Think again
Excellent analysis from Melvyn Leffler at Foreign Policy magazine. The lead paragraph (emphasis mine):
Not since Richard Nixon’s conduct of the war in Vietnam has a U.S. president’s foreign policy so polarized the country—and the world. Yet as controversial as George W. Bush’s policies have been, they are not as radical a departure from his predecessors as both critics and supporters proclaim. Instead, the real weaknesses of the president’s foreign policy lie in its contradictions: Blinded by moral clarity and hamstrung by its enormous military strength, the United States needs to rebalance means with ends if it wants to forge a truly effective grand strategy.
Amen brother.
my feed
4 Comments:
so then moral clarity and military might should be exclusive to this new grand strategy?
No, moral clarity and military might should be part of a strategy whose means and ends don't conflict (and serves the interests of the US). Any strategy which fulfills those requirements will do.
should i presume the democratic party's foreign policy will be based on increased moral ambiguity and military mediocrity?
No. From Leffler: ---What is striking about President Bill Clinton’s foreign policy is that it actually increased U.S. military preponderance vis-à-vis the rest of the world. During the late 1990s, U.S. defense spending was higher than that of the next dozen nations combined. The overall goal, according to Clinton’s joint chiefs of staff, was to create “a force that is dominant across the full spectrum of military operations—persuasive in peace, decisive in war, preeminent in any form of conflict.”
Neither liberals nor neoconservatives want to acknowledge it, but the Clinton administration also envisioned the use of unilateral, even preemptive, military power. Prior to the September 11 attacks, the last strategy paper of the Clinton administration spelled out the nation’s vital interests. “We will do what we must,” wrote the Clinton national security team, “to defend these interests. This may involve the use of military force, including unilateral action, where deemed necessary or appropriate.”---
this country can lead or be liked, not both.
Wrong again. The US has led, and set the course of history many times and been seen as a beacon of hope and freedom.
Leffler: ---But the breadth and depth of the current anti- Americanism are unprecedented. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, favorable attitudes toward the United States in Europe plunged during the last two years, dropping from 75 percent to 58 percent in Britain, from 63 percent to 37 percent in France, and from 61 percent to 38 percent in Germany. It’s even worse in the Muslim world, where substantial majorities think the United States is overreacting to the terrorist threat and that Americans seek to dominate the world. Most worrisome of all is the reaction among “friendly” Muslim nations: 59 percent of Turks, 36 percent of Pakistanis, 27 percent of Moroccans, and 24 percent of Jordanians say that suicide bombings against Americans and Westerners are justified in Iraq.---
I would also argue that being hated works against our setting the course of history, not for it.
------------------------------------------------------
Bill Cosby:
Tragic definitely. But hardly a black-only problem. Didn't white know-it-alls get beat up at your school?
There's a combination of factors contributing to the difficulties black America faces, and one of them is probably, as Cosby has said, the black community's reluctance to take responsibility for its own failings -- but it's hardly abnormal. Take a look at any conservative site, and you'll find whites who feel they are being held back, or threatened, or supressed by minorities or the "extra privileges" they get. You get the impression that white America is infallible.
Not only that, but while blacks may over-victimize themselves, that shouldn't lead us to believe that it's the root cause of their problems, nor that a simple change in their worldview would put them on the right track. I was just watching an excellent PBS documentary this weekend: "Reconstruction: The Second Civil War". It reminded me that while some (not all, surely) other minorities have managed to overcome the difficulties associated with being a minority, none has suffered the systematic subjugation and destruction black America has endured.
This leads me to all of the problems that our public schools have. Teachers need to create an environment where students who excell are not demonized -- where those who don't excell don't feel wholly inferior, and feel the need to show their superiority by kicking the smart kid's ass.
I'm not pretending we can stop kids beating up the smarty-pants -- but I believe the proper environment can lessen it.
Unfortunately, it takes teachers with talent to create this environment. It can't be taught.
But teachers with those kinds of people skills are in high demand, and rarely choose to work in dangerous and difficult places like inner-city public schools. Many of them choose more profitable lines of work altogether. That's why I favor raising teacher's pay, to make teaching positions more competitive, and to attract more talented people.
I don't know if you read the piece, but it's not Leffler's intention to say that moral clarity and military strength are bad things. It's his point that Bush has remained so fixated on preaching moral clarity and has overused the US's military strength to a point where his administration lost sight of how to use these to the US's advantage. Indeed, I don't even know if they can anymore.
So:
[If the means and ends not conflicting is the requirement needed to be fulfilled for an effective foreign policy]then what do moral clairty and military might have to do with anything?
When the US uses its "military might and moral clarity" to do what it's doing now in the regions affected by the tsunami, it serves our interest by supressing anti-Americanism. That's vital in defeating terrorism. Bush's method of using a sledge hammer to kill some flies may be effective in exterminating the insects, but it also increases Americophobia, as shown by Leffler's numbers. The remaining flies lay their eggs in the corpses of their dead brethren, and the population explodes.
but now it's not [seen as a beacon of hope and freedom] i suppose?
No it's not. IT'S NOT. While I wish it were, that's just not how the world sees us now. Call me unpatriotic if you wish, but wanting something does not make it so. I'm ashamed of how the rest of the world sees my country, and I put the onus squarely on the shoulders of GWB.
Is your point that america has always been loved in the past but not now?
The US has done some unpopular things, but it has never been loathed like this. And that loathing is in direct conflict with our interests. The tragic thing is, we could have achieved the same goals that Bush wants to achieve, without aligning the rest of the world against us.
Even worse is that just a few years ago, there was unprecedented sympathy towards the US, as you mentioned. Wasted.
what was germany's favorability of american in 1944? better than 38 percent?
I dunno, but WORLD opinion of the US was pretty high. That's why the world wasn't galvanized against our involvement there. As much as conservatives love to compare the struggle in Iraq to WWII, the similarities just aren't there.
Also, after the war and throughout the 50's, many Germans loved the US, because we were protecting them from Soviet Russia. I suspect that if you asked an Iraqi if the US was protecting him against terrorists, he would laugh in your face.
at least we can always wax nostalgic when bad things never happened to americans - you know - back when we were a beacon of hope and freedom, huh gustav? when we led the world and everyone had unprecedented favorability ratings of us. good times. good times.
Yes stomper. But thick sarcasm is no substitute for a good argument. The point is not that bad things never happened to Americans, it is that we used to be seen as the good guys, not the bad guys. For most of the world now, watching America fight the terrorists is like watching Alien vs. Predator.
you and leffler claim that strengths are actually the weaknesses of america, akin to intelligence being the weakness of a black kid.
Once again, it's not the strengths that are bad. If the smart black kid went around taunting everybody, telling them how stupid they were, some might say he deserved a beating, regardless of race ...
i deduce that you're either saying that some other country has taken the place of the alpha beacon of hope and freedom, or one simply does not exist anymore. so people looking to emmigrate will have nowhere to go or have to go somewhere other than america.
Your deduction skills are well practiced enough so that you can distinguish stylized hyperbole. You pass. Yes, not seen as the alpha beacon of hope, I'll take that one.
Their loss? Depends on how you look at it. Some of them have perfectly successful and happy lives in other countries.
how many of these are true?
the world needs a beacon of hope and freedom.
the world needs america to be the beacon.
america needs a beacon of hope and freedom.
america needs to be the beacon.
All of the above are true.
be sure to include in your mush the future doom that certainly awaits us all for failing to be the beacon. i need to read that stuff.
Doom? I don't know. When the US is the world paragon for respect of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, it will have the most moral authority to support its activities. While it touts democracy at home and abroad, but flouts international law and further restricts the civil liberties of its own citizens, it loses credibility. Naturally the world community becomes suspicious of its motives and resists. As we have seen, that can present major problems when the US wants to take some actions which it believes are in its interests.
so bush opens the door for canada or australia to become the beacon. so what. you reside in poland. how does that affect you? are you looking for bragging rights? ...
Sarcasm again. gotcha.
You know how it affects me? I'm sick of hearing how Americans are boneheaded or ignorant or unwilling to listen. I'm tired of being reminded that fewer than 5% of Americans own a passport. I'm tired of: "You're American! -- you not packin' are ya?"
I'm doing my best to fight these stereotypes but it's not enough. I need a leader who fights them too.
A year and a half ago a woman asked me where I was from, so I told her, "the States."
She cringed.
who loses more if you stay home - you or the country of poland? forget the mutually beneficial stuff?
I think my boss and Red would both agree that Poland just might be the winner in that one.
what did all the world hope for that bush messed up? be specific like: the world hoped afghani women would never vote ....
The world hoped Bush wouldn't start a war unless he absolutely had to.
kinda hard to explain the moths being attracted to a light that is turned off.
In the dark, even a nightlight is comforting-- isn't it, stomper? I want the US to be the lighthouse.
Naw, I love your sarcasm stomper. We may as well leave this one here and move on to other ground. Thanks for your excellent responses.
Flouting international law:
True, I oughtn't be onesided. Seems the right is up in arms about how terrorists aren't criticized for violating international law. I thought their blatant disregard for international law and human rights was what made them terrorists, but ok, I'll say it here:
I abhor and condemn the violations of international law and human rights, as well as the murderous crimes that terrorists commit.
Seems superfluous and obvious to me.
Post a Comment
< Main