, one that bordered seven other key countries.
The finance world is now trying to pin the blame for the debt crisis on the war. The case is made ins this article in business spectator. So I am not a lone voice on that.
I concede that my position now reeks of being wise after the event, but I truly did believe that the Iraq invasion was a mistake at the time.
Perhaps it was simply an honest mistake by a naive new President keen to 'bring the perpetrators of 911 to justice' and not at all influenced by the oil lobby. Even if we can swallow that one whole, is such a mistake tolerable given the huge intelligence resources available to guide the Chief in such decisions? What should he do when he realises that it was a mistake?
I guess it is all just history now and there will continue to be diverse opinions on the invasion of Iraq.
RSS
RE: I'm from and I want to move to
What about at the national level?
Oh that's easy enough: completely disavow all support for Israel, ship arms to Palestine, abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, unilaterally disarm all nuclear weapons and the bulk of our conventional weapons, dismantle all plans for a ballistic missle defense program, ratify the Kyoto protocols so that our GDP will fall by 6% to stave off a global temp increase so small you can't even measure it on a thermometer for 40 years, ramp up foreign aid, tax our citizens on behalf of the UN, abolish the 2nd Amendment, open our borders, outlaw the exporting of our popular culture via satellites, movies, and McDonalds so as to not force our culture on the rest of the world, and let the UN select our presidents. Instead of hating us, the rest of the world will open their arms and be ready to loathe us, or even go as far as strongly dislike us.
View Full Discussion