The Paradox of International Action

[wendersfan]

Has anyone read this article, or Dr. Fukuyama's new book? I'm curious what others might think.

Here's an excerpt of the article, from <a href = "http://www.the-american-interest.com/cms/abstract.cfm?Id=45">The American Interest website.</a> I've not yet read the piece myself.

<b>The Paradox of International Action</b>
Francis Fukuyama

<i>Editor's Note: This essay, adapted from a chapter in the forthcoming <b>America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy</b> (Yale University Press), is the foundational introduction for a series of essays on global governance issues to appear in this and future issues of The American Interest.</i>

Whatever else it has done and may yet do, the Iraq war has exposed the limits of American benevolent hegemony. We have learned that American power does not seem to many others, including some we thought among our best friends, as benign as most Americans believe it is. But the war also exposed the limits of existing international institutions, particularly the United Nations, that are favored by most Europeans as the proper framework for legitimate international action. The United Nations was able neither to ratify the U.S. decision to go to war nor to stop Washington from acting on its own. From either perspective, it failed. The world today lacks effective international institutions that can confer legitimacy on collective action. Creating new institutions that will better balance the requirements of legitimacy and effectiveness will be the primary task for the coming generation. As a result of more than two hundred years of political evolution, we have a relatively good understanding of how to create institutions that are rule-bound, accountable and reasonably effective in the vertical silos we call states. What we do not have are adequate institutions of horizontal accountability among states.You have to subscribe to read the full article. I'm not (yet) a subscriber...

There's also this article, which requires a subscription to <i>The New York Times</i>:

<b><a href = "http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA071EF6395A0C7A8DDDAB0894DE404482">After Neoconservatism</b></a>

<b>hahn</b> has already started this thread about it, which was sadly not well-received:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=456482

[classicman2]

Naturally anything from The New York Times will be dismissed - rightfully so.

Now, if you wish to post something from a more reliable source, The Washington Times, Fox News, or The Weekly Standard - then it will be gladly accepted.

:D

Creating new institutions that will better balance the requirements of legitimacy and effectiveness will be the primary task for the coming generation.

Do you really agree with that?

I'm not certain I do.

[wendersfan]

Naturally anything from The New York Times will be dismissed - rightfully so.

Now, if you wish to post something from a more reliable source, The Washington Times, Fox News, or The Weekly Standard - then it will be gladly accepted.

:D

Anybody stupid enough to dismiss an article or essay simply because it's published in the <i>NYT</i> deserves to remain ignorant. The fact that publication publishes pieces written by scholars like Krugman and Fukuyama demonstrates its commitment to a wide range of views.

Creating new institutions that will better balance the requirements of legitimacy and effectiveness will be the primary task for the coming generation.

Do you really agree with that?

I'm not certain I do.I don't know that I agree with it. However, I respect Dr. Fukuyama's insight and knowledge, and would argue that if he suggests something then it probably shouldn't be dismissed blithely.

I think what Fukuyama is arguing is that neither the UN (through multilateral action) nor the US (through unilateral action) are able to solve all the problems that need to be and should be solved. A new formula for action is required, one involving multilateralism, but without the baggage of the UN. I dunno, it seems like a useful starting off point for discussion, at least.

[wendersfan]

There's also this piece by Christopher Hitchens:<a href = "http://www.slate.com/id/2137134/"><b>The End of Fukuyama</b></a>
Why his latest pronouncements miss the mark.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at 6:59 AM ET

America at the Crossroads, by Francis Fukuyama
I have a feeling that last week was a disappointing one for Francis Fukuyama, whose essay "After Neoconservatism" (adapted from his upcoming book America at the Crossroads) was awarded seven pages in the Feb. 19 New York Times Magazine. The anti-Danish mayhem that had been dominating the news was surpassed by the fantastic criminality and sacrilege in Samarra, and nobody seemed to have time for the best-advertised defection from the neocon ranks. This, I think, is a pity, since the essay exhibits several points of interest.

However, it must also be said that Fukuyama himself made it hard for people to concentrate on his words. There appears to be an arsenal of clichés and stock expressions located somewhere inside his word processor, so that he has only to touch the keyboard for one of them to spring abruptly onto the page. Thus, in the first paragraph, we are told that Iraq has become "a magnet" for jihadists, later that democracy-promotion has been attacked both from the left and (gasp) the right, later that neocons have issues with "overreaching," and soon after that "it is not an accident" that many neoconservatives started out as "Trotskyites."

Not everyone will appreciate the unironic beauty of those last two formulations; they will appeal most to the few who are connoisseurs of leftist sectarianism. The opening words, "It is no accident, comrades," used to be the dead giveaway of a wooden Stalinist hack (who would also make use of the deliberately diminishing term Trotskyite instead of Trotskyist). And these nuances matter, because Fukuyama now tells us that the book that made him famous, The End of History and the Last Man (1992), "presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism." Alas, the purity of his Marxism was soon to be corrupted by the likes of William Kristol and Robert Kagan, whose position was "by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States." Pause to note, then, that even the advocate of the new foreign-policy "realism" feels compelled to borrow the most overused anti-Hegelian line from Karl Marx's 18th Brumaire.

For all this show of knowledge about the arcana of Marxism and Straussianism, Fukuyama's actual applications of them are surprisingly thin. It is not even a parody of the Trotskyist position to say that the lesson they drew from Stalinism was "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes." Nor is it even half-true to say, of those who advocated an intervention in Iraq, that they concluded "that the 'root cause' of terrorism lay in the Middle East's lack of democracy, that the United States had both the wisdom and the ability to fix this problem and that democracy would come quickly and painlessly to Iraq."

The first requirement of anyone engaging in an intellectual or academic debate is that he or she be able to give a proper account of the opposing position(s), and Fukuyama simply fails this test. The term "root causes" was always employed ironically (as the term "political correctness" used to be) as a weapon against those whose naive opinions about the sources of discontent were summarized in that phrase. It wasn't that the Middle East "lacked democracy" so much that one of its keystone states was dominated by an unstable and destabilizing dictatorship led by a psychopath. And it wasn't any illusion about the speed and ease of a transition so much as the conviction that any change would be an improvement. The charge that used to be leveled against the neoconservatives was that they had wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein (pause for significant lowering of voice) even before Sept. 11, 2001. And that "accusation," as Fukuyama well knows, was essentially true—and to their credit.

The three questions that anyone developing second thoughts about the Iraq conflict must answer are these: Was the George H.W. Bush administration right to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in 1991? Is it right to say that we had acquired a responsibility for Iraq, given past mistaken interventions and given the great moral question raised by the imposition of sanctions? And is it the case that another confrontation with Saddam was inevitable; those answering "yes" thus being implicitly right in saying that we, not he, should choose the timing of it? Fukuyama does not even mention these considerations. Instead, by his slack use of terms like "magnet," he concedes to the fanatics and beheaders the claim that they are a response to American blunders and excesses.

That's why last week was a poor one for him to pick. Surely the huge spasm of Islamist hysteria over caricatures published in Copenhagen shows that there is no possible Western insurance against doing something that will inflame jihadists? The sheer audacity and evil of destroying the shrine of the 12th imam is part of an inter-Muslim civil war that had begun long before the forces of al-Qaida decided to exploit that war and also to export it to non-Muslim soil. Yes, we did indeed underestimate the ferocity and ruthlessness of the jihadists in Iraq. Where, one might inquire, have we not underestimated those forces and their virulence? (We are currently underestimating them in Nigeria, for example, which is plainly next on the Bin Laden hit list and about which I have been boring on ever since Bin Laden was good enough to warn us in the fall of 2004.)

In the face of this global threat and its recent and alarmingly rapid projection onto European and American soil, Fukuyama proposes beefing up "the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like." You might expect a citation from a Pew poll at about this point, and, don't worry, he doesn't leave that out, either. But I have to admire that vague and lazy closing phrase "and the like." Hegel meets Karen Hughes! Perhaps some genius at the CIA is even now preparing to subsidize a new version of Encounter magazine to be circulated among the intellectuals of Kashmir or Kabul or Kazakhstan? Not such a bad idea in itself, perhaps, but no substitute for having a battle-hardened army that has actually learned from fighting in the terrible conditions of rogue-state/failed-state combat. Is anyone so blind as to suppose that we shall not be needing this hard-bought experience in the future?

I have my own criticisms both of my one-time Trotskyist comrades and of my temporary neocon allies, but it can be said of the former that they saw Hitlerism and Stalinism coming—and also saw that the two foes would one day fuse together—and so did what they could to sound the alarm. And it can be said of the latter (which, alas, it can't be said of the former) that they looked at Milosevic and Saddam and the Taliban and realized that they would have to be confronted sooner rather than later. Fukuyama's essay betrays a secret academic wish to be living in "normal" times once more, times that will "restore the authority of foreign policy 'realists' in the tradition of Henry Kissinger." Fat chance, Francis! Kissinger is moribund, and the memory of his failed dictator's club is too fresh to be dignified with the term "tradition." If you can't have a sense of policy, you should at least try to have a sense of history. America at the Crossroads evidently has neither.

[classicman2]

I think what Fukuyama is arguing is that neither the UN (through multilateral action) nor the US (through unilateral action) are able to solve all the problems that need to be and should be solved. A new formula for action is required, one involving multilateralism, but without the baggage of the UN. I dunno, it seems like a useful starting off point for discussion, at least.

That's what I think he's arguing also.

Question: If it's not unilateral nor multilateral, what else is there?

[wendersfan]

That's what I think he's arguing also.

Question: If it's not unilateral nor multilateral, what else is there?He's arguing for multilateral solutions, just not ones involving the UN (at least, that's how I'm reading it).

[classicman2]

Don't we have that capability already - NATO?

[wendersfan]

Don't we have that capability already - NATO?NATO is (a) a holdover from the cold war, and (b) in many ways a relic from a no longer relavent "Atlanti-centric" world view. What can NATO do with respect to North Korea? To Iran?

Oh, and here's the pertinent section from Fukuyama's NYT piece:<b>What to Do</b>

Now that the neoconservative moment appears to have passed, the United States needs to reconceptualize its foreign policy in several fundamental ways. In the first instance, we need to demilitarize what we have been calling the global war on terrorism and shift to other types of policy instruments. We are fighting hot counterinsurgency wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and against the international jihadist movement, wars in which we need to prevail. But ''war'' is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a ''long, twilight struggle'' whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. As recent events in France and Denmark suggest, Europe will be a central battleground in this fight.

The United States needs to come up with something better than ''coalitions of the willing'' to legitimate its dealings with other countries. The world today lacks effective international institutions that can confer legitimacy on collective action; creating new organizations that will better balance the dual requirements of legitimacy and effectiveness will be the primary task for the coming generation. As a result of more than 200 years of political evolution, we have a relatively good understanding of how to create institutions that are rulebound, accountable and reasonably effective in the vertical silos we call states. What we do not have are adequate mechanisms of horizontal accountability among states.

The conservative critique of the United Nations is all too cogent: while useful for certain peacekeeping and nation-building operations, the United Nations lacks both democratic legitimacy and effectiveness in dealing with serious security issues. The solution is not to strengthen a single global body, but rather to promote what has been emerging in any event, a ''multi-multilateral world'' of overlapping and occasionally competing international institutions that are organized on regional or functional lines. Kosovo in 1999 was a model: when the Russian veto prevented the Security Council from acting, the United States and its NATO allies simply shifted the venue to NATO, where the Russians could not block action.
Note he mentions NATO explicitly. :)

[classicman2]

I have my own criticisms both of my one-time Trotskyist comrades and of my temporary neocon allies,

I llike that. ;)

Fukuyama's essay betrays a secret academic wish to be living in "normal" times once more, times that will "restore the authority of foreign policy 'realists' in the tradition of Henry Kissinger." Fat chance, Francis!

[NCMojo]

I think what Fukuyama is arguing is that neither the UN (through multilateral action) nor the US (through unilateral action) are able to solve all the problems that need to be and should be solved. A new formula for action is required, one involving multilateralism, but without the baggage of the UN. I dunno, it seems like a useful starting off point for discussion, at least.
An obvious solution would be the United States actually working with and through the United Nations. It seems an obvious point that multilateral actions would work better than unilateral actions -- look at the difference between the first Gulf War and the current Iraqi conflict as a perfect illustration of why no one country should try to police the world by themselves.

What we really need is a UN with teeth -- a fully-funded body with an active and expanded peacekeeping force backed by the combined militaries of the major world powers. We also need to dismiss the "caste system" that says that people from underdeveloped countries are incapable of being considered signifiant participants in world diplomacy.

[classicman2]

An obvious solution would be the United States actually working with and through the United Nations. It seems an obvious point that multilateral actions would work better than unilateral actions -- look at the difference between the first Gulf War and the current Iraqi conflict as a perfect illustration of why no one country should try to police the world by themselves.

What we really need is a UN with teeth -- a fully-funded body with an active and expanded peacekeeping force backed by the combined militaries of the major world powers. We also need to dismiss the "caste system" that says that people from underdeveloped countries are incapable of being considered signifiant participants in world diplomacy.

1. There is no comparison between the Gulf War and the War in Iraq. One involved kicking an invader out - the other, occupying.

2. What the last thing we need is the U.N. deciding foreign policy for the United States.

[wendersfan]

An obvious solution would be the United States actually working with and through the United Nations.This "obvious" solution is obviously flawed, because...a UN with teethis an oxymoron. The reasons why we can't...dismiss the "caste system" that says that people from underdeveloped countries are incapable of being considered signifiant participants in world diplomacy.should also be obvious.

[The Bus]

Dr. F is correct that neither unilateralism with a single world power nor the current UN seem to be as effective, fair, or useful as possible. In that I agree. However, I have yet to hear a solution that is bound in the real world and can be applied practically.

[X]

Geez, even when the rare thread worth discussing shows up someone immediately comes in and has to take potshots at other members. -rolleyes-

[wendersfan]

Geez, even when the rare thread worth discussing shows up someone immediately comes in and has to take potshots at other members. -rolleyes-:hscratch:

I'm not seeing it, unless you are referring to c-man's initial response, or my response to his NYT comment. :shrug:

[X]

Yes, I mean talking about attacking the publisher even though nobody has.

[classicman2]

I've taken no pot shots at any member - certainly not on this thread.

[classicman2]

Yes, I mean talking about attacking the publisher even though nobody has.

I wasn't attacking the publisher.

I was merely poking fun.

Lighten up.

[X]

"Talking about attacking the publisher" does not mean "attacking the publisher".

[classicman2]

That's correct - they don't mean the same thing.

One - I'm not attacking the publisher. I'm talking about people (conservatives, right-wingers, Bushites) on this forum who do question the authenticity of any thing coming from the NY Times, Washington Post, etc., believing they have a liberal bias.

Of course - the opposite is true. The liberals, left-wingers, and those that aren't Bushites attack Fox and other more conservative leaning media outlets.

[X]

Duh. Thus my comment.

[NCMojo]

Geez, even when the rare thread worth discussing shows up someone immediately comes in and has to take potshots at other members. -rolleyes-
Surely you see the irony in this post, as discussion has now ground to a halt.

[VinVega]

I like the idea of multilaterialism, but not necessarily needing the full consensus of the UN. When we take military action, we need to be seen in a good light by our friends, something that did not happen with respect to the Iraq invasion. We don't need complete support from the world, but we need to be seen as on the politically/morally correct side of the issue when we do need to use military force. We are also hamstrung to get anything done with respect to Iran because of Russia's and China's involvement in the security council.

[classicman2]

Not to be argumentative, but if a vital national interest of the United States is at stake, and we've exhausted all efforts at resolving the issue, is it really necessary to be on the right side of the issue? Most of the world is going to believe we're on the wrong side, regardless of the realty.

I think it's nearly impossible to be seen in good light by our friends if their interests conflict with ours as was the case in Iraq.

[NCMojo]

Not to be argumentative, but if a vital national interest of the United States is at stake, and we've exhausted all efforts at resolving the issue, is it really necessary to be on the right side of the issue? Most of the world is going to believe we're on the wrong side, regardless of the realty.

I think it's nearly impossible to be seen in good light by our friends if their interests conflict with ours as was the case in Iraq.
Shouldn't the United States always be on the "right" side of the issue? I think a good part of the decline our current international reputation is that we have abandoned our position as a nation that truly stands for liberty and for freedom -- today, we're much more interested in promoting corporate concerns and feeding the mighty machine of capitalist consumption.

[wendersfan]

Shouldn't the United States always be on the "right" side of the issue? I think a good part of the decline our current international reputation is that we have abandoned our position as a nation that truly stands for liberty and for freedom -- today, we're much more interested in promoting corporate concerns and feeding the mighty machine of capitalist consumption.Who gets to decide what's the "right" side? The UN? The EC?

I know it's unpopular to say this, but sometimes the interests of the US run counter to the interests of most of the rest of the world, and quite often they run counter to others <i>percieved</i> interests. It's not our responsibility to make the rest of the world happy. If we can, fine. If we can't, that's their problem, not ours.

[B.A.]

Not to be argumentative, but if a vital national interest of the United States is at stake, and we've exhausted all efforts at resolving the issue, is it really necessary to be on the right side of the issue? Most of the world is going to believe we're on the wrong side, regardless of the realty.

I think it's nearly impossible to be seen in good light by our friends if their interests conflict with ours as was the case in Iraq.I agree, as long as we are the "lone superpower" we will always be on the wrong side no matter how we go about things, whether the reasons are "just" or not.

[classicman2]

The right side of an issue is easily determined - if our national interest(s) is/are at stake - that's the right side.

[wendersfan]

I agree, as long as we are the "lone superpower" we will always be on the wrong side no matter how we go about things, whether the reasons are "just" or not.
It's likely that we will remain the lone superpower (at least in the "west") for some time:

<b>Annual Military Expenditures for selected countries</b>
(billions of $)
<table border = 1 cellpadding = 3><tr><td> United States </td><td> 466.0 </td></tr><tr><td> France </td><td> 46.5 </td></tr><tr><td> Japan </td><td> 44.7 </td></tr><tr><td> Germany </td><td> 38.8 </td></tr><tr><td> United Kingdom </td><td> 31.7 </td></tr><tr><td> Korea, South </td><td> 20.8 </td></tr><tr><td> Italy </td><td> 20.2 </td></tr><tr><td> Australia </td><td> 9.3 </td></tr><tr><td> Spain </td><td> 8.6 </td></tr><tr><td> Turkey </td><td> 8.1 </td></tr><tr><td> Canada </td><td> 7.9 </td></tr><tr><td> Netherlands </td><td> 6.5 </td></tr><tr><td> Greece </td><td> 6.1 </td></tr>
<tr><td> Sweden </td><td> 4.4 </td></tr><tr><td> Poland </td><td> 3.5 </td></tr></table>

[B.A.]

wenders - did you ever think we would long for the Cold War?


;)

[JasonF]

Not to be argumentative, but if a vital national interest of the United States is at stake, and we've exhausted all efforts at resolving the issue, is it really necessary to be on the right side of the issue? Most of the world is going to believe we're on the wrong side, regardless of the realty.

I think it's nearly impossible to be seen in good light by our friends if their interests conflict with ours as was the case in Iraq.

I don't know that it's necessary to be on the "right" side of an issue (assuming that the "right" side is different from the "right for the U.S." side). But I think we need to recognize that there are consequences to not being on the "right" side -- that we'll be perceived as putting our own interests ahead of the world's interests, and resentment will consequently breed amongst those who feel their sutonomy exists only at the pleasure of the U.S.

That doesn't mean we should ignore what's "right for the U.S." in favor of what's "right for everyone else," but it does mean that we should weigh the costs of that resentment when deciding upon a course of action.

[Myster X]

I noticed that Japan's military expenditures are twice as S. Korea. :hscratch:

[wendersfan]

I noticed that Japan's military expenditures are twice as S. Korea. :hscratch:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/budget.htm

[classicman2]

I think there are consequences of not being on the 'right' side. We won't have a grand coalition - a coalition that does precious little of the 'lifting,' btw.

We had a grand coalition in the Gulf War. Of course the same two countries did the vast majority of the lifting in that war as has been done in the War in Iraq - US & GB.

I guess grand coalitions look nice. ;)

[NCMojo]

The right side of an issue is easily determined - if our national interest(s) is/are at stake - that's the right side.
So can every country make the same claim? As long as it is in their national interest, they can act unilaterally?

To me, there is a certain morality that should be at play here. Our nation was founded on a bedrock of principles and ideals, ideals that have been abandoned as we have moved into our role as a modern-day empire. We need to reinvest in these ideas, and again become a proponent of human rights and true democracy. We need to see everything through the prism of what America should be -- not what we are today.

[wendersfan]

I agree. The US should reclaim the same national ideals that led to our involvement in the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. :up:

rotfl

[NCMojo]

I agree. The US should reclaim the same national ideals that led to our involvement in the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. :up:

rotfl
Actually, that's an excellent case in point. The forces at work during those times -- rampant yellow journalism, a spirit of manifest destiny, of "might makes right" -- are thriving today, running counter to the ideals of liberty and justice espoused by our Founding Fathers.

[Rockmjd23]

We must give Texas back to Mexico. It's the morally correct thing to do.

[classicman2]

One thing, and one thing only, should be at the core of our foreign policy - national interests.

Base a foreign policy on anything else - especially morality - and you're in a heap of trouble.

[DVD Polizei]

We must give Texas back to Mexico. It's the morally correct thing to do.

We're in the process of doing it at the moment. California is already Mexico as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I whip out my passport everytime I get a few miles of the California borders between Nevada and Oregon. Call it a reflex.

[Pharoh]

Actually, that's an excellent case in point. The forces at work during those times -- rampant yellow journalism, a spirit of manifest destiny, of "might makes right" -- are thriving today, running counter to the ideals of liberty and justice espoused by our Founding Fathers.



You honestly believe that the Founders and Framers didn't believe in things like manifest destiny, or in the concept that might enables progress, sometimes very selfish progress?

And please don't talk about journalism, since the journalism at the time of the begining of our nation was among the most biased, partisan, and vitriolic ever. It sure was not, by and large, interested in liberty and justice, rather simply victory.



And it seems to me that unless one is supposing very dubious motives upon this administration, motives that are in no way factual, that the main problem would be the administration was too idealistic, too concerned with the concepts of liberty and justice, so that pragmatic consequences were ignored. Isn't that the point in fact that the good professor is making?

[Myster X]

Q: Name one country in the UN Security Council who's on the look out for the world's interest.

A: None

[wendersfan]

And it seems to me that unless one is supposing very dubious motives upon this administration, motives that are in no way factual, that the main problem would be the administration was too idealistic, too concerned with the concepts of liberty and justice, so that pragmatic consequences were ignored. Isn't that the point in fact that the good professor is making?That seems to be precisely the point he is making. Thank you for pointing it out.

It occurs to me that his critique of the current policy, that it is too idealistic about things like nation building and unilateralism, is flawed because his own solution is itself too idealistic, with respect to multilateralism and cooperation. He's simply trading one form of idealism for another.

[wendersfan]

Q: Name one country in the UN Security Council who's on the look out for the world's interest.

A: NoneI would contend that, of all the <i>permanent</i> nations of the SC, the US has the rest of the world's interest at heart more than any of the others. I specified permanent simply because I don't know who the current non-permanent members are, and actually don't much care.

[classicman2]

We're in the process of doing it at the moment. California is already Mexico as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I whip out my passport everytime I get a few miles of the California borders between Nevada and Oregon. Call it a reflex.

Come on!!!

[classicman2]

I would contend that, of all the <i>permanent</i> nations of the SC, the US has the rest of the world's interest at heart more than any of the others. I specified permanent simply because I don't know who the current non-permanent members are, and actually don't much care.

It's o.k. to be concerned with the interests of other countries, but we shouldn't be so concerned if those interests conflict with those of our own. I will argue that that was obviously present in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Our interests conflicted with those of France & Russia.

BTW - I'm not saying that we should have invaded Iraq to protect our vital national interest, because I don't believe it was necessary.

[wendersfan]

It's o.k. to be concerned with the interests of other countries, but we shouldn't be so concerned if those interests conflict with those of our own. I will argue that that was obviously present in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. Our interests conflicted with those of France & Russia.
This would be easier if I were more conversant with the mathematics of political theory, but allow me to argue that sometimes it's in America's best interest to act against its own best interest, when the consequences of those actions would (a) not harm our interests greatly, and (b) create a situation in which other nations might cooperate with us in a time when our interets were more crucially affected. This is, IMO, the essence of good diplomacy. In the case of the Iraq invasion, our interests clashed too markedly with those of France and Russia for my example to be relevant. In that instance it was most important that our foreign policy be dictated by our best interests alone.
BTW - I'm not saying that we should have invaded Iraq to protect our vital national interest, because I don't believe it was necessary.That's a valid position, and I agree it wasn't necessary, although I would argue it was the right decision.

[NCMojo]

OK, let me add some math to what wendersfan is saying.

Essentially, classicman is correct -- our current global strategy is, and should be, dedicated solely to our national interests. Anyone arguing for anything more than that would probably be dismissed as naive -- just as there is no true altruism in individuals, merely different levels of rewards, so, too, could it be said that no country would act against it's own self interests.

But the issue is short term vs. long term needs. What I would accuse our country of doing over the past 100 years or so is too often looking merely at our short-term needs, rather than looking ahead to all possible consequences and planning for the long term. We need oil, so we back up tyrants and thugs and killers, even at the cost of our esteem around the world. Taken to an extreme, we invade and conquer oil rich nations in order to satiate our short-term need.

But what is the cost of all of this? Every third world nation is a potential ally, or a potential enemy. Every person living in desperate straits is a potential friend, or a potential terrorist. We're dealing with the long-term ramifications of our short-term policies now, and if we continue to look solely at what is good for us today, instead of what is good for us in the days to come, we'll continue to pay the consequences.

[Pharoh]

OK, let me add some math to what wendersfan is saying.

Essentially, classicman is correct -- our current global strategy is, and should be, dedicated solely to our national interests. Anyone arguing for anything more than that would probably be dismissed as naive -- just as there is no true altruism in individuals, merely different levels of rewards, so, too, could it be said that no country would act against it's own self interests.

But the issue is short term vs. long term needs. What I would accuse our country of doing over the past 100 years or so is too often looking merely at our short-term needs, rather than looking ahead to all possible consequences and planning for the long term. We need oil, so we back up tyrants and thugs and killers, even at the cost of our esteem around the world. Taken to an extreme, we invade and conquer oil rich nations in order to satiate our short-term need.

But what is the cost of all of this? Every third world nation is a potential ally, or a potential enemy. Every person living in desperate straits is a potential friend, or a potential terrorist. We're dealing with the long-term ramifications of our short-term policies now, and if we continue to look solely at what is good for us today, instead of what is good for us in the days to come, we'll continue to pay the consequences.



In fact, hasn't the opposite been going on? Is it not true the current administration's plans were very much interested in the long term? A radical transformation of an entire region of the globe isn't something I would call a short term goal.

I think folks like C-Man argue for a much shorter term outlook on foreign policy. And considering the non-static nature of nations, particularly underdeveloped nations, I see much validity to that point, even though I don't agree.

[X]

In fact, hasn't the opposite been going on? Is it not true the current administration's plans were very much interested in the long term? A radical transformation of an entire region of the globe isn't something I would call a short term goal. I agree. Unfortunately, as we're seeing now, it's difficult to pursue long term strategy with a population used to the end coming in 2 hours. Probably only China has had the luxury of that type of strategy in the recent past and will probably lose that ability soon as well.

[NCMojo]

In fact, hasn't the opposite been going on? Is it not true the current administration's plans were very much interested in the long term? A radical transformation of an entire region of the globe isn't something I would call a short term goal.

I think folks like C-Man argue for a much shorter term outlook on foreign policy. And considering the non-static nature of nations, particularly underdeveloped nations, I see much validity to that point, even though I don't agree.
I think you're confusing goals with needs here. You can have long-term goals that address short-term (or immediate) needs. Our oil addiction is a good example -- a long-range goal may be the subjugation and occupation of oil-rich countries (as an example - not to compare and contrast with the goals of the current Administration)... but that is really only addressing our short-term need. Our long-term need is for stability and progress -- we need customers and trading partners, not smaller countries to abuse and exploit.

You can also have short-term goals ("over the next five years, we're going to increase humanitarian aid to Africa by $5 billion dollars") that address long-term needs.

[Pharoh]

I think you're confusing goals with needs here. You can have long-term goals that address short-term (or immediate) needs. Our oil addiction is a good example -- a long-range goal may be the subjugation and occupation of oil-rich countries (as an example - not to compare and contrast with the goals of the current Administration)... but that is really only addressing our short-term need. Our long-term need is for stability and progress -- we need customers and trading partners, not smaller countries to abuse and exploit.

You can also have short-term goals ("over the next five years, we're going to increase humanitarian aid to Africa by $5 billion dollars") that address long-term needs.




No, I am not confusing anything. The transformation of the Middle East is a long-term need and the long-term goals, or policies of this administration, (not necessarily the implementation of those policies), addresses specifically the very thing you posted and that I have bolded.

[CRM114]

No, I am not confusing anything. The transformation of the Middle East is a long-term need and the long-term goals, or policies of this administration, (not necessarily the implementation of those policies), addresses specifically the very thing you posted and that I have bolded.

The war is not about terrorism. The war is not necessarily about oil. The war is about big (make that giant multinational) business. Eisenhower was right. ;)

[eXcentris]

Nah, it's all about lofty ideals of liberty and justice for all. Of course, attributing failures to this type of idealism will at least sound noble. I prefer more realistic terms like shortsightedness, ignorance and sheer incompetence myself. :)

[NCMojo]

No, I am not confusing anything. The transformation of the Middle East is a long-term need and the long-term goals, or policies of this administration, (not necessarily the implementation of those policies), addresses specifically the very thing you posted and that I have bolded.
All right then... why? Why is the transformation of the Middle East so essential to the long-term needs of America? It's not about creating customers and partners -- we can find much better trading partners and potential customers among countries in Africa, Asia and Central and South America.

No, the reason the region is so important has to do with our short-term need for cheaper oil. And of course what is good for corporate America -- high quarterly earnings and profit at the expense of everything else.

[X]

All right then... why? Why is the transformation of the Middle East so essential to the long-term needs of America? It's not about creating customers and partners -- we can find much better trading partners and potential customers among countries in Africa, Asia and Central and South America.

No, the reason the region is so important has to do with our short-term need for cheaper oil. And of course what is good for corporate America -- high quarterly earnings and profit at the expense of everything else.I find this type of short-sighted view of the Middle East situation shocking.

I can understand not agreeing with trying to effect a change in the region in the way we have, but not understanding why it has to be done for the long term, even at the expense of the short term, bewilders me.

[NCMojo]

I find this type of short-sighted view of the Middle East situation shocking.

I can understand not agreeing with trying to effect a change in the region in the way we have, but not understanding why it has to be done for the long term, even at the expense of the short term, bewilders me.
I think the short-sighted view is to assume that we can somehow impose a Western democracy upon another nation through the use of military force. Short-sighted is believing that we can bring peace to the Middle East by simply bombing or killing enough "insurgents". Short-sighted is ignoring centuries of conflict and religious differences and naively believing that we will be greeted with flowers as liberators.

Frankly, I think the whole idea that our invasion of Iraq is somehow part of some grand scheme to "transform the region" is bullshit, created by what I like to call "revisionist historians". We're not pushing for any kind of progress in democracy or human rights in Saudi Arabia. We're not trying to get Egypt to move away from fundamentalism. We're more interested in appeasing countries like the United Arab Emirites than really investigating their role in funding al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists. We're sucking up to the mulahs and the sheiks and the princes and the kings more than ever before. I think that we invaded Iraq as part of an attempt to build a global empire in connection with our oil corporations, and we used any conceivable excuse -- first the threat of WMDs, then the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, and now the idea of "transforming" the Middle East -- to justify the invasion to the American people.

And what I find shocking is that intelligent people like yourself continue to believe the lies.

[X]

I think the short-sighted view is to assume that we can somehow impose a Western democracy upon another nation through the use of military force. Short-sighted is believing that we can bring peace to the Middle East by simply bombing or killing enough "insurgents". Short-sighted is ignoring centuries of conflict and religious differences and naively believing that we will be greeted with flowers as liberators.That is not the idea at all. However there was one place that that method was appropriate to begin the process of change.

Frankly, I think the whole idea that our invasion of Iraq is somehow part of some grand scheme to "transform the region" is bullshit, created by what I like to call "revisionist historians". We're not pushing for any kind of progress in democracy or human rights in Saudi Arabia. We're not trying to get Egypt to move away from fundamentalism. We're more interested in appeasing countries like the United Arab Emirites than really investigating their role in funding al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists. We're sucking up to the mulahs and the sheiks and the princes and the kings more than ever before. I think that we invaded Iraq as part of an attempt to build a global empire in connection with our oil corporations, and we used any conceivable excuse -- first the threat of WMDs, then the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, and now the idea of "transforming" the Middle East -- to justify the invasion to the American people.I think it would be worthwhile to look at what is going on in these areas more closely. And while some positive results are already being seen, one should not expect the final results to be achieved in the proverbial 2 hours.

[Chaos]

I think it would be worthwhile to look at what is going on in these areas more closely. And while some results are already being seen, one should not expect the final results to be achieved in the proverbial 2 hours.

true :thumbsup:

The verdict on this whole affair won't be written for decades to come; it's now apparent that this war will drag on. Whether it was all worth it or not won't be decided for at least 20-50 yrs.

I just hope history smiles on Pres. Bush and his efforts, then all the lives lost will not have been for nothing and Iraq/Afghanistan will be stable and democratic.

[classicman2]

We, including this administration, need to be realistic in what can be accomplished in Iraq. I believe that Bush's idea of a western style democracy is but a dream.

What we should consider a success, and what we should shoot it for, is a relatively stable government in Iraq that doesn't mistreat its citizens in the way that Saddam did and doesn't threaten its neighbors. And, most importantly, one that will continue the free flow of oil from that country.

If that be accomplished, it will be a success. If not, well......

[GreenMonkey]

I think the short-sighted view is to assume that we can somehow impose a Western democracy upon another nation through the use of military force. Short-sighted is believing that we can bring peace to the Middle East by simply bombing or killing enough "insurgents". Short-sighted is ignoring centuries of conflict and religious differences and naively believing that we will be greeted with flowers as liberators.

Frankly, I think the whole idea that our invasion of Iraq is somehow part of some grand scheme to "transform the region" is bullshit, created by what I like to call "revisionist historians". We're not pushing for any kind of progress in democracy or human rights in Saudi Arabia. We're not trying to get Egypt to move away from fundamentalism. We're more interested in appeasing countries like the United Arab Emirites than really investigating their role in funding al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists. We're sucking up to the mulahs and the sheiks and the princes and the kings more than ever before. I think that we invaded Iraq as part of an attempt to build a global empire in connection with our oil corporations, and we used any conceivable excuse -- first the threat of WMDs, then the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, and now the idea of "transforming" the Middle East -- to justify the invasion to the American people.

And what I find shocking is that intelligent people like yourself continue to believe the lies.

:thumbsup: I like everything NCMojo is saying. Except I'm not quite convinced in the role of capitalism in this. Personally I see it as something much more frightening...idealism at its worst.


Like the previous mention of the age of Nationalism, I personally think the US is in another Nationalistic period. It seems to me that many people think that Democracy + Capitalism is the one, only, and best solution for government. Not only that, the thought that it's our moral obligation to bring civilization to the Injuns....err....I mean, third world countries.

[Myster X]

I'm curious here.
How many people in the US will be out of the job if the Middle East oil stops flowing?

[hahn]

We, including this administration, need to be realistic in what can be accomplished in Iraq. I believe that Bush's idea of a western style democracy is but a dream.
But people like Pharoh (IMHO) have romanticized this "long term" goal of the administration. Everytime, we fail in some endevour, the goal changes to something else. Now finally, it's this grand vision of something that will only happen gradually over 20-30 years. And if it succeeds, it could only be because we made it happen. This is the attitude we are displaying now. There is no point in time at which this administration is simply considered to be human, fallible, and foolish. It's all part of the "grand plan". This in spite of the fact that even grand plans require small successes along the way.

But here's the thing. I don't think for one second that Bush ever placed any importance in a western style democracy. At least not out of any concern for humanity. My take on him is that he is a narcissist who is simply out to put his name in the history books. What better way than to be known as the man who took on the impossible? I don't think that the logistics of how to accomplish this 'impossible' task, or the potential consequences ever entered his head. He became so in love with the notion that his power could allow him to accomplish great things that he failed to realize the just how limited his power really was. It's the classic story of Icarus, though I hate the thought of comparing him to a mythical character who at least never tried to hurt anyone in his ambition. Bush's greatest failing though is not being able to understand that real power comes from the ability to make people see things your way not through fear, but through respect. And that one does not lead to the other.

[Mark_vdH]

Interesting topic.

The irony with regard to international action is the fact that the UN has very little power to enforce or even make decisions, and that therefor the powerful nations are very reluctant to hand over some of that power. The US doesn't want to give some of its power to an organisation which is basically powerless, and because of that, it will stay that way.

The problem is that if we as a world community ever want to give some sort of supranational power to an organisation in order to decide on the 'cosmopolitian issues', we'll have to somehow overcome that mindframe.

Which is something that bothered me about the 2004 Kerry campaign BTW: he didn't seem to be able to communicate the idea that the US should always keep control of decisions directly involving the US itself, and that 'giving in some power' should only apply to global issues. Which is basically what democracy is all about BTW: that all people who are effected by decisions have a say in those decisions, and not just the happy few.

That said, I also have a major issue with the concept of the UN: I don't like the idea that undemocratic countries like Iran or Syria (or a few dozen other countries) can also claim the same democratic rights within the UN as democratic nations, while their opinions just reflect the opinions of the so called happy few in those countries. I just don't think we should care that much what these undemocratic nations think of global issues - or at least, in this context.

I think it would be best if there would be some sort of United Democratic Nations, where nations would have to have some sort of basic democratic laws in their countries (like free elections, free press, no major institutionalized discrimination etc.). Or else you're just not welcome in the decision making process of global issues.

I'd say give the US one vote, give the democratic European countries one vote together, and give all of the other democracies in the world also one vote together.

[wendersfan]

Which is something that bothered me about the 2004 Kerry campaign BTW: he didn't seem to be able to communicate the idea that the US should always keep control of decisions directly involving the US itself, and that 'giving in some power' should only apply to global issues. Which is basically what democracy is all about BTW: that all people who are effected by decisions have a say in those decisions, and not just the happy few.It's a testament to the bungled nature of the campaign that a US Senator with two decades of experience, along with a group of well-paid advisors, could not explain a simple concept as well as someone who doesn't even live in the United States.

[VinVega]

I'd say give the US one vote, give the democratic European countries one vote together, and give all of the other democracies in the world also one vote together.
How do you produce a quantifiable standard for judging the level of democracy in a country in order to bring them into the organization? Who makes up the rules?

[eXcentris]

Is this referring to the general assembly or the security council? The real/important decisions are made in the SC. I think it should be expanded and the vetos abolished for starters.

[classicman2]

Is this referring to the general assembly or the security council? The real/important decisions are made in the SC. I think it should be expanded and the vetos abolished for starters.

I think it should be reduced in number; and, only one country has a veto. I'll let you guess which one that is. ;)

[NCMojo]

I don't think for one second that Bush ever placed any importance in a western style democracy. At least not out of any concern for humanity. My take on him is that he is a narcissist who is simply out to put his name in the history books. What better way than to be known as the man who took on the impossible?
I agree with the first half, but not the second. I just don't see Bush as the guiding force behind this Administration. Sorry, but I don't. Yes, he may be a narcissist and an egomaniac -- but the plan to invade Iraq on first pretense predates the Bush presidency by at least three years (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm). He was perfectly willing to be the figurehead -- especially in retaliation for Saddam trying to kill his dad (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/).

Bush's greatest failing though is not being able to understand that real power comes from the ability to make people see things your way not through fear, but through respect. And that one does not lead to the other.
In general, I believe you can sum up the Bush mentality as a failure to recognize the complexity of issues in the modern world. To Bush, we are surrounded by "evil-doers" who "hate us for our freedom". You're either "with us or against us". You can't differentiate between Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khamenei, Osama bin Laden or Kim Jong-II -- they're all "bad men" or "terrorists", part of an "Axis of Evil" out to impose it's shadowy might on God's chosen people. It's a wafer-thin, superficial, white hat/black hat view of the world that plays to his cowboy self-esteem.

The obvious problem, of course, is that Bush isn't really a cowboy... and neither are the men and women of his Administration. People like Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., are all bright and well-educated people who know what the world is really like. They're not naively invading Iraq thinking that we'll be greeted with flowers. They understand the long-term ramifications of dismissing the international community and resolving every problem with bombs and guns. They understand -- but they just don't care. To them, it's all about power and money, and how they can best continue to hold onto as much of both for as long as they can.

That's the real truth behind everything this Administration has done. It's not incompetence, it's not stupidity, it's not madness. It's greed, plain and simple.

[Pharoh]

But people like Pharoh (IMHO) have romanticized this "long term" goal of the administration. Everytime, we fail in some endevour, the goal changes to something else. Now finally, it's this grand vision of something that will only happen gradually over 20-30 years. And if it succeeds, it could only be because we made it happen. This is the attitude we are displaying now. There is no point in time at which this administration is simply considered to be human, fallible, and foolish. It's all part of the "grand plan". This in spite of the fact that even grand plans require small successes along the way.

But here's the thing. I don't think for one second that Bush ever placed any importance in a western style democracy. At least not out of any concern for humanity. My take on him is that he is a narcissist who is simply out to put his name in the history books. What better way than to be known as the man who took on the impossible? I don't think that the logistics of how to accomplish this 'impossible' task, or the potential consequences ever entered his head. He became so in love with the notion that his power could allow him to accomplish great things that he failed to realize the just how limited his power really was. It's the classic story of Icarus, though I hate the thought of comparing him to a mythical character who at least never tried to hurt anyone in his ambition. Bush's greatest failing though is not being able to understand that real power comes from the ability to make people see things your way not through fear, but through respect. And that one does not lead to the other.


I have romaticised nothing. Please don't confuse my long held, and evolving, beliefs with my defense of the administration on this board. They may coincide, but they are not the same thing.

My beliefs concerning the promotion of freedoms and liberties have been in place long before George W. Bush was even considered a candidate for the presidency. My thoughts on these matters coalesced at some point in the mid to late 1990s. There had always been the basic structure in my beliefs, but it was at this time that I finally put a name to the face of my social-political thoughts. I state this not to give a history of myself that nobody cares about, but rather to refute the notion you posted. I fully supported our actions in Bosnia and Kosovo. I feel that is one of the shining moments of the Clinton administration. I also fully supported, and still do, the now infamous PNAC document from 1998 concerning Iraq, the one which Dr. Fukuyama was a signatory. My feelings and thoughts on regime change in Iraq, the spread of the American ideal, and the reformation of the Middle East are longstanding beliefs. There has not been any changing of the goals and objectives, other than for them to have been more clearly crystallised, and for a sense of urgency to accompany them in the wake of September the 11th.

(As an aside, the PNAC document so vilified, including by some notable posters in this thread, as being the advance plans for action in Iraq and the Middle East should lay to rest doubts on the goals and objectives of the administration, at least if one puts stock in those conspiracy theories. Bringing democracy, and more so, liberties and freedoms that would necessarily come from regime change, to Iraq and the resulting pressure that would then exist on the neighbouring nations was always an agenda. It seems disingenuous now for some who frequently railed about this evil organisation and tried to illustrate how it and its members were guiding the Bush administration to now claim there was no thought to bringing democracy to the Middle East, led by regime change in Iraq. It is difficult to have it both ways.)

Likewise I have been appalled by America's actions in Somalia and the Sudan, under different administrations. I utterly believe that we had an obligation to do more than we did and I deplore our inaction, for whatever reason that took place. My sometimes defense of the administration is not a carte blanche pass. Nor do I believe that many grave mistakes have not been made in the implementation of the Iraq liberation. Some mistakes have been horrendous and nearly unforgivable. Perhaps if things were performed better diplomatically, militarily, and in regards to intelligence we wouldn't be in the situation we now find ourselves in, even if the action was still undertaken. However, that does not change the fact that the removal of saddam and the attempt to reform Iraq and the greater Middle East was the right thing to do at the right time.

This belief, the spreading of freedoms and liberties as a measure of policy and security, has a very long and illustrious history, often a very liberal one. I do not apologise at all for holding these views or for the consequences of their implementation, consequences which I firmly believe will be attested to by history. And while those beliefs may sound idealistic, I am anything but. I have pointed out previously on this forum, and others, that I have often been accused of the exact opposite, of engaging verbally, (and in my professional career), too much in realpolitik, or worse in machtpolitik. The reality is that a combination of both, of idealism and pragmatic realism is the only way we as a nation can succeed. My business dealings with the economic/development situations of a variety of nations has steadfastly reaffirmed this to me, reaffirmed that the two are completely intertwined. The idealism of a nations populace can not be separated from their politics and their realities. America's foreign policy can then be no different. The spreading of the Anglo-American ideal, of freedoms and liberties and a structure of justice, along with economic choices and opportunities is not just idealistic, it is a pragmatic necessity. The promotion of a common value in today's completely interdependent world has to be the priority of our times.

What I find to be the romanticised notion is the belief that we are living in the same world as we were twenty years ago, or ten years ago, or even a scarce five years ago. The belief that we can somehow not engage politically and socially in this utterly connected and rapidly globalising world is beyond me. The belief that any sense of isolationism is possible is the idealistic romantic view. What we are now experiencing in Iraq is the true test of all of this, the test between complete realpolitik and pragmatic idealism. It is a battle on all fronts; social, political, media, diplomatic, and of course militarily. A battle between tyranny and choice, between oppression and democracy. Those may seem like trite words, or it may be depicted as being woefully simplistic and without nuance, but it is what is happening, and the stakes are not simply what happens in Iraq any longer, it is about the course of the world, and most importantly the global war on terrorism. Which side will now come out on top and be emboldened? Which side will shrink away from prominence? Our enemies are aware of this and have states so repeatedly, as are many others, such as Tony Blair, who said yesterday:


They, (reactionary elements in Iraq), know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow. Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world. That to me is the painful irony of what is happening. They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake. They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. Every act of carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it. For us, so much of our opinion believes that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong, that it is reluctant to accept what is plainly right now.



Please excuse my late night ramblings, particularly for their cursory nature. I realise I failed to address or acknowledge a great many relevant and meaningful topics, such as the cause of fundamentalist terrorism, global anti-American sentiment, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, amongst others. I won't bother to address either these issues now, or the opinions of the ulterior and sinister motives of the Bush administration, for they are just that. I merely wanted to refute the notion that the belief in the spreading and promotion of freedoms and liberties to those who don't have them is either a simple romantic view taken lightly and without consideration, or that it is a view that is new and ever changing. Neither are true. That long held belief, pertaining to Iraq and elsewhere, is just that, and one that I firmly believe is an absolute necessity in the world today. Feel free to disagree, as I am aware most will.

[VinVega]

Democracy is great, but what do we do when the strongest political parties are radical Islamic with cultural views diametrically opposed to Western thought?

Which is better (for US), Democracy or Stability?

[classicman2]

Democracy is great, but what do we do when the strongest political parties are radical Islamic with cultural views diametrically opposed to Western thought?

Which is better (for US), Democracy or Stability?

The one beginning with "S"

[Pharoh]

Democracy is great, but what do we do when the strongest political parties are radical Islamic with cultural views diametrically opposed to Western thought?

Which is better (for US), Democracy or Stability?


Not only are they not mutually exlusive concepts, but ultimately I don't think you can have one without the other. However, in the short term of course stability is the requirement. Democracy can not flow freely or easily from chaos. It is why an oft repeated refrain of mine here has been that I don't pray at the altar of democracy. It is why I use words such as freedoms, liberties, economic choices, and opportunities. Democracy is but the best tool to achieve these objectives, but not the only tool.

Also, do not underscore the importance of the elections in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in Palestine. Just because we may not like the superficial results does not mean that they are not major steps in the right direction, that time after time people will choose to have a voice in the outcome of their life. It does take time though. Remember too, elections are but one part, sometimes a small part, of what comprises a free liberal form of government. As the people of these nations learn to accept their liberties and repsonsibilities, learn that there are consequences of their choices, consequences which affect their prosperity and security, they will learn to make better choices. The danger lies in not allowing them that chance.

[eXcentris]

Which is better (for US), Democracy or Stability?

Stability. Because the reality is that self-interests will always supercede lofty ideals of spreading freedom and democracy. A known evil will always be deemed preferable to (the possibility that you might create) an unknown one. While I believe that spreading freedom and democracy is a noble idea, it remains, in my mind, idealism bordering on utopia. You can work at promoting these ideals but you can't force democracy down people's throats. It's something that has to come from within and has to be fought for if need be. If you keep handing a kid $20 bills, he will never learn the value of money.

[VinVega]

It's amazing the the liberals have adopted the pragmatism of the Regan foreign policy era. Are we 20 years behind the curve, or was Ronnie onto something? Or is it just because of who is in the White House?

[Pharoh]

It's amazing the the liberals have adopted the pragmatism of the Regan foreign policy era. Are we 20 years behind the curve, or was Ronnie onto something? Or is it just because of who is in the White House?


Is this the Reagan non-idealist pragmatism you are talking about?

There is no true international security without respect for human rights. The greatest creative and moral force in this new world, the greatest hope for survival and success, for peace and happiness, is human freedom.

Or is this a better example?

Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.


Just asking?
:)

[VinVega]

If Reagan was idealistic to a fault, he would have invaded a lot of places that were fighting the battle between Capitalism and Communism. He chose to keep the American footprint smaller by supporting groups who agreed with our positions on issues or who were politically convenient to support either financially or militarily. When he used the US military he gave them goals that were easily attainable for the most part. He did not thrust us into open ended commitments the way this administration has.

Reagan learned the lessons of Vietnam. Lessons I think that have been forgotten.

[wendersfan]

Reagan was too constrained by the bipolar world of the '80s to conduct a foreign policy thatwould considered idealistic today.

[classicman2]

Reagan learned the lessons of Vietnam. Lessons I think that have been forgotten.

What lesson was that?

[wendersfan]

What lesson was that?Never get involved in a land war in Asia?

It's one of the classic blunders, you know. ;)

[X]

Reagan was too constrained by the bipolar world of the '80s to conduct a foreign policy thatwould considered idealistic today.Absolutely. It was a difficult choice of a "friendly" dictator and communism in many places. When you're trying to kill communism with the ultimate goal of everybody's freedom you sometimes need to choose what you'd prefer not to.

[VinVega]

What lesson was that?
That large, open ended commitments against guerilla warfare will wear down the American public's tolerance for staying there.

[classicman2]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia?

It's one of the classic blunders, you know. ;)

You stole my line. And here I thought I was setting him up so perfectly. :lol:

[VinVega]

Never get involved in a land war in Asia?

It's one of the classic blunders, you know. ;)
:lol:

Inconceivable!

[classicman2]

That large, open ended commitments against guerilla warfare will wear down the American public's tolerance for staying there.

That's correct.

However, the thing about Vietnam was that once the North Vietnamese 'invaded' South Vietnam, it became less a guerilla war and more of a conventional war.

[VinVega]

That's correct.

However, the thing about Vietnam was that once the North Vietnamese 'invaded' South Vietnam, it became less a guerilla war and more of a conventional war.
I think if we let you boys go up there and take Hanoi, we could have brought everybody home sooner. ;)

[classicman2]

When I was there, it was a guerilla war. Charlie was the enemy.

Not to get off topic, but the biggest military mistake we made in Vietnam - we allowed the enemy to decide where the battlefield would be.

[nemein]

Not to get off topic, but the biggest military mistake we made in Vietnam - we allowed the enemy to decide where the battlefield would be.

I always thought it was we let the politicians decide where the battlefield would be ;)

[Pharoh]

If Reagan was idealistic to a fault, he would have invaded a lot of places that were fighting the battle between Capitalism and Communism. He chose to keep the American footprint smaller by supporting groups who agreed with our positions on issues or who were politically convenient to support either financially or militarily. When he used the US military he gave them goals that were easily attainable for the most part. He did not thrust us into open ended commitments the way this administration has.

Reagan learned the lessons of Vietnam. Lessons I think that have been forgotten.


I don't think I said idealistic to a fault. But to say that President Reagan was pragmatic at the expense of idealism is simply wrong. One could very easily argue that his whole foreign policy was based on his idealism, implemented with a sense of realpolitik. His views of communism and of the ability to defeat it certainly were idealistic. I would also suggest that the threats he faced were more winnable than the ones we face today, at least within the timeframe of his tenure in office.