American Foreign Policy

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I recently read a book from one of my favorite authors, Niall Ferguson. It was a very different take on American foreign policy compared to another book I read several months ago called "The Empire Has No Clothes" by Ivan Eland.

In it, Eland makes a conservative case against empire, and basically says our own global military presence and actions do the reverse of their intention... that they threaten our own interests. He claims that we'll be freer, more secure, and more prosperous if we reduced our military involvement overseas.

Although conservatives in general often thrive on our military, there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right, exemplified by the Pat Buchanan wing of conservatism as well as many libertarian-type leaning Rightists. But there is also a brand of conservatism that sees things a bit differently.

There are many conservatives, probably mostly derived from former cold warriors, who notice a unique situation: As the sole world hyperpower, the US is in an unparalled position to impose our preferred values and interests throughout the world.

Niall Ferguson's book "Collosus" deals with this position. Here's a good review of the book that explains the thesis well. I encourage anyone to read the review to gain understanding on this position. It's a fascinating book.

As a conservative, I find the various positions interesting, although I come out of the interventionalist side. I am wondering what other people, and conservatives in particular, think about this foreign policy split. I am trying to stay away from an Iraq debate to look at the larger picture, so hopefully the people consumed by Bush-hate can leave their two-line talking points in another thread. Maybe we can have this discussion with even mentioning Iraq or Bush? It would be nice to avoid partisan hackery and talk ideas.

Reread it in the context of American foreign policy for the lasat 30 years. Other than responding to a war and switching favorites, it hasn't changed that much. Pay the strong to stay in power and never mind the pofolks.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess we did make the choice to be a superpower. But I don't think it was with the intent of being a, or the, superpower, per se. It was simply a choice between being a superpower or potentially having to eventually lock horns with communism.

This sorta brings up another dynamic. The isolationist minded conservatives seem to base their rationale on mainly pragmatic grounds, while the more interventionalist conservatives -like me- tend to have a more principled outlook.

I am not a Wilsonian type idealist however. It's just that being a "hyperpower," we have the means to promote our interests. It just so happens that we also have a moral righteousness as well.

No, what we have is people like you who think they are righteous as long as somebody else is doing the fighting and dying. The moment you get a hand full of your own guts your philosophical stupidity will fly out the window as you die of shock, wondering WTF you were thinking. You are brave with other people's lives. You are the psychopath idealist dreamer who has been responsible for the death of millions, separated so far from your heart and feelings.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess we did make the choice to be a superpower. But I don't think it was with the intent of being a, or the, superpower, per se. It was simply a choice between being a superpower or potentially having to eventually lock horns with communism.

This sorta brings up another dynamic. The isolationist minded conservatives seem to base their rationale on mainly pragmatic grounds, while the more interventionalist conservatives -like me- tend to have a more principled outlook.

I am not a Wilsonian type idealist however. It's just that being a "hyperpower," we have the means to promote our interests. It just so happens that we also have a moral righteousness as well.

No, what we have is people like you who think they are righteous as long as somebody else is doing the fighting and dying. The moment you get a hand full of your own guts your philosophical stupidity will fly out the window as you die of shock, wondering WTF you were thinking. You are brave with other people's lives. You are the psychopath idealist dreamer who has been responsible for the death of millions, separated so far from your heart and feelings.

amen, people like this have absolutely no notion of what war is really like. have i ever been to war....no. but I sure as hell am not gonna advocate fighting one unless I would be willing to do it myself. coward doesn't even begin to describe people like cwjerome.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess we did make the choice to be a superpower. But I don't think it was with the intent of being a, or the, superpower, per se. It was simply a choice between being a superpower or potentially having to eventually lock horns with communism.

This sorta brings up another dynamic. The isolationist minded conservatives seem to base their rationale on mainly pragmatic grounds, while the more interventionalist conservatives -like me- tend to have a more principled outlook.

I am not a Wilsonian type idealist however. It's just that being a "hyperpower," we have the means to promote our interests. It just so happens that we also have a moral righteousness as well.

Moral righteousness? :roll:

 

[judasmachine]

so why don't we just rearrange our foriegn policy to one that would both nurture foriegn markets, and still leave people's culutures in tact. genoa and baghdad got along beautifully once, and had completely differant cultures, but the money was there to sooth any off color comment or act.

i guess what i'm saying is you capitalists are still free to go about and find markets for your wares, even if your government isn't dropping bombs on the customer.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess we did make the choice to be a superpower. But I don't think it was with the intent of being a, or the, superpower, per se. It was simply a choice between being a superpower or potentially having to eventually lock horns with communism.

This sorta brings up another dynamic. The isolationist minded conservatives seem to base their rationale on mainly pragmatic grounds, while the more interventionalist conservatives -like me- tend to have a more principled outlook.

I am not a Wilsonian type idealist however. It's just that being a "hyperpower," we have the means to promote our interests. It just so happens that we also have a moral righteousness as well.

No, what we have is people like you who think they are righteous as long as somebody else is doing the fighting and dying. The moment you get a hand full of your own guts your philosophical stupidity will fly out the window as you die of shock, wondering WTF you were thinking. You are brave with other people's lives. You are the psychopath idealist dreamer who has been responsible for the death of millions, separated so far from your heart and feelings.

amen, people like this have absolutely no notion of what war is really like. have i ever been to war....no. but I sure as hell am not gonna advocate fighting one unless I would be willing to do it myself. coward doesn't even begin to describe people like cwjerome.

**YAWN**

Same boring psycho-speculation :roll:

If you have some ideas on the OP let's hear it... otherwise go play Dr Freud with someone who cares what you think of them.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Moral righteousness? :roll:

Is there no such thng?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess we did make the choice to be a superpower. But I don't think it was with the intent of being a, or the, superpower, per se. It was simply a choice between being a superpower or potentially having to eventually lock horns with communism.

This sorta brings up another dynamic. The isolationist minded conservatives seem to base their rationale on mainly pragmatic grounds, while the more interventionalist conservatives -like me- tend to have a more principled outlook.

I am not a Wilsonian type idealist however. It's just that being a "hyperpower," we have the means to promote our interests. It just so happens that we also have a moral righteousness as well.

No, what we have is people like you who think they are righteous as long as somebody else is doing the fighting and dying. The moment you get a hand full of your own guts your philosophical stupidity will fly out the window as you die of shock, wondering WTF you were thinking. You are brave with other people's lives. You are the psychopath idealist dreamer who has been responsible for the death of millions, separated so far from your heart and feelings.

amen, people like this have absolutely no notion of what war is really like. have i ever been to war....no. but I sure as hell am not gonna advocate fighting one unless I would be willing to do it myself. coward doesn't even begin to describe people like cwjerome.

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but cwjerome has already announced in here that he's going to Army OCS in Febuary, so he IS willing to do it himself. So kindly STFU.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but cwjerome has already announced in here that he's going to Army OCS in Febuary, so he IS willing to do it himself. So kindly STFU.

And I'm a Navy Seal, the internets is fun! How about you chicken hawk boy, did you sign up?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe you aren't aware of this, but cwjerome has already announced in here that he's going to Army OCS in Febuary, so he IS willing to do it himself. So kindly STFU.

And I'm a Navy Seal, the internets is fun! How about you chicken hawk boy, did you sign up?

I served in the Air Force back in the early 80s. My son just got back from Iraq two weeks ago.

But of course you can use your lame little 'anyone can lie on the internet' excuse so wtf does it matter? Don't believe me or cwjerome if you don't want. Neither of us will lose any sleep over it.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: NoSmirk
Somebody sucker punches me, and I will defend myself.. But making the argument that we 'cause' all our enemies to attack us because of our actions is intellectually dishonest in my mind because there is no way to prove what would have happened if we would NOT have responded. You can argue 2000 soldiers wouldn't have died if we would not have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan.. But what we don't know is how many would have died if we had not responded..

At first, having seen 'Iraq' in your reply, I was going to ask "respond to what?', but I'd just be being disingenuous. You're talking like our prestigious president, putting Iraq and Afghanistan in the same sentence - implying that they both have something to do with 9/11. It's kind of ironic, don't you think, that you used the phrase 'intellectually dishonest' in your post.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I recently read a book from one of my favorite authors, Niall Ferguson. It was a very different take on American foreign policy compared to another book I read several months ago called "The Empire Has No Clothes" by Ivan Eland.

In it, Eland makes a conservative case against empire, and basically says our own global military presence and actions do the reverse of their intention... that they threaten our own interests. He claims that we'll be freer, more secure, and more prosperous if we reduced our military involvement overseas.

Although conservatives in general often thrive on our military, there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right, exemplified by the Pat Buchanan wing of conservatism as well as many libertarian-type leaning Rightists. But there is also a brand of conservatism that sees things a bit differently.

There are many conservatives, probably mostly derived from former cold warriors, who notice a unique situation: As the sole world hyperpower, the US is in an unparalled position to impose our preferred values and interests throughout the world.

Niall Ferguson's book "Collosus" deals with this position. Here's a good review of the book that explains the thesis well. I encourage anyone to read the review to gain understanding on this position. It's a fascinating book.

As a conservative, I find the various positions interesting, although I come out of the interventionalist side. I am wondering what other people, and conservatives in particular, think about this foreign policy split. I am trying to stay away from an Iraq debate to look at the larger picture, so hopefully the people consumed by Bush-hate can leave their two-line talking points in another thread. Maybe we can have this discussion with even mentioning Iraq or Bush? It would be nice to avoid partisan hackery and talk ideas.

Very good post. International Affairs is a first of all a struggle of ideas. Given the same situation, the number of variables is so high that the use that each researcher will do with them depends on the theories that he decides to apply. The people deciding and enforcing foreign policy always come from Academia for this very reason. Technical people are useless in this arena, ideas are needed.

First of all, researchers do not agree on the present global situation. In the end of the '90s many of them saw the USA of the lone superpower of the world, and some of them predicted that this unipolar situation could resist for quite some time. Right now, after 9/11 and the exponential rise of China, the success of european country to join their economies and Japan being less reluctant to take an active role in international geopolitics very few still consider the situation to still be unipolar, let alone that this situation could stand the test of time.

Here come ideas. Some people look at the so-called Security Community, this being the US, European countries and Japan. War among these countries is perceived as impossible. Of course people also start to think about how this has been possible, and how could it be possible to enlarge this community in order to avoid conflicts.

If you follow classic realism this is already a paradox: for the first time in history great powers are not fighting. Some of them think it's because other powers don't want to take the risk of challenging the US right now, and just wait in the shadow for some sign of exhaustion in the USA before making a step forward. Or if you follow liberalism you could think that the free markets have linked so much the economies of these countries that the economical fallout coming from a war between these countries would be unbarable to all of them. Other praise international institutions like the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF or the world bank for their work in putting order among states. Or you could consider the cultures of these countries or their political situation (all of them are democracies) and consider this homogeneity the main point.

No matter what you choose, there are example against your theory, and the future remains unclear. Still, depemding on what you think, your actions will follow.
Right now many influent people in charge of deciding the US foreign policy think that the present situation allows the US to influence directly the sort of the world politics everywhere. Moreover, most think the US have to act directly in order to try to keep their position, otherwise the inevitable fall would come faster. That's why you see such an interventionist politic. They perceive that in the moment when the US will show signs of isolationism, somebody else will take the place on the top of the piramid.
Can the US afford this efforts? For how long? Hard to tell. Somebody will tell you they could resist even 50 years, somebody else probably already sees signs of fatigue.

The fact is: we know that each great power rise and eventually fall. These people are just doing their job, trying to have that fall come as late as they can. And, they are doing it according to their beliefs. Most of the researches were made in years when the cold war was THE big thing, and new schemes are being developed in an hurry to better understand this quickly changing world.

So: if you ask if this interventist politic will eventually to more bad than good to the US, then the only way to know is to wait and see.

If you want my opinion, yes, it will accellerate the eventual fall of the US power, because it's an attempt to freeze history, and history simply cannot be frozen. Many steps in this direction (NATO enlargement, direct action in the middle-east, debt, military stretched in south-east asia) are already eroding the position of the US in the world.

Many states called themselves hyper-powers, from Roman Empire to the Spanish Empire "over wich the sun never sets", to Napoleon's France, Mongol Horde, 19th century Great Britain etc etc. Eventually they all fall. What changes is the situation AFTER this fall. What the US can do now is try to understand what the world in the next decades be and try the soft landing. Trying instead to resist history could be a lot of pain.

 

[Moonbeam]

For a better book read The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course by Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass:

This is a book that describes an unprecedented moment in which the United States has a chance to bring about a world where most people are safe, free, and can enjoy a decent standard of living.

The principal reason the 21st century shows such promise is that the potential for armed conflict involving today?s major powers is remote. This remarkable development reflects not just U.S. military and economic might but also the assessment that much of what the United States seeks to achieve in the world has the potential to be broadly acceptable to others.

But the combination of these circumstances will not stay unchanged. Like all great moments, it will pass. If we are not careful, the world could see its energies diverted by a new cold war?or, even worse, descend into anarchy defined by terrorism, disease, the spread of nuclear weapons, genocide, and extreme poverty.

More than anything else, it will be how well and how wisely the United States uses its immense power that will determine the future. The United States does not need the world?s permission to act, but it does need the world?s support to succeed.

What will it take to get the world?s support? The answer to this question is what makes The Opportunity truly vital reading. Richard Haass provides a much-needed foreign policy compass, one with the potential to do for this post-Cold War, post-9/11, post-Iraq world what George Kennan?s containment doctrine did for the previous era.



Table of Contents Reviews & Endorsements


Table of Contents


Preface xi
Chapter one: The Opportunity to Define an Era 1
Chapter two: A Little Less Sovereignty 33
Chapter three: Taking On Terrorism 51
Chapter four: Nukes on the Loose 77
Chapter five: Economic Integration 115
Chapter six: The Other Major Powers 137
Chapter seven: Integration and the Lessons of Iraq 169
Chapter eight: The Necessity 195
Acknowledgments 209
Integration index 212
Notes 220
Index 235

to top



Reviews & Endorsemants


?Haass resembles liberal critics of Bush in emphasizing that multilateral cooperation will strengthen rather than weaken the United States. But there the similarities end. Haass expresses ambivalence about the United Nations and about championing human rights. Instead, his ideal is a kind of Kissingerian order and stability that supposedly prevailed after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the Congress of Berlin in 1878, when the high and mighty carved up the map of Europe. According to Haass, history ?is largely determined by the degree to which the major powers of the era can agree on rules of the road? and impose them on those who reject them.? This imposition can take place, Haass suggests, if the United States works harder to bring China and Russia into an international community, and sheds the delusive notion that it can, or should, remain the dominant world power.?
?Jacob Heilbrunn, New York Times

?Having served in national security and the State Department for the last three Republican presidents, it is clear that Haass thinks the present administration has lost the way. Now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Haass has written a new book, The Opportunity, a guide to what the United States should be doing in this era, unique in the past several hundred years. Today there are no classic struggles for domination, no major territorial conflicts, and no great ideological fault lines that so dominated the 20th century. Iraq notwithstanding, the world is still relatively receptive to American leadership if and this is a big if the United States is willing to make ?significant changes? to its foreign policy.?
?H.D.S. Greenway, Boston Globe

?Haass, who served under Bush in a top State Department position, also has just published a new book, The Opportunity: America?s Moment to Alter History?s Course, one of the central themes of which is that the hawks have over-estimated Washington?s ability to change the world.? Read the complete review
? Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service News Agency

?Haass has an unique seat from which to weigh the direction of the U.S.'s relations with the rest of the world?.The final chapter, titled ?The Necessity,? argues that if that integration does not happen, ?The principal challenges of this era?will come to overwhelm the United States.? Coming as they do from a carefully calibrated source, those are sobering words.?
?Publishers Weekly

?Richard Haass, a former member of the small fraternity of multilateralist-minded Republican moderates in the State Department, quit as director of policy planning in 2003. Mr Haass found refuge as president of the independent Council on Foreign Relations, where he proceeded to write The Opportunity, a lucid wish list for American foreign-policy priorities in the current age.?
?The Economist

"At a pivotal moment in history, one of the wise men of our own time has brought us a brilliant, original and compelling portrait of our troubled 21st century world ?and an often surprising prescription for making it better. Richard Haass?s fascinating book should be essential reading for every leader and citizen who understands what is now at stake for all of us.?
?Michael Beschloss

?Richard Haass stands out, both as a policymaker and as a thinker. You don?t have to agree with all his judgments to admire and learn from this impressive book, one that does no less than set out a coherent vision for American foreign policy.?
?Robert Kagan

?In this essential book, Richard Haass describes the enormous opportunity America has to use its power to help shape a better world. Unlike many in Washington today, he recognizes that to change the world we will have to work with the world?and be seen by it as a partner, not a bully. He goes beyond rhetorical posturing and outlines real solutions to difficult problems. Ranging far and wide with his usual clarity of thought and sound judgment, Haass has written the intelligent person?s guide to foreign policy.?
?Fareed Zakaria

?Since the end of the Cold War, the country has searched for an integrating concept for the new conditions, a role performed for a generation by Kennan?s containment theory. With The Opportunity, Richard Haass has undertaken to close this gap with imagination and insight. It is an important book for any period.?
?Henry Kissinger

 

[imported_Ant]

The question is "Why does the rest of the world want US interventionist policies to infringe on their way of life?".

Anything imposed by coercion or force by a democracy is bound to fail in the long run. It will create oppostion by the pure fact that it is essentially undemocratic and goes against the ideal of democracy.

US international policy would in my opinion be far more productive allowing people to see democratic policies in international affairs. By supporting UN ideals rather than undermining a potentially successful system, the US would stand a far better chance of helping create a better world. I'm not saying the UN doesn't need change. It could be better done by taking positive action than trying to tear it down though.

Current US policy is "do as we say", not "do as we do".

Would it not be better to lead by example?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
I recently read a book from one of my favorite authors, Niall Ferguson. It was a very different take on American foreign policy compared to another book I read several months ago called "The Empire Has No Clothes" by Ivan Eland.

In it, Eland makes a conservative case against empire, and basically says our own global military presence and actions do the reverse of their intention... that they threaten our own interests. He claims that we'll be freer, more secure, and more prosperous if we reduced our military involvement overseas.

Although conservatives in general often thrive on our military, there has been a long tradition of semi-isolationism within the American Right, exemplified by the Pat Buchanan wing of conservatism as well as many libertarian-type leaning Rightists. But there is also a brand of conservatism that sees things a bit differently.

There are many conservatives, probably mostly derived from former cold warriors, who notice a unique situation: As the sole world hyperpower, the US is in an unparalled position to impose our preferred values and interests throughout the world.

Niall Ferguson's book "Collosus" deals with this position. Here's a good review of the book that explains the thesis well. I encourage anyone to read the review to gain understanding on this position. It's a fascinating book.

As a conservative, I find the various positions interesting, although I come out of the interventionalist side. I am wondering what other people, and conservatives in particular, think about this foreign policy split. I am trying to stay away from an Iraq debate to look at the larger picture, so hopefully the people consumed by Bush-hate can leave their two-line talking points in another thread. Maybe we can have this discussion with even mentioning Iraq or Bush? It would be nice to avoid partisan hackery and talk ideas.

what "prefered values" are those? Engaging in an aggressive unprovoked war? Torture? Thrashing the constitution? Sorry those are horrendous examples to lead the world with. The America I love and respect does'nt want to imprison people indefinitely without a trial. The America I love does not round up immigrants with warrants obtained in secret courts. The America I love does not invade sovereign nations who hav'nt attacked them. The America I love does not send money to terrorist despots like Islam Karimov, Nursultan Nazarbayev or military dictators like Pervez Musharraf (when is his number up?). The America I love does not torture anyone. The America I love is a nation of freedom, a nation of liberty, a nation of equality, and a nation of peace as leads by example. The bottom line which I'm sure Mr. Eland says in his book is that maintaining an empire as USA is doing, ultimatly we lose what we have. Not the economic resources which is bad enough already but our free, open and safe society which stood as a beacon for other to emulate for over 200 years. We have less freedom, liberty and rights now than 5 years ago and certainly 40 years ago. We'll have less liberty after the feds completly revoke posse comitatus due to Katrina fallout.


And as far as the conservative spilt I'm not sure it's really there at any serious level. Sure there are a couple marginalized conservatives talking non-intervention but for the most part everyone in congress liberals and conservatives alike are bought and sold by the military industrial complex and associated war support industries and support waring wherever they can find an excuse.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Tango
For how long? Hard to tell. Somebody will tell you they could resist even 50 years, somebody else probably already sees signs of fatigue.

For how long is simple IMO. As long as there's not a lot of body bags rolling in we can be as "pursuasive" as we want since we have unmatched financial and military capability. But as soon, like 2,000 in Iraq and 20,000 casulaties, we, the people, start to reflect and veer twards isolationsim. Like after Veitman the only actions we were taking were covert CIA/NSA stuff in South American backwaters.. nothing major was a direct result of low opinon of our political leadership and body count.



Moonbeam- Haass is a socialist war monger but still a war monger aka "leftie do goodism" .. CFR gimme a break! he's just PO'ed USA did'nt get international cash and appoval behind rape of iraq and thier predictions of a "cake walk" were wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

Moonbeam hit it in one-

" The United States does not need the world?s permission to act, but it does need the world?s support to succeed."

And Tango references the rise and fall of great powers, without really examining why they fall. It is precisely the over reach and stubborn arrogance of their leadership that invokes the principle Moonbeam references, and the point where we find ourselves today.

"With Us or Against Us" really brings the blood up, but that's true for both sides. Shifting Geopolitical realities leave such arrogance in the dirt, eventually, and we're no different. The ROTW will find a way to put us back in our place, one way or another. We simply can't achieve the ends we seek w/o the active assistance of others, or without allowing them their due in the process. Small as the world has become, it's till too big for that kind of arrogance to succeed.

Power has its limits, and they're probably greater than what current neocon thinking believes them to be. The answers lie in neither excessive interventionism nor isolation, but in avoiding strong swings in public sentiment and policy in either direction. Neocons, by definition, can't and have no intention of doing that, which dooms current efforts to rule the world to failure, and collapse into isolationism inevitable...

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

In it, Eland makes a conservative case against empire, and basically says our own global military presence and actions do the reverse of their intention... that they threaten our own interests. He claims that we'll be freer, more secure, and more prosperous if we reduced our military involvement overseas.

america is acting to further a cause that is universally acclaimed as the best form of
government for all people regardless of certain variables. that cannot be said for any
previous empire-building state.

what we are pushing, people the world over want ! ! its just that there's disagreement
over how to go about this.

rome, mongolia, napoleonic france, macedonia, and ancient egypt were militaristic
and/or autocratic. america is neither.

britain overran countries to secure or further their economic needs/interests.
they forged class bonds with the native aristocracy in one or two places (i.e. india)
but for the most part they introduced changes into their territories that made life
more bearable for themselves. some of these changes lasted after they left, some
didn't.

so america is not an empire in the traditional sense because we are not forcing
alien ideas down the throats of people who are not already clamoring for them.
america answered a need to assert control over international law where no other
body would or could do so.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Ant
The question is "Why does the rest of the world want US interventionist policies to infringe on their way of life?".

Anything imposed by coercion or force by a democracy is bound to fail in the long run. It will create oppostion by the pure fact that it is essentially undemocratic and goes against the ideal of democracy.

US international policy would in my opinion be far more productive allowing people to see democratic policies in international affairs. By supporting UN ideals rather than undermining a potentially successful system, the US would stand a far better chance of helping create a better world. I'm not saying the UN doesn't need change. It could be better done by taking positive action than trying to tear it down though.

Current US policy is "do as we say", not "do as we do".

Would it not be better to lead by example?

we have served and will continue to serve as an example of a successful democratic
state. but that has not stopped - nor do i expect it to stop - the creation of rogue states.
there are too many opportunities purcolating in areas stricken with either a poverty
in wealth or ideas for savvy rogues to consolidate power and turn their states into
international pariahs.

true, you certainly dont want to impose. but your idea of us serving as an example
is simplistic, assuming that i understand what you mean by that. we are involved in
international bodies that are expected to be effective in addressing regional crisis.
when they fail, we, being the last superpower, should reserve the right to intervene
against outlaw states who threaten our own interests.

 

[imported_Ant]

Originally posted by: syzygy

we have served and will continue to serve as an example of a successful democratic
state. but that has not stopped - nor do i expect it to stop - the creation of rogue states.
there are too many opportunities purcolating in areas stricken with either a poverty
in wealth or ideas for savvy rogues to consolidate power and turn their states into
international pariahs.

true, you certainly dont want to impose. but your idea of us serving as an example
is simplistic, assuming that i understand what you mean by that. we are involved in
international bodies that are expected to be effective in addressing regional crisis.
when they fail, we, being the last superpower, should reserve the right to intervene
against outlaw states who threaten our own interests.

There was no real threat from Iraq given the UN accepted assessment by the weapons inspectors, yet still the country was invaded.
How do you determine a rogue state without going through the process accepted by international law?

The belief that the US is all knowing has been proven to be false yet still there is little change in international policy. Threats and ultimatum are still being issued to "rogue states" who have no proven intention to make war upon anyone.

By setting an example, I was simply suggesting that the US interpretation of law should at least be followed in an international environment. Certainly there's likely to be disagreement when it comes to finding a balance in international law...
but saying you're outside the law altogether? That makes little sense for a supposedly democratic nation. All it says to the rest of the world is that the US is a warmongering rogue state who has designs on conquering the rest of the world and doesn't actually care what anyone outside the US thinks.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Tango
Very good post. International Affairs is a first of all a struggle of ideas. Given the same situation, the number of variables is so high that the use that each researcher will do with them depends on the theories that he decides to apply. The people deciding and enforcing foreign policy always come from Academia for this very reason. Technical people are useless in this arena, ideas are needed.

First of all, researchers do not agree on the present global situation. In the end of the '90s many of them saw the USA of the lone superpower of the world, and some of them predicted that this unipolar situation could resist for quite some time. Right now, after 9/11 and the exponential rise of China, the success of european country to join their economies and Japan being less reluctant to take an active role in international geopolitics very few still consider the situation to still be unipolar, let alone that this situation could stand the test of time.

Actually, I -along with many others- see a unipolar international environment for some time. The world has never seen a global hegemon like the US... a superpower, where in military and economic terms, nobody comes close. America spends one-half of the world's military budget. From a stability standpoint this is good. As eventually the world flows into a multi-polar environment, the chances for large-scale wars between significant nation states will increase dramatically... unless those countries are liberal democracies.

You are correct that nothing lasts forever, including "empires." This makes it all the important to use our unique position in this world today, to mold a future where our values and institutions flourish worldwide. This must be our legacy. If we don't assume the proper repsonsibility we have now, we will have missed our opportunity to pass on this grand experiment, and the world will suffer for it.

To me, it's not about having the USA stay on top of the world forever. It's about promoting a world where American/Western beliefs and concepts continue to thrive. So that when the US is just "another country," it's unimportant because our larger ideals are incorporated worldwide: Planet America, in essence. It's not our government or physical boundary that matters so much-- it's our values that must live on.

Here come ideas. Some people look at the so-called Security Community, this being the US, European countries and Japan. War among these countries is perceived as impossible. Of course people also start to think about how this has been possible, and how could it be possible to enlarge this community in order to avoid conflicts.

If you follow classic realism this is already a paradox: for the first time in history great powers are not fighting. Some of them think it's because other powers don't want to take the risk of challenging the US right now, and just wait in the shadow for some sign of exhaustion in the USA before making a step forward. Or if you follow liberalism you could think that the free markets have linked so much the economies of these countries that the economical fallout coming from a war between these countries would be unbarable to all of them. Other praise international institutions like the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF or the world bank for their work in putting order among states. Or you could consider the cultures of these countries or their political situation (all of them are democracies) and consider this homogeneity the main point.

This is a big area for discussion. What is power? What who has it now, and who will wield it in the future?

No matter what you choose, there are example against your theory, and the future remains unclear. Still, depemding on what you think, your actions will follow.
Right now many influent people in charge of deciding the US foreign policy think that the present situation allows the US to influence directly the sort of the world politics everywhere. Moreover, most think the US have to act directly in order to try to keep their position, otherwise the inevitable fall would come faster. That's why you see such an interventionist politic. They perceive that in the moment when the US will show signs of isolationism, somebody else will take the place on the top of the piramid.
Can the US afford this efforts? For how long? Hard to tell. Somebody will tell you they could resist even 50 years, somebody else probably already sees signs of fatigue.

The fact is: we know that each great power rise and eventually fall. These people are just doing their job, trying to have that fall come as late as they can. And, they are doing it according to their beliefs. Most of the researches were made in years when the cold war was THE big thing, and new schemes are being developed in an hurry to better understand this quickly changing world.

So: if you ask if this interventist politic will eventually to more bad than good to the US, then the only way to know is to wait and see.

If you want my opinion, yes, it will accellerate the eventual fall of the US power, because it's an attempt to freeze history, and history simply cannot be frozen. Many steps in this direction (NATO enlargement, direct action in the middle-east, debt, military stretched in south-east asia) are already eroding the position of the US in the world.

Many states called themselves hyper-powers, from Roman Empire to the Spanish Empire "over wich the sun never sets", to Napoleon's France, Mongol Horde, 19th century Great Britain etc etc. Eventually they all fall. What changes is the situation AFTER this fall. What the US can do now is try to understand what the world in the next decades be and try the soft landing. Trying instead to resist history could be a lot of pain.

I would dispute your claim that the primary purpose of US foreign policy is to keep America at the top of the pyramid and our interventions are attempts to freeze history.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Tango
Very good post. International Affairs is a first of all a struggle of ideas. Given the same situation, the number of variables is so high that the use that each researcher will do with them depends on the theories that he decides to apply. The people deciding and enforcing foreign policy always come from Academia for this very reason. Technical people are useless in this arena, ideas are needed.

First of all, researchers do not agree on the present global situation. In the end of the '90s many of them saw the USA of the lone superpower of the world, and some of them predicted that this unipolar situation could resist for quite some time. Right now, after 9/11 and the exponential rise of China, the success of european country to join their economies and Japan being less reluctant to take an active role in international geopolitics very few still consider the situation to still be unipolar, let alone that this situation could stand the test of time.

Actually, I -along with many others- see a unipolar international environment for some time. The world has never seen a global hegemon like the US... a superpower, where in military and economic terms, nobody comes close. America spends one-half of the world's military budget. From a stability standpoint this is good. As eventually the world flows into a multi-polar environment, the chances for large-scale wars between significant nation states will increase dramatically... unless those countries are liberal democracies.

You are correct that nothing lasts forever, including "empires." This makes it all the important to use our unique position in this world today, to mold a future where our values and institutions flourish worldwide. This must be our legacy. If we don't assume the proper repsonsibility we have now, we will have missed our opportunity to pass on this grand experiment, and the world will suffer for it.

To me, it's not about having the USA stay on top of the world forever. It's about promoting a world where American/Western beliefs and concepts continue to thrive. So that when the US is just "another country," it's unimportant because our larger ideals are incorporated worldwide: Planet America, in essence. It's not our government or physical boundary that matters so much-- it's our values that must live on.

Here come ideas. Some people look at the so-called Security Community, this being the US, European countries and Japan. War among these countries is perceived as impossible. Of course people also start to think about how this has been possible, and how could it be possible to enlarge this community in order to avoid conflicts.

If you follow classic realism this is already a paradox: for the first time in history great powers are not fighting. Some of them think it's because other powers don't want to take the risk of challenging the US right now, and just wait in the shadow for some sign of exhaustion in the USA before making a step forward. Or if you follow liberalism you could think that the free markets have linked so much the economies of these countries that the economical fallout coming from a war between these countries would be unbarable to all of them. Other praise international institutions like the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF or the world bank for their work in putting order among states. Or you could consider the cultures of these countries or their political situation (all of them are democracies) and consider this homogeneity the main point.

This is a big area for discussion. What is power? What who has it now, and who will wield it in the future?

No matter what you choose, there are example against your theory, and the future remains unclear. Still, depemding on what you think, your actions will follow.
Right now many influent people in charge of deciding the US foreign policy think that the present situation allows the US to influence directly the sort of the world politics everywhere. Moreover, most think the US have to act directly in order to try to keep their position, otherwise the inevitable fall would come faster. That's why you see such an interventionist politic. They perceive that in the moment when the US will show signs of isolationism, somebody else will take the place on the top of the piramid.
Can the US afford this efforts? For how long? Hard to tell. Somebody will tell you they could resist even 50 years, somebody else probably already sees signs of fatigue.

The fact is: we know that each great power rise and eventually fall. These people are just doing their job, trying to have that fall come as late as they can. And, they are doing it according to their beliefs. Most of the researches were made in years when the cold war was THE big thing, and new schemes are being developed in an hurry to better understand this quickly changing world.

So: if you ask if this interventist politic will eventually to more bad than good to the US, then the only way to know is to wait and see.

If you want my opinion, yes, it will accellerate the eventual fall of the US power, because it's an attempt to freeze history, and history simply cannot be frozen. Many steps in this direction (NATO enlargement, direct action in the middle-east, debt, military stretched in south-east asia) are already eroding the position of the US in the world.

Many states called themselves hyper-powers, from Roman Empire to the Spanish Empire "over wich the sun never sets", to Napoleon's France, Mongol Horde, 19th century Great Britain etc etc. Eventually they all fall. What changes is the situation AFTER this fall. What the US can do now is try to understand what the world in the next decades be and try the soft landing. Trying instead to resist history could be a lot of pain.

I would dispute your claim that the primary purpose of US foreign policy is to keep America at the top of the pyramid and our interventions are attempts to freeze history.

Interesting points. Well, I kind of see the US to remain on top of the piramid for some time also. But I wouldn't call this an unipolar world. Basically right now the US get advantage of their superio military power. They are not doing well in economic terms. The EU has a bigger GDP, less debt, less deficit. China is growing at the amazing 10% rate every year. This means the chinese econimy double every 7 years. Many security policy analists point out that the US military is already stretched, trying to be in the middle east and far east at the same time, and couldn't involve in any other operation due to lack of personnel. But still I see the US military power resisting the test for quite some time.

You don't think that resisting the natural fall is the target of the current US policy? Well, it's pretty a declared thing. In Keagan writings it's very clear. They will try to stay where they are as long as they can. I guess everybody would try to do that. Basically Iraq is their laboratory, to test their state-building theories. At the same time they are trying to secure a lot of energy resources in the Gulf region, but also in central asia, because basically China is buying every contract in that area.
China is going to be the next hegemon power, and if you ask me I'm not confortable with the idea. Still that's the world that is coming. And it's coming FAST, much faster than most people think.

 

[cwjerome]

I'm not jumping on the China bandwagaon just yet. There are many aspects to power... and often, the raw power isn't translated into real power. China will gain much power in some respects, but it will be many more years before this potential power is converted into applied power. America overtook Britain in terms of GDP in the 1870s, but it was not until after WWI that we overtook Britain as a global power, and not until 1945 that the US truly became a "superpower."

Power is partly about material things- resources, population, economy, institutions and guns. But it is also about morale. The material aspects will disperse, and countires will become more equal, ie, multipolar. Yet the intangibles will become an even more important aspect. Psychological factors like credibility and legtimacy will have a big influence.

This is America's mission for the next 25-50 years: to establish a global environment where our values and culture are credible and legitimate. This is an ideological "battle." As I mentioned, long after the US has become just another country, our basic values and ideals must live on. As Colossus says, "faith cannot move mountains. But it can move men."

Our goal, during this time of unrivaled hegemony, should be to put our stamp on this world. To point global civilization in the direction of "Planet America" even after the US ceases to be what it is today. It's not about preserving our position as superpower. It's about using our superpower status to provide a proper legacy... for this world.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

This is America's mission for the next 25-50 years: to establish a global environment where our values and culture are credible and legitimate. This is an ideological "battle." As I mentioned, long after the US has become just another country, our basic values and ideals must live on. As Colossus says, "faith cannot move mountains. But it can move men."

Our goal, during this time of unrivaled hegemony, should be to put our stamp on this world. To point global civilization in the direction of "Planet America" even after the US ceases to be what it is today. It's not about preserving our position as superpower. It's about using our superpower status to provide a proper legacy... for this world.

spoken like a true imperialist....

sorry, people tried that past few centuries..don't work...goes right back to why britan got surpassed after '45...bzzzt! you fail.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Since we aren't arguing specific points I won't dabble in any. I'll keep it general.

Foreign policy should be a powerful tool that should be ready to be used and should be feared as well as respected on its own merits. It should never be looked on as a joke or as a tool of opression, even if that view is simpy preceived (i.e. not real).

What the heck does that mean?

Well the same principles that should apply to individuals, groups, corporations etc should also apply to foreign policy. That is respect and accountability.

Respect for the individual or group's rights. That is you do not have the right to lay a hand on (either economically, physically nor ideologically) on the individual or group simply because their belieafs or ideas do not agree with yours, even if they are contrary. You only have the right to break this rule for one of 3 reasons.

1. You are attacked.
2. Your ally/allies are attacked.
3. A group you are not allied with but that has expressed, as an individual entity (could be a race of people), a desire for assistance in protection from another individual/group whom intends or has already done harm onto them. It is in your moral rights to see they are protected from harm through any and all means in your ability to ensure their safety. This cannot however be abused as a pretext for waging wars. It is only meant to ensure protection for this individual/group. A full scale invasion is not neccessarily required just because a group was chased out of a country. This last point is debatable but must not break the spirit of its intent.

The individual or group has the moral responsiblity to be accountable for their actions. That means either you must face the music or this gives you the moral requirement to act on an action to ensure the other party is held accountable but only to the point of the issue at hand, not further. Again this can be abused and must be vigorously debated depending on the issue at hand to ensure no abuse comes to pass.