Syria says US 'interfering' as ambassador visits Hama

[MIKEMUN]

7 July 2011

Syria has accused the US of "interfering" in its affairs after the US ambassador to the country travelled to the flashpoint city of Hama.

The Syrian foreign ministry said the visit by Robert Ford was "obvious proof" of US involvement in continuing protests in the country.

Earlier, the US State Department said Mr Ford's visit was to show solidarity with protesters.

Hundreds of Hama residents have fled fearing an assault by security forces.

Tanks are stationed outside the city and at least 22 people have been shot dead in recent days.

Washington says Mr Ford hopes to stay in Hama for anti-government protests which normally follow Friday prayers.

The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says the ambassador's presence in Hama could dissuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from launching an all-out assault on the city.

But the move has angered Damascus.

"The presence of the US ambassador in Hama without previous permission is obvious proof of the implication of the United States in the ongoing events, and of their attempts to increase (tensions), which damage Syria's security and stability," the foreign ministry said in a statement.

Last Friday's protest in Hama was one of the largest in three months of demonstrations across Syria.

A day later, Mr Assad sacked local governor Ahmad Khaled Abdel Aziz for reportedly failing to suppress the unrest.

Security forces swept in on Monday in an attempt to regain control of the city, but tanks have so far remained outside.

Continue reading the main story
Significance of Hama
Hama - a bastion of dissidence - occupies a significant place in the history of modern Syria. In 1982, then-President Hafez al-Assad, father of Bashar, sent in troops to quell an uprising by the Sunni opposition Muslim Brotherhood. Tens of thousands were killed and the town flattened. The operation was led by the president's brother, Rifaat.

Similarly, current President Bashar Assad has turned to his own brother, Maher, who commands the army's elite Fourth Division, to deal with the unrest.

Hama, with a population 800,000, has seen some of the biggest protests and worst violence in Syria's 2011 uprising.

On Thursday, residents blocked streets with burning tyres in attempts to keep out bus-loads of security forces, witnesses said.

Dozens of families were said to be fleeing the city.

US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Washington was "greatly concerned about the situation in Hama".

"The fundamental intention (of Mr Ford's visit) was to make absolutely clear with his physical presence that we stand with those Syrians who are expressing their right to speak for change," she said.

The Obama administration has been criticised for not reacting strongly enough to the crackdown in Syria. Washington has warned President Assad that he is running out of time to reform but has yet to call on him to step down.

Opposition activists say that more than 1,300 protesters have died across the country since protests began in March.

In 1982, Hama was the scene of the ruthless suppression of an uprising against President Assad's father.


BBC News - Syria says US 'interfering' as ambassador visits Hama


Ineresting. What will Syria do if there are massive protests in Hama with the US ambassador there?

[RoccoR]

MIKEMUN, et al,

Yet, another mistake.

7 July 2011

Syria has accused the US of "interfering" in its affairs after the US ambassador to the country travelled to the flashpoint city of Hama.

The Syrian foreign ministry said the visit by Robert Ford was "obvious proof" of US involvement in continuing protests in the country.

(COMMENT)

We need to keep our nose out of it. Our Foreign Policy of intervention is adversely affecting the natural outcome in the Syrian choice to choose their own destiny.

It could easily end up that the US will be committed either economically, politically or militarily in some way. Into yet another commitment we cannot afford.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

It could easily end up that the US will be committed either economically, politically or militarily in some way. Into yet another commitment we cannot afford.

You read all of this into what for now is just a symbolic gesture ? ..without committing anything more.

Make up your mind whether you want to connect with the Arab street or not.

They're the ones that will eventually decide who rules them.

[RoccoR]

Quences)

Double Edge, et al,

Nothing an Ambassador does, is symbolic. There is a motive behind what Robert Ford does. We are choosing sides.

You read all of this into what for now is just a symbolic gesture ? ..without committing anything more.

Make up your mind whether you want to connect with the Arab street or not.

They're the ones that will eventually decide who rules them.

(COMMENT)

When we "choose a side" is a commitment. And it won't stop with just that. Just look at what the COM (Chief of Mission) staff consists of in terms of elements.

It will gradually grow and we will get more involved than you can imagine. And it will not make a difference to our overall status in the eyes of the Arab People. Intervention is intervention.

We need to keep our hands in our pockets, our mouth shut, --- our eyes ad ears open. We need to let the Syrian Population to fight its own battle and make its own choice without even so much as a nudge from the US. Whoever is left standing is who we establish relations with at the end of the day.

(FROM A PRACTICAL VIEW)

The Syrian Government is doing just what you might expect, --- what almost any government would do in the face of a civil disturbance of that magnitude. It is not so dissimilar than what the US had made plans for in GARDEN PLOT and FM 3-19.15 http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf Civil Disturbance Operations (April 2005).

(QUESTIONS OF VIEW)

• How do you think the US Government would view a Foreign Power jumping into the middle of a US Civil Disturbance and encouraging a disruptive domestic activity?
• How would you, as a senior US Government Official, respond to the intervention of a foreign power in a Domestic Civil Disturbance of national consequence?
• How do you think pro-Government elements of the population would consider the a foreign power that intervened and supported a segment of the population that supported anti-Government activities?

(CONSEQUENCES)

Then there is a political consequence!

What happens if the US endorses a side (say the anti-Government side), and the opposition (pro-Government side) wins?

• How will that impact future US relations?
• Will it force the US to intervene, like in Libya, to militarily support the side it endorsed?

Most Respectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

Nothing an Ambassador does, is symbolic. There is a motive behind what Robert Ford does. We are choosing sides.

Very good and about time too. That your ambassador sees it fit to do such tells me your state dept has worked out the scenarios here. They're working for you.

When we "choose a side" is a commitment. And it won't stop with just that. Just look at what the COM (Chief of Mission) staff consists of in terms of elements.

It will gradually grow and we will get more involved than you can imagine. And it will not make a difference to our overall status in the eyes of the Arab People. Intervention is intervention.

Are you aware of all the elements in the equation here ?

I can see your pov but your pro's think otherwise.

We need to keep our hands in our pockets, our mouth shut, --- our eyes ad ears open. We need to let the Syrian Population to fight its own battle and make its own choice without even so much as a nudge from the US. Whoever is left standing is who we establish relations with at the end of the day.

Wrt to Iran this was the accepted plan. So something has changed wrt Syria and i wonder what it is. Same leader, different play.

How do you think the US Government would view a Foreign Power jumping into the middle of a US Civil Disturbance and encouraging a disruptive domestic activity?

When's the last time a foreign govt did ?

If i'm not mistaken it hasn't happened since 1776.

(CONSEQUENCES)

Then there is a political consequence!

What happens if the US endorses a side (say the anti-Government side), and the opposition (pro-Government side) wins?

• How will that impact future US relations?
• Will it force the US to intervene, like in Libya, to militarily support the side it endorsed?

Most Respectfully,
R

Thats for the ppl in the state dept to answer.

[RoccoR]

Double Edge, et al,

Each time we (the US) has intervened in a Middle Eastern/Gulf State, the outcome has been less than positive for the nation, for the US and for the Region. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who is satified with the outcomes in:

• Afghanistan,
• Iran,
• Iraq,
• Pakistan,
• Yemen

You're be hard pressed, to find anyone that is happy with the arrangements in the Israeli-Palestinian territories in question.

Very good and about time too. That your ambassador sees it fit to do such tells me your state dept has worked out the scenarios here. They're working for you.

(COMMENT)

Actually not!

I doubt that anyone (USG wise) has worked out the various scenarios. They may have discussed it, and they may even admit that they wargamed it. But in all the regions, the number of times the US got it right, would not demonstrate that the US has any special handle or insight on any problem within the Region; let alone make a strategy and prediction that works and is accurate.

You see where we are in Iraq. Ambassador Ford was there (at the same time I was) and you see the outcome. Political Counselor (2004-2006) and Deputy Chief of Mission (2008-2009) at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. I was there both times with him. He has no special knowledge, skills or abilities that contributed to any success.

• Why would you put any faith in him now?

  “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
  

  Albert Einstein

We keep employing these same Senior Foreign Service Officers that have failed us in other regions; so we shouldn't expect different results.

Wrt to Iran this was the accepted plan. So something has changed wrt Syria and i wonder what it is. Same leader, different play.

(COMMENT)

Neither side has actually changed. President Assad is not acting any different than what anyone expected; and the US is attempting to intervene and destabilize the government. It is in character for both.

Thats for the ppl in the state dept to answer.

(COMMENT)

Actually, if we leave it to them, we can expect the same kinds of results.

Is that what we want? (Any of us!)

After nearly a decade of US involvement in Afghanistan (Military, Intelligence, Foreign Service, USAID, etc) --- hundreds of billions in dollars, the current Kabul Government is an Islamic State (endorsed by Senior US Senator on behalf of the USG) and is lead by one the most corrupt leaders in the region. It was heralded as a triumph for US Diplomatic efforts. The older government in exile (the Taliban) is waiting in the wings, and the insurgent activity is re-emerging.

In Iraq, again after hundred of Billions of dollars, every kind of military and intelligence effort, special reconstructions teams, the largest Foreign Service effort anywhere in the world, we have an Islamic State, The PM didn't win the election, but after a plea to Iran, Mutada al-Sadr (an anti-American Cleric and Ayatollah wannabe) chipped-in and became King-maker. We still have an internal insurgency, and a direct link to Iran embedded in the government, and no tangible return for our investment in sight (economic, political or military).

The US effort is not improving the image of the US anywhere in the Region.

The US effort, for which US Policy has been at the forefront, has not stabilized even the Palestinian situation after multiple decade; what probabilities are we looking at? Even today, after democratic elections, the Regional Populations understand that: if they choose a government, and if government does not please the US, then that nation will be penalized anyway. US policy does not actually promote "democracy" that is actually chosen by the people. It is evangelical, it promotes the government that it choses.

BOTTOM LINE: Why would you, or anyone, put their faith in a nation that cannot even nation build its own country? Have you looked at the US lately?

We need jobs and our infrastructure needs improvements; therefore building bridges, maintaining highways and constructing light rail systems to operate between major metropolitan regions should be our countries economic goal. The investment stimulus is needed to lower our unemployment rates, add money to the governments revenue stream in the form of more income taxes (we are down 28% in government income from when the recession began), and make people productive again.

(SELF-PRESERVATION)

There are a couple of points of view here.

US Perspective: The US cannot help any nation if it is crushed under the weight of its commitments. In order for the US to maintain a first rate conventional military force, a full-service asymmetric force, an ability to nation build, an capability to lead other populations in a productive direction, if must have an influence to inspire based on the deeds it has accomplished. If the US to get on the top of this --- it must:

• Further the infrastructure that brings to America a competitive advantage in the are of industrialization.
  
• Bring Education, scientific research, and cosmic exploration to the forefront of America. It must become the center of academic learning and inspiration. America must become the new Library of Alexandria.
  
• America, if it is to become the defacto World Police, intervening in every internal dispute that come to the headlines, defending the poor, preserving the rights of humanity, and preserving the environment, then it must be able to afford the tools and processes that build such an apparatus. It cannot be a nation of the poor, under the yoke of unemployment and heavy taxes.

External Perspective: America cannot unilaterally assume a position in world leadership. It must earn the respect of the nations that follow it. It should not intervene just because it has the power; but because the nations of the world ask for it to intervene. It should not bribe (buy) its allies; but build bridges and friendships.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

Each time we (the US) has intervened in a Middle Eastern/Gulf State, the outcome has been less than positive for the nation, for the US and for the Region. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who is satified with the outcomes in:

• Afghanistan,
• Iran,
• Iraq,
• Pakistan,
• Yemen

Not sure why you incld Af-Pak in there under middle east but i'll trade you Yugoslavia for them. Af-Pak & Iraq are terrorism related wars. The former because a bunch of kids on a shoestring budget pulled off what even the Soviets would not have dared to do. Iraq, because Saddam had the finances & motivations to take it further. The fight is more important than the result and sends out a clear message.

You talk about outcomes but I think your motivations are more important in these two cases. What are the costs of inaction in each of these cases at the time the decision was made. This is the key, not looking at the result and condemning the initial action, which is easy to state and relies on hindsight thinking.

Remember Kuwait ? How about the Suez in '56. You left out Somalia, where the outcome wasn't as expected but the spirit certainly was.

Yemen is the next al-Q battleground so its a bit early to say anything there.

Iran is a mixed case. If Mossadegh hadn't decided to nationalise his oil industry seemingly overnight, thereby threatening your investments as well as the British then things would have been different. The Gulf countries nationalised their oil companies in the 70s, no intervention by the west for that. So Iran is a bit grey as there is blame to go around on both sides.

So i would not say that intervention is as black & white as you make it out to be but rather the results are mixed. Arguments for & against intervention are still neck & neck.

You're be hard pressed, to find anyone that is happy with the arrangements in the Israeli-Palestinian territories in question.

Your last intervention there was in the 80s. This particular case is in a category of its own. Some say if it wasn't for US support of Israel the problem would have been resolved earlier. Others, that this would necessarily be because Israel would no longer exist. A zero sum land dispute is a tricky problem to tackle. On a smaller scale I've seen nasty family feuds over such let alone when entire peoples & nations are involved.

Actually not!

I doubt that anyone (USG wise) has worked out the various scenarios. They may have discussed it, and they may even admit that they wargamed it. But in all the regions, the number of times the US got it right, would not demonstrate that the US has any special handle or insight on any problem within the Region; let alone make a strategy and prediction that works and is accurate.

I still think motivations are more important than the result. They give a better understanding of why you intervened in the first place. After that you try to make it work. Sometimes you have a clear win othertimes the result is more nuanced. This does not automatically render the initial action invalid. To claim otherwise is falling for hindsight bias. You never ever have the full picture at the outset, you have to make a decision on an incomplete picture.

The question as always is -- what are the potential costs at the time, of NOT acting. You will find in each one of the cases you cited above that acting would be cheaper than not acting. That the interventions took place make one conclude that necessarily to be the case, without knowing all the reasons.

You see where we are in Iraq. Ambassador Ford was there (at the same time I was) and you see the outcome. Political Counselor (2004-2006) and Deputy Chief of Mission (2008-2009) at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. I was there both times with him. He has no special knowledge, skills or abilities that contributed to any success.

• Why would you put any faith in him now?

We keep employing these same Senior Foreign Service Officers that have failed us in other regions; so we shouldn't expect different results.

Ambassador Ford is not acting in a personal capacity but under the instruction of your state dept. Your question is really about the capability & wisdom of your state dept and by extension your president. Would you agree ?

(COMMENT)

Neither side has actually changed. President Assad is not acting any different than what anyone expected; and the US is attempting to intervene and destabilize the government. It is in character for both.

Ah, but will Assad continue to brazenly kill his own to the same extent had you not acted. That is the question :)

(COMMENT)

Actually, if we leave it to them, we can expect the same kinds of results.

Is that what we want? (Any of us!)

After nearly a decade of US involvement in Afghanistan (Military, Intelligence, Foreign Service, USAID, etc) --- hundreds of billions in dollars, the current Kabul Government is an Islamic State (endorsed by Senior US Senator on behalf of the USG) and is lead by one the most corrupt leaders in the region. It was heralded as a triumph for US Diplomatic efforts. The older government in exile (the Taliban) is waiting in the wings, and the insurgent activity is re-emerging.

But Taliban have not taken over as yet have they so it would be premature to say anything as yet. I'm pretty certain that we will not be seeing a retun to the good old days in that neighbourhood.

In Iraq, again after hundred of Billions of dollars, every kind of military and intelligence effort, special reconstructions teams, the largest Foreign Service effort anywhere in the world, we have an Islamic State, The PM didn't win the election, but after a plea to Iran, Mutada al-Sadr (an anti-American Cleric and Ayatollah wannabe) chipped-in and became King-maker. We still have an internal insurgency, and a direct link to Iran embedded in the government, and no tangible return for our investment in sight (economic, political or military).

Still too early to pass judgement. You have a nascent free govt in a area that hasn't had one since the 70s. It takes time and support. You're in it for the long run anyway as that region is high in your priority list.

The US effort is not improving the image of the US anywhere in the Region.

The US effort, for which US Policy has been at the forefront, has not stabilized even the Palestinian situation after multiple decade; what probabilities are we looking at? Even today, after democratic elections, the Regional Populations understand that: if they choose a government, and if government does not please the US, then that nation will be penalized anyway. US policy does not actually promote "democracy" that is actually chosen by the people. It is evangelical, it promotes the government that it choses.

You have commingled many countries in the interest of promoting your narrative. One would think all your efforts over the last decade & to an extent even earlier have been an abject failure. Do you seriously believe this ?

BOTTOM LINE: Why would you, or anyone, put their faith in a nation that cannot even nation build its own country? Have you looked at the US lately?

Upto 2008, things could be described as being peachy :)

Three years on, the picture is more grey. But you're still a way off from ending up like Greece. You still have choices. Your MAIN problem is in reaching a bipartisan consensus on how to tackle them. The idealogues have taken the foreground and all we hear are their preachings, the hard nosed pragmatists are still in the background.

I will admit its pretty difficult from a foreign pov, to get an objective take on how things are in the US lately. Certain categories are less well off than before. Their condition tends to be overemphasised and over played biasing the picture. Yet when the crisis struck in 2008, everybody wanted to shift their money into $$$. That's not exactly a sign of no confidence.

(SELF-PRESERVATION)

There are a couple of points of view here.

US Perspective: The US cannot help any nation if it is crushed under the weight of its commitments. In order for the US to maintain a first rate conventional military force, a full-service asymmetric force, an ability to nation build, an capability to lead other populations in a productive direction, if must have an influence to inspire based on the deeds it has accomplished. If the US to get on the top of this --- it must:

• Further the infrastructure that brings to America a competitive advantage in the are of industrialization.
  
• Bring Education, scientific research, and cosmic exploration to the forefront of America. It must become the center of academic learning and inspiration. America must become the new Library of Alexandria.
  
• America, if it is to become the defacto World Police, intervening in every internal dispute that come to the headlines, defending the poor, preserving the rights of humanity, and preserving the environment, then it must be able to afford the tools and processes that build such an apparatus. It cannot be a nation of the poor, under the yoke of unemployment and heavy taxes.

External Perspective: America cannot unilaterally assume a position in world leadership. It must earn the respect of the nations that follow it. It should not intervene just because it has the power; but because the nations of the world ask for it to intervene. It should not bribe (buy) its allies; but build bridges and friendships.

Most Respectfully,
R

The way i see it the Euros took the lead in Libya and have allowed you to do so in Syria. You are looking at the near term with your financial problems in mind. I think you need to take a longer time view not next year or the next five but rather the next 30. That's the amount of time it takes to judge whether your actions in Iraq, Af-Pak or wider Arab world were justified or not. Suggest you watch this short speech by a British MP on the subject.

A final point on something you touched on in your earlier post. That is of soverignity. This concept that the borders of a state are sacred and should not be breached by others. I find if you go back in time that whenever the interests of a state were challenged by another that the state in question invariably acts to secure them. The net result, generally being in favour of the stronger party.

It's all well & good to say that countries should not interfere in the affairs of another but we find that time & again they do just that when it suits them. Been going on for a long time now. You would think such a state of affairs has to inevitably end up in us all killing each other but lines are drawn, stakes ante'd up and we reach some sort of generally accepted equilibrium.

[RoccoR]

Double Edge, et al,

I admire your positive approach to the issues.

Not sure why you incld Af-Pak in there under middle east but i'll trade you Yugoslavia for them. Af-Pak & Iraq are terrorism related wars.

(COMMENT)

You're right. I drew a similarity to the logic and policy, and tend to talk about the places where I have more personal experiences. While I have been to Bondsteel, I really don't have all that much experience in understanding the entire landscape that shapes that quicksand. But we are still there, and will be there for many years.

You talk about outcomes but I think your motivations are more important in these two cases. What are the costs of inaction in each of these cases at the time the decision was made. This is the key, not looking at the result and condemning the initial action, which is easy to state and relies on hindsight thinking.

(COMMENT)

The cost over time.

The cost of inaction is something that we cannot measure, once we've taken the action.

In the case of the Former Yugoslavia (1945-1992), (now Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Bosnia) was actually a post-WWII mistake. Again, as a result of the WWII Powers thinking that they could artificially substitute their judgment and create a nation.

The cost of the action wasn't truly realized for nearly 5 decades. You can't look at Yugoslavia from the most recent point of intervention.

Yemen is the next al-Q battleground so its a bit early to say anything there.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, been there and done that. I just return from Yemen. We are making a mess out of that as well. But it is really not based on the AQAP threat, but the need for the US to appear that they are still relevant in the Region.

It is a case, much like Libya, where the world (especially the US) needs to keep their mouth shut and their hands off. It is a place where the local indigenous population has to determine the course and shape of their nation; and not the US. Otherwise, like Yugoslavia, we will be trying to fix is for decades.

So i would not say that intervention is as black & white as you make it out to be but rather the results are mixed. Arguments for & against intervention are still neck & neck.

(COMMENT)

Of course not; you are absolutely correct. But again, you should not expect the MAYTAG Repairman

to fix what only the people can do. The US has a Foreign Policy that suggest that we (America) always know what is best for the people of any given nation. When in reality, we don't have a clue.

We have a Foreign Service (State Department) that has no more clue about conducting successful foreign affairs, than the MAYTAG Repairman does. And the cost in this action is at the expense of the US infrastructure.

But Taliban have not taken over as yet have they so it would be premature to say anything as yet. I'm pretty certain that we will not be seeing a retun to the good old days in that neighbourhood.

(COMMENT)

We don't know that. It is up to the people of Afghanistan to decide what form of government they want.

Still too early to pass judgement. You have a nascent free govt in a area that hasn't had one since the 70s. It takes time and support. You're in it for the long run anyway as that region is high in your priority list.

(COMMENT)

Yes! The "long run" is a fall back. It relies on the fact that time heals all wounds.

There is really no such thing. Using this concept, it is a ready made excuse to rationalize a failure. Goals and objectives should be accomplished in a reasonable time. Decades of war and conflict cannot be justified by the concept "the long run" view.

While the "Long-Run" is a great political slight of hand, it is merely a clever way to dismiss failure of a policy.

You have commingled many countries in the interest of promoting your narrative. One would think all your efforts over the last decade & to an extent even earlier have been an abject failure. Do you seriously believe this ?

(COMMENT)

Yes! Since my days in Vietnam, I have been guided by the principle that someone in Washington was actually on the guiding path. But over time, I've come to learn that what few anecdotal successes the US has benefited from were purely by other forces (economic, scientific, etc). Clearly, just as the fall of the Soviet Union was do to economic strain, so it is that the US is facing just the same pressures today.

Ambassador Ford is not acting in a personal capacity but under the instruction of your state dept. Your question is really about the capability & wisdom of your state dept and by extension your president. Would you agree ?

(COMMENT)

Ambassador Ford is part of the Washington Brain Trust that has lost its way. He is a Minister Counselor to the President. We've called them by many names over my years of service: the Whiz Kids during the Vietnam debacle, the PNAC over the Iraq Debacle. They are suppose to represent our brightest and the best. But the Department of State (DOS) has no special hold on wisdom. They are politically motivated with the major players, who act like they are Princes of the Realm, playing cards at court. But this is not unique to DOS, it permeates the entire government.

Your last intervention there was in the 80s. This particular case is in a category of its own. Some say if it wasn't for US support of Israel the problem would have been resolved earlier. Others, that this would necessarily be because Israel would no longer exist. A zero sum land dispute is a tricky problem to tackle. On a smaller scale I've seen nasty family feuds over such let alone when entire peoples & nations are involved.

(COMMENT)

When I refer to intervention, I am not just referring to a military role. While DOD related activity is the most obvious, as you can see by Secretary Clinton's endorsement of action in Libya, AMB Ford's actions in Syria, AMB Jeffery in Iraq, and AMB Feierstein in Yemen, DOS plays a significant role in getting the US involved in politically dangerous mis-advantures.

All these players (collectively), old school in the way they think, have done America a grave disservice in my opinion (just one man's opinion).

It's all well & good to say that countries should not interfere in the affairs of another but we find that time & again they do just that when it suits them. Been going on for a long time now. You would think such a state of affairs has to inevitably end up in us all killing each other but lines are drawn, stakes ante'd up and we reach some sort of generally accepted equilibrium.

(COMMENT)

Yes, we tend to agree here. Each region of people must, eventually, seek its balance. We see this frequently in the Middle East. What we haven't yet learned is that, sometimes, we have to let them (the indigenous people) fight it out and come to a resolution. Even if this has some cost to it. In cases where we do not, it just leads to a prolonged conflict, in which the US will pay, and pay and pay; with no reasonable expectation of a return. And generations of the indigenous populations will learn to hate us for it.

The cost of intervention that we've already experienced.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Squirrel]

Ineresting. What will Syria do if there are massive protests in Hama with the US ambassador there?

He can't stay there forever.

It's also amusing to me that the US is always a scapegoat when it comes to spying. I would have thought that the practice of pointing the finger at the great white satan would have become passe. Especially given the obviously conflicted history of relationships with Arab countries in general. It's like America is the rich, obese benefactor of Arab jiggelos who always tell their friends "there's nothing going on between us."

[Double Edge]

While I have been to Bondsteel, I really don't have all that much experience in understanding the entire landscape that shapes that quicksand. But we are still there, and will be there for many years.

Yes and so long as your base continues to be there there won't be any hostilities. They'll work out their differences till a point is reached where your presence is no longer required. The first step was setting up the newly independent country, Kosovo. Keeping a base there is cheaper than having to fight a war once more if things go downhill. You've had bases all over the world since the cold war days, this is nothing new.

The cost over time.

The cost of inaction is something that we cannot measure, once we've taken the action.

oh, i believe you know very well the costs of inaction. You have to work that out to be able to take the decisions you have in each and every single theatre. Otherwise there is no decision. You have objectives and a failure to reach them always carries a short & midterm cost that you work to avoid.

In the case of the Former Yugoslavia (1945-1992), (now Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Bosnia) was actually a post-WWII mistake. Again, as a result of the WWII Powers thinking that they could artificially substitute their judgment and create a nation.

The cost of the action wasn't truly realized for nearly 5 decades. You can't look at Yugoslavia from the most recent point of intervention.

That was a different time, it was thought better to leave the country intact and let them have a go at it. It failed eventually and thats how we know it wasn't a feasible idea to begin with. There was no way to know before this point.

Yeah, been there and done that. I just return from Yemen. We are making a mess out of that as well. But it is really not based on the AQAP threat, but the need for the US to appear that they are still relevant in the Region.

You have a visible presence in the gulf already. What good is having a presence off Yemen if there was no other threat. The area borders Saudi arabia and is in turmoil. Whats to stop a determined group taking cover from this turmoil and attacking oil fields in the desert or tankers out at sea. It just takes one successful attack to cause uncertainty in the oil markets and spike prices up and they can stay high until the threat recedes which may take weeks. That can cause unrest in other areas.

Am not sure i follow you when you say you're mkaing a mess of it. Way i see it oil prices haven't doubled so you're doing something right :) Bad al mandab is a strategic choke point into the Red Sea so thats always an interesting area to have some influence over. From your EIA

The international energy market is dependent upon reliable transport. The blockage of a chokepoint, even temporarily, can lead to substantial increases in total energy costs. In addition, chokepoints leave oil tankers vulnerable to theft from pirates, terrorist attacks, and political unrest in the form of wars or hostilities as well as shipping accidents which can lead to disastrous oil spills.

Any interruptions to oil shipping or production in that region can cause a spike in oil prices the world over. So the costs of inaction here can be signficant for everybody.

It is a case, much like Libya, where the world (especially the US) needs to keep their mouth shut and their hands off. It is a place where the local indigenous population has to determine the course and shape of their nation; and not the US. Otherwise, like Yugoslavia, we will be trying to fix is for decades.

Inaction in Libya would have endangered the Arab spring. Another use for the 'domino effect'.

In any case your congress will be having a debate most likey going to vote shortly on whether to continue US operations in Libya or not. If the nays trump the yays at a time when Gaddafi is weaker than before it would not be good. Besides you've got a mad dog problem now just like you did earlier with Saddam, so at the risk of sticking my neck out here i'd think your congress would vote to continue operations albeit at the back seat level in Libya until Gaddafi goes.

Of course not; you are absolutely correct. But again, you should not expect the MAYTAG Repairman

to fix what only the people can do. The US has a Foreign Policy that suggest that we (America) always know what is best for the people of any given nation. When in reality, we don't have a clue.

There is no guarantee at all if the repairman will even show up ;)

We have a Foreign Service (State Department) that has no more clue about conducting successful foreign affairs, than the MAYTAG Repairman does. And the cost in this action is at the expense of the US infrastructure.

Ah, so you think not going on adventures abroad would mean more funds to improve infrastructure. The Keynesian idea that in a recession if you increase funding on infrastructure, dig a hole & fill it up that it puts more money into the hands of the ppl and helps improve the economy. Well, Japan tried that in the 90s after they had their recession and it did not work out so well for them. Their public debt is currently at twce the level of their GDP. Their economy hasn't really improved all that much since it blew out in the 90s. This is why you're not seeing that much infrastructure spending certainly not with the intent of sparking the economy back to life in the US.

We don't know that. It is up to the people of Afghanistan to decide what form of government they want.

Do you expect Pakistan to allow that to happen without trying to interefere ?

Their regime is convinced its in their interest to do so. Thing with this national interest is that its carte blanche to interefere in the affairs of others and be justified in doing so :)

Yes! The "long run" is a fall back. It relies on the fact that time heals all wounds.

There is really no such thing. Using this concept, it is a ready made excuse to rationalize a failure. Goals and objectives should be accomplished in a reasonable time. Decades of war and conflict cannot be justified by the concept "the long run" view.

While the "Long-Run" is a great political slight of hand, it is merely a clever way to dismiss failure of a policy.

To declare something a failure you would need to know what the objectives were to begin with. Do you ?

In both Afghanistan & Iraq the main goal was regime change, that was achieved a long time ago. So why still stick on ? the place hasn't fully stabilised yet. I don't recall Bush mentioning a timeframe. It will continue until things improve there or support for the cause diminishes at home like it did with Vietnam.

Yes! Since my days in Vietnam, I have been guided by the principle that someone in Washington was actually on the guiding path. But over time, I've come to learn that what few anecdotal successes the US has benefited from were purely by other forces (economic, scientific, etc). Clearly, just as the fall of the Soviet Union was do to economic strain, so it is that the US is facing just the same pressures today.

yeah, economic strain. Strain bought on by your country anty'ing up forcing them to devote more to defense than they should have over the decades.

Would the Soviets have collapsed as soon as they did otherwise ?

This is as good an example of the 'long run' that you have. Complete strategic success. We don't have a world with 60,000 nukes anymore do we. There is no red peril or risk of 100 divisions breaching into western europe anymore is there.

Ambassador Ford is part of the Washington Brain Trust that has lost its way. He is a Minister Counselor to the President. We've called them by many names over my years of service: the Whiz Kids during the Vietnam debacle, the PNAC over the Iraq Debacle. They are suppose to represent our brightest and the best. But the Department of State (DOS) has no special hold on wisdom. They are politically motivated with the major players, who act like they are Princes of the Realm, playing cards at court. But this is not unique to DOS, it permeates the entire government.

I suspect you're not giving sufficient credit where its due. You've defnitely had successes over the decades but your just playing them down to make your point. If the collapse of communism doesn't impress you then nothing will.

When I refer to intervention, I am not just referring to a military role. While DOD related activity is the most obvious, as you can see by Secretary Clinton's endorsement of action in Libya, AMB Ford's actions in Syria, AMB Jeffery in Iraq, and AMB Feierstein in Yemen, DOS plays a significant role in getting the US involved in politically dangerous mis-advantures.

Oh, i thought you looked at AMB Ford's actions as intervention as well. If its politically dangerous then they potentially stand to lose elections and votes. We'll see how the congress vote goes on Libya to know what the prevalent mood in your capitol is.

All these players (collectively), old school in the way they think, have done America a grave disservice in my opinion (just one man's opinion).

sure, its quite difficult to make a case either way.

Yes, we tend to agree here. Each region of people must, eventually, seek its balance. We see this frequently in the Middle East. What we haven't yet learned is that, sometimes, we have to let them (the indigenous people) fight it out and come to a resolution. Even if this has some cost to it. In cases where we do not, it just leads to a prolonged conflict, in which the US will pay, and pay and pay; with no reasonable expectation of a return. And generations of the indigenous populations will learn to hate us for it.

Given the views on the Arab street, am under the impression they hate you because you do not allow them to choose the leaders they want by supporting the status quo. There has never been real & free choice since those countries gained independence in the 60s.

This, i would maintain is the 'old school way' that has to change given the new situation on the ground today. Even if you don't militarily intervene, supporting dictatorships brings along its own costs. Your govt is starting to make promising moves but the conservatives are leery over it. They presently control the house. Only a showdown on the hill will settle it.

You want America to have a better rep on the Arab street, then start to connect with it and be on the right side of the fight. Its as simple as that. The economy of Egypt is one quarter the size of Turkey's for roughly the same population. Evidently this is because whatever leaders Egypt has had cared more about their own wellbeing than that of their people. It's a similar picture in other countries of the Arab world as well. Supporting their struggle IS allowing them to fix their problems so you don't have to keep on giving them aid in perpetuity, of which very little percolates down to the common man.

[Dreadnought]

The US has a Foreign Policy that suggest that we (America) always know what is best for the people of any given nation. When in reality, we don't have a clue.

Agree to disagree, whereas we have helped many form (given them some basic framework) their respective governments which dont necessarily agree with others we do agree upon one thing though that sets us apart from the many.

That all deserve their basic god given rights to exist, pratice religion, protest a government no matter what religion, culture or race they might be..

Many will/would disagree with this but it is one point you can be certain of.

Dictators, Regimes and Theocracies (all viewed as entitlements in their eyes mind you) view this as their sworn enemy. It's not very diffacult to see why when one understands how they treat the very people they wish to rule.

[RoccoR]

Dreadnought, Double Edge, et al,

Yes, I've run into this before.

Let me first say, that I very much appreciate Double Edge's POV. Today, and in the future, we will need such positive outlooks on the progress that has been made.

There are those that believe the US intervention (military, political, economic) is absolutely essential. I was one of them for many years. I believed that America was acting in the best interest of the indigenous population and the world. But I gradually learned better and shed my naiveté.

There is no question that America can make a difference. The question is:

• What kind of difference?

America must also understand, that the very same forces that brought down the Iron Curtain, could also bring down America. We are not untouchable, as much as we would like to believe that.

Some would argue that my belief that America should concentrate on:

• Building a New Library of Alexandria; a center of learning, education, science, technology, and research. A magnet for new ideas that will reshape the world.
  
• A new energy infrastructure, one that is efficient, adding to the competitive advantage to industrialization.
  
• A nation that has a self-sufficient economy, a commercial giant in the world, and the land that - once again - offers the promise of opportunity to all comers.
  
• A new "defense force" - one dedicated to peace and protection. A force that is universally recognized as fair, and honest, a force that is universally recognized as defending the weak, promoting justice and integrity; maintaining the lanes of free trade.

Agree to disagree, whereas we have helped many form (given them some basic framework) their respective governments which dont necessarily agree with others we do agree upon one thing though that sets us apart from the many.

(COMMENT)

I believe that the US needs to stop and take a clear look at is Foreign Policy.

"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."

—Jean-Luc Picard, Symbiosis (Gene Roddenberry)

It is an age old concept, one that addresses the concept of the Hegemony, dangers of cultural imperialism, and the right of a developing people/culture to choose their own destiny.

Each time we interfere, we alter the balance in favor of our development alternatives, versus, the natural development of the culture.

Yes, Double Edge has a point. I encourage our Discussion Group to carefully consider it; and the consequences that a Policy of Continuous Interference brings with it. But there is another way, one less militaristic; one less Hegemonist.

I will admit, that I am generally the holder of the minority view. Most people are in favor of the US interfering Diplomatically with a heavy military hand in support. While sometimes there is no real (practical) alternative, the implementation of the 20th Century policy, more often than not, results in a prolonged military intervention.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

There are those that believe the US intervention (military, political, economic) is absolutely essential. I was one of them for many years. I believed that America was acting in the best interest of the indigenous population and the world. But I gradually learned better and shed my naiveté.

During the cold war US intervention was essential. Today its a bit more nuanced.

Only if there is a credible strategic goal worth going for. Of course the argument is always over how credible that goal is going to be. So what this will do is ensure a lot more questioning than in the past. This will act as a natural brake on the tendencies of yesterday. I'm not as confident today that the US will necessarily intervene as it would in the past. Consider this a natural progression of previous actions. You acted before so you do not have to act as often in the future. The costs of acting today are always going to be cheaper than acting tomorrow. I believe Afghanistan & Iraq were done with this goal in mind.

There is no question that America can make a difference. The question is:

• What kind of difference?

America must also understand, that the very same forces that brought down the Iron Curtain, could also bring down America. We are not untouchable, as much as we would like to believe that.

The problem with this question is you cannot see the future. You could argue it will be bad just as well as not. Either way its harder to move fast today than in the past. Libya is a case in point here, you reduced assets in the theatre after a few weeks. There is a doubt still hanging whether you will continue any longer.

This looks to be a trend for the future. So now its maybe you might come in but the uncertainty works to your advantage. In some cases this is easy to tell ie Iran but in many other regions its not.

Some would argue that my belief that America should concentrate on:
[LIST][*]Building a New Library of Alexandria; a center of learning, education, science, technology, and research. A magnet for new ideas that will reshape the world.

I don't think many would disagree with this. America used to think long term and a lot of development was made but when wall st. got into the picture, the outlook became short term. I'm not sure how you tackle this becaus then you can't grow beyond a certain point without. If you're not big enough then you get gobbled by somebody else that is.

If things don't change then seats of learning & development will inevitably shift abroad. The problem is they will be scattered around in many countries which will suffer from the cohesiveness that one country can bring. We all lose out in this scenario. The analogy i draw form here is $ vs euro. Twenty years ago euro was billed as the $ killer. Well, the picture today isn't quite that and is why think paradigm shifts in this scenario will take longer than they did in the past.

I get the feeling that things will have to get a lot worse before enough ppl in the US realise that there needs to be a change. You can't rely on immigrants to fill in the gap forever, they're a temporary stopgap at best or you will have to increase your quotas in the hopes of catching more talent. This will introduce more social problems. Nothing like growing your own. There's a lot of ideas kicking around about this theme, cetainly a hot topic.

[*]A new energy infrastructure, one that is efficient, adding to the competitive advantage to industrialization.

I think you have the most efficent energy infrastructure you could have. That you pay a great deal less for gas than other countries is proof. But you don't see that, all you see is increasing gas prices and think there is a problem. Hey, prices are going up everywhere and am certain we will still be paying more for it than you.

[*]A nation that has a self-sufficient economy, a commercial giant in the world, and the land that - once again - offers the promise of opportunity to all comers.

This part is little bit less clear. What do you mean by self-sufficient economy ?

An autarky is an example of a self-sufficient economy too.

My country went through a phase termed self-reliance in the 60s. It has its pros but much more cons. It was effectively a bad case of 'not invented here syndrome'. Of course we could not make everything others could do more efficiently and we blocked imports of such tech because it was considered threatening to nascent industy. Over time this created vested interests that could not really compete abroad at all because they were so protected, all in the guise of self-reliance.

[*]A new "defense force" - one dedicated to peace and protection. A force that is universally recognized as fair, and honest, a force that is universally recognized as defending the weak, promoting justice and integrity; maintaining the lanes of free trade.

Doesn't this description already partly fit your forces today. what do you think ?

Each time we interfere, we alter the balance in favor of our development alternatives, versus, the natural development of the culture.

What about Japan & Germany. The former Eastern europe does not hate you. They were falling over themselves to join NATO after their 'liberation'.

The aim should be that the similar occurs in the arab world thirty years from now :)

Yes, Double Edge has a point. I encourage our Discussion Group to carefully consider it; and the consequences that a Policy of Continuous Interference brings with it. But there is another way, one less militaristic; one less Hegemonist.

I will admit, that I am generally the holder of the minority view.

It sounds like a more isolationist stance. Almost like a return to the US of pre WW1. If the US economy tanks in a bad way in the future then this will inevitably happen. But i don't think this is your intention.

If not, consider what happens when your presence is removed. It creates a power vacuum that will inevitably be filled with something else. That intervening period will signal a new era of unrest as neighbouring powers scramble to fill the void as best they can. A multi-polar world with no real centre of gravity is an inherently more unstable one. We will be forced to all adapt to a new reality. It's not a future i would look forward to.

There is a reason the 2nd half of the last century was relatively more peaceful in comparison to the first half. Maybe more intra country turmoil but less inter country.

The first half saw the rise of many other powers that all tried to carve out their own spheres of influence. There was no countervailing power present to mitigate those moves. So if you want to bow out then you will have to cede the field to somebody else. Because if you're not interfering then others will.

[RoccoR]

Double Edge, et al,

I think this requires me to answer in a slightly different order; on points that I think are more important.

It sounds like a more isolationist stance. Almost like a return to the US of pre WW1. If the US economy tanks in a bad way in the future then this will inevitably happen. But i don't think this is your intention.

(COMMENT)

Correct, isolationism is not what I was talking about. And that is a very important point.

Non-Interventionist Policy is NOT the same as Isolationism. America can engage in industry and commerce -- diplomatic efforts -- communication -- exchange technology -- without interfering in the internal affairs of a nation, or engaging in activities as an indirect form of imperial dominance (neo-colonialism, proxy rule, or informal empire building).

There is a reason the 2nd half of the last century was relatively more peaceful in comparison to the first half. Maybe more intra country turmoil but less inter country.

The first half saw the rise of many other powers that all tried to carve out their own spheres of influence. There was no countervailing power present to mitigate those moves. So if you want to bow out then you will have to cede the field to somebody else. Because if you're not interfering then others will.

(COMMENT)

The allied powers, as the emerging victors of WWII, were the only countries having true military influence. The phrasing was: "Persuasive in Peace - Invincible in War."

But having the strongest conventional military force projection capability, required that opponents gradually adopt a more asymmetric approach to face-off and counter Second Generation (Straight Conventional) and Third Generation (Proxy Warfare) capacities of the remaining allied powers.

• 1947-1949 Greece (Communist Insurgency)
• 1948-1954 Philippines (Huk Rebellion)
• 1951-1953 Korean War (Communist - No Win)
• 1953 - Iran (US overthrows Democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in a coup d'état and installs the SHAH)
• 1954 - First US Involvement in Vietnam
• 1960-1975 - Formal Involvement in Vietnam
• 1961 - Cuba - US Government supported invasion (Proxy War)
• 1962 - Loas Proxy paramilitary operations
• 1963 - Iraq - US supported coup d'état
• 1973 - Chile coup d'état
• 1981-1992 El Salvador US intervention (Proxy Conflict)
• 1981-1990 Nicaragua (US Contra Affair)
  THEN came:
• Iraq - Afghanistan - etc ... ... ...

This is the short list. The world was anything but quiet and stable under the leadership of the US. Yes, there were some successes, but don't think the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was part of the plan. The US had no idea that was coming. The entire intelligence community was caught by surprise.

The costs of acting today are always going to be cheaper than acting tomorrow. I believe Afghanistan & Iraq were done with this goal in mind.

(COMMENT)

We could write books on the struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as every other intervention the US participated in in the last half century).

Afghanistan was not a true intervention, but a retaliation. Once the Taliban government crumbled and the Tora Bora bombed into ruins, it was time to go. But the US did not do that. To understand how bad things are at the moment in Afghanistan, you have to ask about the availability of gas and electricity in the area. And that is the way the Afghan's will associate the US presence.

Iraq was a long term failure that started decades before, and Saddam, while not our invention, didn't not come to power completely absent our influence. And the most recent invasion, was based on anything but a reliable national security decision making process. Now it is in the hands of a corropt official with close Iranian ties. It is so bad that:

"We'll be doubling our size if all of our plans go through and if we receive the money from Congress in 2011 and then again in 2012," James Jeffrey, the U.S. ambassador in Iraq, told reporters.

He said the staff would increase "from 8,000 plus personnel that we have now to roughly double that by 2012," adding that U.S. forces would make up only a very small part of that number.

"This will be an extraordinarily large embassy with many different functions. Some we took over from USFI (United States Forces in Iraq) and some of them continuation of the work we are doing now."

AND

He and Austin said they were confident that the force was adequate, and that Iraq will remain stable once U.S. troops have departed.

They said that in 2012, the American presence in Iraq will consist of up to 20,000 civilians at sites that include two embassy branches, two consulates, and three police training centers.

No, we could have withdrawn from both place and then returned a decade later --- knocking them back into the stone age again; for less of a cost.

The problem with this question is you cannot see the future. You could argue it will be bad just as well as not. Either way its harder to move fast today than in the past. Libya is a case in point here, you reduced assets in the theatre after a few weeks. There is a doubt still hanging whether you will continue any longer.

(COMMENT)

And that is a part of the problem. Under my theory (which is the minority held view), I would need more than guess work to justify a military intervention. In the case of Libya, it wasn't cut and dry. It was not a clear case where the vast majority of the indigenous population (including those in the military & security apparatus) agreed for change was necessary.

I don't think many would disagree with this. America used to think long term and a lot of development was made but when wall st. got into the picture, the outlook became short term. I'm not sure how you tackle this becaus then you can't grow beyond a certain point without. If you're not big enough then you get gobbled by somebody else that is.

(COMMENT)

While I agree, it goes much beyond that.

Without this strength America is dead in the water and will not be able to help anyone.

The analogy i draw form here is $ vs euro. Twenty years ago euro was billed as the $ killer. Well, the picture today isn't quite that and is why think paradigm shifts in this scenario will take longer than they did in the past.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, that's correct. The panic was that the US Dollar represented America. It is how we buy our allies, and bribe leaders. It is what we throw at the problems; in Iraq by the pallet full.

I get the feeling that things will have to get a lot worse before enough ppl in the US realise that there needs to be a change. You can't rely on immigrants to fill in the gap forever, they're a temporary stopgap at best or you will have to increase your quotas in the hopes of catching more talent. This will introduce more social problems. Nothing like growing your own. There's a lot of ideas kicking around about this theme, cetainly a hot topic.

(COMMENT)

Money (disposable income) cures all. This requires a reduction in under employment, as well as unemployment.

The reason we talk about small business being the backbone of the economy, is because all our "big" business is gone. We, in America, have lost our way --- unable to build a nation, yet we believe we can build others.

I think you have the most efficent energy infrastructure you could have. That you pay a great deal less for gas than other countries is proof. But you don't see that, all you see is increasing gas prices and think there is a problem. Hey, prices are going up everywhere and am certain we will still be paying more for it than you.

(COMMENT)

Actually, I was thinking of the electrical grid. The US needs a new grid and a new set of power generators.

But, since you mentioned "gasoline" --- it is true that we need a new set of refineries.

The current refinery squeeze has been building for years. For the past two decades, deregulation and low profits have combined to push the industry into consolidation. Partly because of environmental regulations, it was cheaper to expand existing refineries than to build new ones. In 1981, the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, the Department of Energy reports. Today, there are just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million b.p.d., according to Oil and Gas Journal, a trade publication.

This bottleneck is expected to keep pressure on gas prices - and politicians. Both parties are weighing measures to loosen environmental and permitting constraints for refineries. Rep. John Shadegg (R) of Arizona is set to offer a bill to streamline federal regulations governing refineries, Congressional Daily reports.

This is a simple case that Washington Leadership is not interested in the Long-Term Health of America; but short-term gains on their investments.

This part is little bit less clear. What do you mean by self-sufficient economy ?

An autarky is an example of a self-sufficient economy too.

(COMMENT)

Yes, you're correct. But in the case of America, if the economy cannot support the nation, it cannot support its overseas interventions. If the overseas interventions bleed America dry, we cannot help anyone.

Example: If all the computer equipment is made-up of parts built overseas, then the US could be held hostage to external influences. But more importantly, is the jobs are all overseas, then there is no industrial revenue source.

My country went through a phase termed self-reliance in the 60s. It has its pros but much more cons. It was effectively a bad case of 'not invented here syndrome'. Of course we could not make everything others could do more efficiently and we blocked imports of such tech because it was considered threatening to nascent industy. Over time this created vested interests that could not really compete abroad at all because they were so protected, all in the guise of self-reliance.

(COMMENT)

Economic self-sufficiency means an economy that is able to support the expenditures. It does not mean we have to build everything. But we have to maintain a industrial capacity in all critical items.

The US cannot be merely a nation of service oriented companies and fast food outlets. It will not survive.

Doesn't this description already partly fit your forces today. what do you think ?

(COMMENT)

The armed forces of the US is not a defense force (Department of Defense). It is an Offensive Force. It is tool of political entities that will risk money and blood for their own gain and interests. If the oppressed make any gain, it is purely coincidental. The Washington Elite is nothing but a bunch of self-serving political mongrels.

Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.

To see the truth of that quote, one just only needs to examine the reasons we went to war in Iraq, and the reality --- including the post-war consequences to date.

Most Respectfully,
R

[Double Edge]

Correct, isolationism is not what I was talking about. And that is a very important point.

Non-Interventionist Policy is NOT the same as Isolationism. America can engage in industry and commerce -- diplomatic efforts -- communication -- exchange technology -- without interfering in the internal affairs of a nation, or engaging in activities as an indirect form of imperial dominance (neo-colonialism, proxy rule, or informal empire building).

ok, so lets apply that idea to the list you have below to get a better idea.

• 1947-1949 Greece (Communist Insurgency)
• 1948-1954 Philippines (Huk Rebellion)
• 1951-1953 Korean War (Communist - No Win)
• 1953 - Iran (US overthrows Democratic government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in a coup d'état and installs the SHAH)
• 1954 - First US Involvement in Vietnam
• 1960-1975 - Formal Involvement in Vietnam
• 1961 - Cuba - US Government supported invasion (Proxy War)
• 1962 - Loas Proxy paramilitary operations
• 1963 - Iraq - US supported coup d'état
• 1973 - Chile coup d'état
• 1981-1992 El Salvador US intervention (Proxy Conflict)
• 1981-1990 Nicaragua (US Contra Affair)
  THEN came:
• Iraq - Afghanistan - etc ... ... ...

You left out
1991 - Kuwait
1993 - Somalia
1999 - Kosovo

Now out of this list which ones should the US have engaged in and which should it have stayed out of.

This is the short list. The world was anything but quiet and stable under the leadership of the US. Yes, there were some successes, but don't think the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was part of the plan. The US had no idea that was coming. The entire intelligence community was caught by surprise.

Perhaps but US was not entirely innocent here.

We could write books on the struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as every other intervention the US participated in in the last half century)

Yes, but is the record fifty-fifty, less or more ?

The reason we talk about small business being the backbone of the economy, is because all our "big" business is gone. We, in America, have lost our way --- unable to build a nation, yet we believe we can build others.

Because there are those that think otherwise. You had votes about going to Iraq, the majority in the house voted for it. What does that tell you.

Example: If all the computer equipment is made-up of parts built overseas, then the US could be held hostage to external influences. But more importantly, is the jobs are all overseas, then there is no industrial revenue source.

Who owns the Intellectual Property on that equipment ? You will find its just manufactured abroad. The R&D is still done in the US.

If you want to fret about a domain that used to be American dominated, think cars :)

Economic self-sufficiency means an economy that is able to support the expenditures. It does not mean we have to build everything. But we have to maintain a industrial capacity in all critical items.

The US cannot be merely a nation of service oriented companies and fast food outlets. It will not survive.

Depends what your defintion of 'critical' is here. You congress won't allow foreign takeovers of critical areas. Your farmers are subsidised to the hilt as well.

The armed forces of the US is not a defense force (Department of Defense). It is an Offensive Force. It is tool of political entities that will risk money and blood for their own gain and interests. If the oppressed make any gain, it is purely coincidental. The Washington Elite is nothing but a bunch of self-serving political mongrels.

But they're YOUR mongrels

What you just said there is what anybody anywhere could use to describe their countries political entities.

To see the truth of that quote, one just only needs to examine the reasons we went to war in Iraq, and the reality --- including the post-war consequences to date.

This board promotes the reason was -- security of your interests in the wake of 9/11. If there was no 9/11 then there would be no need to go into Iraq.

The line '9/11 changed everything' did not make much sense to me earlier.