This does sum up the realties of the environment.Staying the Course, Win or Lose
By Robert Kagan
Thursday, November 2, 2006; Page A17
BRUSSELS -- Here in Europe, people ask hopefully if a Democratic victory in the congressional elections will finally shift the direction of American foreign policy in a more benign direction. But congressional elections rarely affect the broad direction of American foreign policy. A notable exception was when Congress cut funding for American military operations in support of South Vietnam in 1973. Yet it's unlikely that a Democratic House would cut off funds for the war in Iraq in the next two years.
Indeed, the preferred European scenario -- "Bush hobbled" -- is less likely than the alternative: "Bush unbound." Neither the president nor his vice president is running for office in 2008. That is what usually prevents high-stakes foreign policy moves in the last two years of a president's term. In 1988 Ronald Reagan had negotiated a clever agreement to get the dictator Manuel Noriega peacefully out of Panama, but Vice President George H.W. Bush and his advisers feared the domestic political repercussions of cutting a deal with a drug lord at the height of the "war on drugs," so they nixed the plan. The result was that Bush had to invade Panama the very next year to remove Noriega -- but he did get elected.
This President Bush doesn't have to worry about getting anyone elected in 2008 and appears to be thinking only about his place in history. That can lead him to act in ways that please Europeans -- for instance, the vigorous multilateral diplomacy on Iran and North Korea. But it could also take him in directions they will find worrisome if that diplomacy fails.
There is a deeper reason this election, and even the next presidential election, may not change U.S. foreign policy very much. Historically, and especially in the six decades since the end of World War II, there has been much more continuity than discontinuity in foreign policy. New administrations change policy around the margins, and sometimes those changes prove important -- George H.W. Bush temporized about the Balkans; Bill Clinton temporized and then sent troops. Clinton temporized about Iraq and then bombed. George W. Bush temporized and then invaded. But the motives behind American foreign policy, and even the means, don't differ all that much from administration to administration. Republicans berated the Democrats' "cowardly" containment until they took the White House in 1952, then adopted that strategy as their own.
This tendency toward continuity is particularly striking on the issue that most divides Americans from Europeans today: the use of military force in international affairs. Americans of both parties simply have more belief in the utility and even justice of military action than do most other peoples around the world. The German Marshall Fund commissions an annual poll that asks Europeans and Americans, among other things, whether they agree with the following statement: "Under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice." Europeans disagree, and by a 2 to 1 margin. But Americans overwhelmingly support the idea that war may be necessary to obtain justice. Even this year, with disapproval of the Iraq war high, 78 percent of American respondents agreed with the statement.
This broad bipartisan conviction is reflected in U.S. policies. Between 1989 and 2003, the United States engaged in significant military actions overseas on nine occasions under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II: Panama in 1989, Somalia in 1992, Haiti in 1994, Bosnia in 1995-96, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq three times -- 1991, 1998 and 2003, an average of one major military action every year and a half.
The reasons for this prolific use of military force have to do with the nation's history -- Americans have been fighting what they considered just and moral wars since the Revolution and the Civil War. And it has to do with Americans' relative power. It is no accident that the United States began to use force more frequently after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Those who imagine that the Iraq imbroglio may change this approach could be right, but the historical record suggests otherwise. Less than six years after the defeat in Vietnam, Americans were electing Reagan on a promise to restore American military power and engage in a concerted arms race with the Soviet Union.
Even today leading Democrats who oppose the Iraq war do not oppose the idea of war itself or its utility. They're not even denouncing a defense budget approaching $500 billion per year. While Europeans mostly reject the Bush administration's phrase "the war on terror," leading Democrats embrace it and accuse the administration of not pursuing it vigorously or intelligently enough. Nor do leading Democrats reject the premise of the United States as the world's "indispensable nation" -- a notion that most Europeans find offensive at best and dangerous at worst.
In this respect, there is even less debate over the general principles of American foreign policy than during the Vietnam era. In those days, opponents of the war insisted that not just President Richard Nixon was rotten but that the "system" was rotten. They did not just reject the Vietnam War, they rejected the whole containment strategy of Dean Acheson and Harry Truman, which, they rightly claimed, helped produce the intervention in the first place. They rejected the idea that the United States could be a benevolent force in the world.
Today Democrats insist that the United States will be such a force as soon as George W. Bush leaves office. Although they pretend they have a fundamental doctrinal dispute with the Bush administration, their recommendations are less far-reaching. They argue that the United States should generally try to be nicer, employ more "soft power" and be more effective when it employs "hard power." That may be good advice, but it hardly qualifies as an alternative doctrine.
Many around the world will thrill at the defeat of Republicans next week. They should enjoy the moment while they can. When the smoke clears, they will find themselves dealing with much the same America, with all its virtues and all its flaws.
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. He is the author of "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110102972.html
When the smoke of the midterm elections does clear, nothing would have changed or so the article seems to suggest i.e. no matter who wins and who loses, the policy will still chug along as it has always done.
Maybe that is a truism.
However, there is now a debate as to what is the course that one has to stay on.
Would this debate not bring in some tweaking of the course?
Last edited by Ray; 02 Nov 06, at 20:03.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
We should stick our flag in Kurdistan, move all our stuff there, and watch the rest of the nation disintegrate along ethnic lines...just like "S-2" has suggested. The key will be to get the Turks onboard. If that happens, it's as good a plan as any.Originally Posted by Ray
Of course, if anyone else has a better idea, feel free...
You are a born imperialist!
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Just playing "The Great Game" through the eyes of an ex-grunt corporal sir.
Good to see interest in American domestic politics. Our domestic politics really do influence our anti-terror policies. Therefore, if you truly believe our war on terror affects you, American domestic policies affect you as well.
In America throughout recent history liberals have become increasingly leftist. This is a function of them clamoring to what they consider their voter base. During the past several decades liberals tend to be pacifists when faced with serious enemies. The far left may favor withdrawal from the Middle East. This is because far leftists engage in American self hate and view our country as evil imperialists. Moderate liberals will likely favor diplomacy regarding the war on terror. They insist that other nations (read terrorists) would prefer to deal with a democrat.
Moderate liberals might understand that withdrawal from Iraq would result in a very unstable middle east which is bad for the world. They will likely attempt to negotiate with terrorist states. This might encourage more terrorism. Less moderate liberals feel American world influence is evil and we deserve everything we get terrorism wise. If the liberals take power there might not be much change in the war on terror right away. You may see increased negotiations if moderate liberals are in charge.
However, if less moderate liberals influence our policy, you may see things develop similarly to Vietnam. In this case, less moderate liberals will want to pull out of Iraq, however, they won't want to appear to be the blame for the calapse of the war on terror. Therefore, they may start slowly defunding the war which will result in mounting extreme adversity. The US public, which typically is not well informed, will then clamor for a pull out not understanding the root cause of difficulties. When this occurs, and our defeat is immanent, liberals will then insist it was not their fault because they inherited the mess.
Hints of this can be noticed today in the lack of conviction and a clear coherent anti-terrorism strategy from moderate liberals. While far leftists are consumed by hate for Bush, conservatives, and the war on terror.
Marc
The article states that notwithstanding the 'great game' being played in US domestic poitics and it does not matter who wins, because the US poilcy will remain the same and nothing will change!
Call the public opinion by any name, it still remains the same as far as the US foreign intent is concerned!
That is what the article presumably is attempting to indicate.
One has to hose in diplomacy with strong action and there is no way it can be debunked.
Speak softly, but carry a big stick!
There is no chance of any US President repeating a Vietnam, be he a leftist, rightist, centre-ist, balck,brown or the colour of the rainbow. There will be public outcry in the US. If one goes by the opinions of this Board as anything to go by, American will not take another humiliation, that too after 9/11.
Therefore, ways have to be found wherein more countries come on board and nothing is better than handing over to the UN and then letting the events take its course as the US did in Somalia!
Last edited by Ray; 03 Nov 06, at 06:57.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
i think if there is a dem president in 08, they'd want to win<withdraw with a stable iraq> the war and take the credit.
i disagree that liberals have become more leftist over decades, clinton was a centrist and the dems were moving right till he left office. clintons reign saw the far left break away and radicalize with the whole activist/enviromentalist/anti-globalism protest stuff, that was in opposition to the whole neo-liberal, yuppie,nanny state vibe.
they may be appear more leftist recently as a ruse like they always do.
i seriously believe they will talk and hint at withdrawal, for votes, but will never do it.
the oil issue is not a partisan one. both parties see it as vital for decades to come.
your scenerio may be true if the republicans still hold the white house.
No American President, be he a Democrat or a Republican, can afford to have another Vietnam.
If he does, his party is written off forever.
American cannot and should not be humiliated again!
If it does, no amount of nuclear weapons or a booming economy will ever get American the pedestal that it occupied before Bush and now it is getting dog-eared.
That is an honest opinion of a non American, who does not want the US to fail but who will not hestitate even under pressure to yield, to be the Devil's Advocate and try to see that the US opens up its eyes and gets it act going to stay on course and NOT stray!
Wake up and smell the coffee! (Love that phrase and also 'there ain't nothing called a Free Lunch')!
Last edited by Ray; 03 Nov 06, at 07:40.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
If moderate liberals take over there may be less dramatic changes though you can expect a call for dialog with terrorists. If less moderate leftests take over, hopefully less likely, expect a slow defunding of the war so as to provide an excuse to move toward isolationism because we are imperialist pigs. You likely need to be in America and talk to less moderate liberals to understand their deep rooted self hate for imperialistic America.The article states that notwithstanding the 'great game' being played in US domestic poitics and it does not matter who wins, because the US policy will remain the same and nothing will change!
You put too much faith in the intelligence of the average American voter. Most don't care to understand the issues beyond short perpetually negative TV clips manipulated by the US media. Typically US voters have very short memories. It will be easy for liberals to cause the war on terror to degrade into a self fulfilling prophecy quagmire, as they so affectionally call it, through defunding. Then withdraw and blame it on previous administrations. The US public will not piece together the series of events. I guess you would need to spend some time in America watching TV and talking to liberals and conservatives to see this. Reading my post about the gap between liberals and conservatives is a start. I great example is how liberals were soft on communism during the cold war but now want to take credit for the defeat of the USSR engineered by Reagan conservatives. Liberals consistantly under estimate threats to national security and fashion themselves as anti-war.There is no chance of any US President repeating a Vietnam, be he a leftist, rightist, centre-ist, balck,brown or the colour of the rainbow. There will be public outcry in the US. If one goes by the opinions of this Board as anything to go by, American will not take another humiliation, that too after 9/11.
If you look at it objectively you will see that conservatives have moved further to the right and liberals to the left as both ends of the spectrum attempt to solidify their base. Unfortunately this means that liberalism has become dominated by far leftist anti-every thing types, socialists, and those with extreme views such as Michael Moore. Howard Dean was kicked out of the Democratic party for agreeing with Bush on one single issue, the severity of Islamic threats. Similarly to Islam, if moderate liberals feel their party has been hijacked by extremism, they should work to take it back. I see nothing to indicate moderate liberals don't agree with the far leftists in their party.i disagree that liberals have become more leftist over decades, Clinton was a centrist and the dems were moving right till he left office. clintons reign saw the far left break away and radicalize with the whole activist/enviromentalist/anti-globalism protest stuff, that was in opposition to the whole neo-liberal, yuppie,nanny state vibe.
Clinton was a great success because he was so moderate. As a result, many traditionally right leaning voters embraced him. That is why it is so surprising that the Democrats have abandoned that strategy. Instead, they have allowed their platform to be one of emotional hate, distrust, and conspiracies from the far left. They find themselves in the unique position of rooting for American failure.
Marc
Mcdelroy,
Thank you for that frank analysis.
It sure will be a great help when I read or see things happening in America.
I am, honestly, very obliged.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
mcdelroy,
ummm, you need to re-read the US political scene.
what is a "dialogue with terrorists"? can you tell me which dem hopeful (moderate or not) is calling for a dialogue with osama bin ladin? "slow defunding of the war"? are you talking about iraq or the more general war on terror? and do you honestly expect that dems are raring at the chance to open themselves up to republican attacks of "not supporting our troops"?If moderate liberals take over there may be less dramatic changes though you can expect a call for dialog with terrorists. If less moderate leftests take over, hopefully less likely, expect a slow defunding of the war so as to provide an excuse to move toward isolationism because we are imperialist pigs. You likely need to be in America and talk to less moderate liberals to understand their deep rooted self hate for imperialistic America.
yes, i know what you mean by this "self hate" phenomenom, but the logic failure here is that just because these liberals exist, does not mean that they are going to take power anytime soon. the dems rejected the likes of dean (not to mention kucinch, whose stupid "department of peace" idea is probably the closest to your definition of a moderate liberal) for kerry.
thanks for insulting the american public, buddy. that surely explains why we've been fighting in afghanistan longer than we fought the japanese in WWII.You put too much faith in the intelligence of the average American voter. Most don't care to understand the issues beyond short perpetually negative TV clips manipulated by the US media. Typically US voters have very short memories. It will be easy for liberals to cause the war on terror to degrade into a self fulfilling prophecy quagmire, as they so affectionally call it, through defunding. Then withdraw and blame it on previous administrations. The US public will not piece together the series of events.
the USSR was NOT defeated by the US. the US certainly helped, but the large part of the USSR's collapse was due to its own retarded economic and (to a lesser extent) political policies. by the way, even mighty cold warrior reagan went "soft" on the USSR in the end.I great example is how liberals were soft on communism during the cold war but now want to take credit for the defeat of the USSR engineered by Reagan conservatives. Liberals consistantly under estimate threats to national security and fashion themselves as anti-war.
by the way, underestimating threats to national security is not a monopoly of liberals, as pre-Pearl Harbor republican isolationists and pre-9/11 bush administration have shown.
which explains why bush first campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" and the rise of the centrist DNC...If you look at it objectively you will see that conservatives have moved further to the right and liberals to the left as both ends of the spectrum attempt to solidify their base.
which is why the current democratic front-runner for 2008 is hillary clinton, someone whom john mccain said "would make a good president." and mccain is not exactly known to be the type that sucks up, least of all to a clinton.unfortunately this means that liberalism has become dominated by far leftist anti-every thing types, socialists, and those with extreme views such as Michael Moore. Howard Dean was kicked out of the Democratic party for agreeing with Bush on one single issue, the severity of Islamic threats. Similarly to Islam, if moderate liberals feel their party has been hijacked by extremism, they should work to take it back. I see nothing to indicate moderate liberals don't agree with the far leftists in their party.
well, no. where are you getting this? the worst problem with the dems today is that they HAVE no real organized strategy, not that they have some crazy organized strategy.That is why it is so surprising that the Democrats have abandoned that strategy. Instead, they have allowed their platform to be one of emotional hate, distrust, and conspiracies from the far left.
if they DID, then rest assured that the american electorate, which trends conservative (as with most people), would throw them out on their ear. which is clearly not the case right now.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
[QUOTE]i grew up with alot of russian immagrants who...most, became staunch conservatives. i know families not just thier kids who i went to jr hight/high school with. ive talked about the fall of communism with people who lived there, saw it first-hand.
it was a top-down revolution, the people in power wanted a change and did sooner than there would be a real popular uprising from which they would ousted by the mobs. this is why the leadership is still the same guys who held high post in the communist day. putin was KGB as to illustrate the point. reagan desreves some credit here, but the fall of russia has more to do with the russians than any american. the corruption and inefficency of the soviet system was decades growing and all what happened was a change in government and a reshuffling of the deck for the folks running that country.
niether party can take ultimate credit as if its thier sole legacy. as said before, presidents in both parties did thier part over decades.
the far left has no clout with the dems, its just a source of swing votes within the left. the dems beat the populism drums on occasion like they are doing now, its a ruse as i said. they would never change electoral system, they would never seek out alternative fuel sources on par with what the greens want,wont ban genetically altered food, they arent gonna seriously regulate the fuel effeciency in cars, they sure as hell wont change a thing about the war on drugs, wont decriminalise marijuana, wont address corporate welfare, campaign finance reform<seriously as much as they let on, they wont etc,etc,etc.If you look at it objectively you will see that conservatives have moved further to the right and liberals to the left as both ends of the spectrum attempt to solidify their base. Unfortunately this means that liberalism has become dominated by far leftist anti-every thing types, socialists, and those with extreme views such as Michael Moore. Howard Dean was kicked out of the Democratic party for agreeing with Bush on one single issue, the severity of Islamic threats. Similarly to Islam, if moderate liberals feel their party has been hijacked by extremism, they should work to take it back. I see nothing to indicate moderate liberals don't agree with the far leftists in their party.
those are just some far left issues. they hint at these thing but wont do anything.
his party moved with him for those years of his reign. you said they moved OVER decades. its true for the last 6 years, overall, as a voting strategy.......but look at kerry in 2004, he wasnt exactly anti-war and was in agreement about alot of issues.Clinton was a great success because he was so moderate. As a result, many traditionally right leaning voters embraced him. That is why it is so surprising that the Democrats have abandoned that strategy. Instead, they have allowed their platform to be one of emotional hate, distrust, and conspiracies from the far left. They find themselves in the unique position of rooting for American failure.
Marc
A Reza Shah... devote all of our advisors to a couple divisions of the IA and turn them into a true combat ready force, groom a successor (put stories of his skill as a commander in local papers and so forth) and have him declare a state of emergency and take power and then go to task brutally on the militias.Of course, if anyone else has a better idea, feel free...
Or just dust off Saddam, say we are sorry about the kids and let him loose.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
astralis,
I think you are being harsh.
He gave a point of view which was educative, but I think you do rate my intelligence to be real low because you feel what he has written I will take it as the Gospel truth. He has given a view. Now, it is for me to study the that view and correlate. Then and then only I will take it for what it is worth. Obviously, all Americans will not fall in the category mentioned. Yet some will.
I don't think he has insulted any American. These types exist. They exist in India too and all over the world. It is just the question of percentages. Or are you suggesting that all Americans are Einsteins?
There are a whole lot of people who are glued to the TV set and that has given rise to the typecasting - couch potatoes. Are they boned up on foreign policy? These are folks who are interested in their own gains and losses. They couldn't care less is Iraq burns or not and anyway would not know where Iraq is! And such type are by the thousands.
Last edited by Ray; 03 Nov 06, at 21:13.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
ray,
please believe me when i say that my post was specifically aimed at answering mcdelroy's points, and was absolutely no reflection on your intelligence!astralis,
I think you are being harsh.
He gave a point of view which was educative, but I think you do rate my intelligence to be real low because you feel what he has written I will take it as the Gospel truth. He has given a view. Now, it is for me to study the that view and correlate. Then and then only I will take it for what it is worth. Obviously, all Americans will not fall in the category mentioned. Yet some will.
I don't think he has insulted any American. These types exist. They exist in India too and all over the world. It is just the question of percentages. Or are you suggesting that all Americans are Einsteins?
There are a whole lot of people who are glued to the TV set and that has given rise to the typecasting - couch potatoes. Are they boned up on foreign policy? These are folks who are interested in their own gains and losses. They couldn't care less is Iraq burns or not and anyway would not know where Iraq is! And such type are by the thousands.
from what mcdelroy writes, it seems as if the average american is nothing more than a slave to a cabalistic media! at the same time, here on the board we have discussed how the american media is biased towards liberals. so it would seem to follow that if americans are nought more than empty containers to be filled in by CBS/NYT/NBC, then we would all be raving socialists and hippies by now.
which the american people decidedly are not.
now, i certainly believe that quite a few americans are not informed. but at the same time, i would say that the average american voter has some modicum of common sense (especially if they are in the percentage of the american populace that actually goes out and pulls a lever). if i do sound harsh, then i apologize. but it seems to me that mcdelroy is stretching credibility when he tries to paint a picture of democrats, or liberals, as a party that collectively can't wait to embrace terrorists to their bosom.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: