It would be nice if US Foreign Policy

Started by bwv 1080, December 05, 2011, 08:15:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Todd

Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2011, 05:55:26 AMThis is rather sophistry. The world situation is what it is today not least because the warnings and advices of those long dead men have been neglected or not listened to. Besides, it can be inferred from what you wrote that actually Washington and John Quincy Adams preached a peaceful and non-interventionist America only because she was weak; had they lived in 1898 they would have applauded the war against Spain...



You seem to be forgetting the Indians.  The US constantly pushed westward into the lands of its neighbors, even under the supposedly peace-loving men you hold in such high esteem.  But I assume Indians don't count when looking at the American history of aggression.

Washington or Adams II were dead in 1898.  They had no opinions on the subject.  The world situation at the time they made their proclamations must be taken into account, and the traditional hagiography applied to them as peace loving men making statements for All Time is really close to meaningless.  The US was weak, they knew it, and they acted accordingly.  They may have followed some other principles, too, but they also knew the score.
The universe is change; life is opinion. - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

People would rather believe than know - E.O. Wilson

Propaganda death ensemble - Tom Araya

Florestan

Quote from: Todd on December 07, 2011, 06:09:40 AM
You seem to be forgetting the Indians. The US constantly pushed westward into the lands of its neighbors,

I stand corrected and add Mexico. :)

Quote
The US was weak, they knew it, and they acted accordingly.  They may have followed some other principles, too, but they also knew the score.

IOW, they were hypocrites whose would-be love of peace sprang from cold calculations. The true face of the American politics was to be shown only after US gained enough power to claim her share in the world's cake.
I guess it might be some truth in that.


Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Archaic Torso of Apollo

Quote from: Todd on December 07, 2011, 05:34:09 AM
I'm neither defending nor attacking the second Gulf War, but when did the Bush administration state that Iraq had nuclear weapons?  I recall talk of chemical and biological weapons, and mumblings about a possible nuclear program, but I don't recall statements about how Iraq actually had the bomb.

Well there's this for example: "He's [Saddam] had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" - Dick Cheney

There were also vaguer, more suggestive statements of this type: "We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat" - Donald Rumsfeld

But beyond this, a number of slippery semantic games were played with the concept of "weapons of mass destruction." I submit that when the average person hears that phrase, the first thing that pops into his head is nukes; he's probably not thinking of poison gas used on a battlefield. That's not the sort of thing that's perceived as a threat to the average citizen's security. (The same point applies to the constant hinting of a Saddam/al-Qaeda link - implied but not directly stated.)


QuoteI'm also amused to see references to presidential addresses from men dead for centuries.  First, how many people who apparently favor adherence to policies advocated centuries ago take a similarly strict constructionist view of the Constitution?

These speeches by Adams and Washington are not part of the Constitution or any body of law, so I don't think the analogy holds. They're just good advice. In particular, note the prophetic accuracy of Adams' warnings about getting involved in other countries' struggles for independence, and Washington's warnings against "entangling alliances." As general principles, they hold up remarkably well.

QuoteOne could apply such ideas historically and conclude that the US probably shouldn't have been involved in the Great War, for instance.  That may not have been a bad idea, actually.

Indeed!
formerly VELIMIR (before that, Spitvalve)

"Who knows not strict counterpoint, lives and dies an ignoramus" - CPE Bach

Archaic Torso of Apollo

Quote from: Florestan on December 07, 2011, 06:32:54 AM
IOW, they were hypocrites whose would-be love of peace sprang from cold calculations.

Cold calculations perhaps, but all the more sensible for it. One reason why they advocated these policies was because they knew that war was the greatest threat to liberties, and hence to republican and constitutional government. James Madison:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Whether Madison was "peace-loving" or "hypocritical" is beside the point. What matters is the correctness of his analysis.
formerly VELIMIR (before that, Spitvalve)

"Who knows not strict counterpoint, lives and dies an ignoramus" - CPE Bach

drogulus

   
Quote from: Florestan on December 06, 2011, 11:50:05 PM
Aha!

Please explain what morality and prudence is in "saving" countries (a) which have not asked for any US help whatsoever (Iraq, Afghanistan), (b) which were run by former friends and allies of US (Rumsfeld was only too happy to shake hands with Saddam while selling him weapons; when the Taliban fought the Soviets, the US government was only too happy to praise them as "freedom fighters" and provide them with weapons), (c) which are rich in oil and natural gas.

Then please explain what morality and prudence dictates non-intervention in places like North Korea, Burma, Rwanda, Sudan.

Then please explain what morality and prudence dictates that Saudi Arabia, whose human rights record is just as appalling as the Taliban's, be the staunchest US ally in the Middle East; or that Russia, Pakistan and China, not quite beacons of liberty, be treated like friends.

     Do you want to attack these countries, or are you arguing in favor of giving everyone the same free pass the Saudis get in the name of consistency? If you don't like the way we punish some countries why are you complaining that we don't punish other ones? You want to have everything all ways at once.

     In fact you have done the work for me. The results of nonintervention are what drives intervention, as you helpfully point out in the case of
QuoteNorth Korea, Burma, Rwanda, Sudan.

     Or are you complaining that we invaded the wrong countries? If so, what would prevent me from pulling the same trick and complaining about our nonintervention in, say, Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is that good sense requires abandoning a foolish consistency that demands we do everything or nothing.

     But I will concede one point. The arguments for intervention in

QuoteNorth Korea, Burma, Rwanda, Sudan.

     are as good as you imply they are. And, as is often the case, so are the arguments against.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

kishnevi

Quote from: Todd on December 07, 2011, 05:34:09 AM


I'm also amused to see references to presidential addresses from men dead for centuries.  First, how many people who apparently favor adherence to policies advocated centuries ago take a similarly strict constructionist view of the Constitution?  Second, and more important, how do statements by leaders of a comparatively weak nation still balancing independence and reliance on foreign nations, including its mother country as it were, have any bearing on the world situation today?  They really don't.  One could apply such ideas historically and conclude that the US probably shouldn't have been involved in the Great War, for instance.  That may not have been a bad idea, actually.

I'd better repeat and expand on a comment I made earlier in this thread: that it is ironic (or possibly something else) that the American political faction which most loudly trumpets strict construction of the Constitution and the virtues of limited government is the faction which most enthusiastically supports a hyperstrong military, active interventionism (at least when the White House is occupied by one of them) in foreign countries, and ignoring the Constitution to support what is in effect a perpetual state of war.

So to quote Washington and Adams at least points out their inconsistency.  (I might be hypocrisy, but I think for the vast majority of this faction, it's simply a result of not actually thinking through the results of their political principles.)

Those statements may have been partly motivated by the knowledge that Americans were not in a position to have foreign adventures.  But they were also working from the context of European affairs, in which perpetual warfare machines were the basic part of nation states and a central means of limiting liberty. 

The aggressions against the Native Americans and the Mexicans were mentioned.  But it should be pointed out that the section of American politics that favored those aggressions and even engineered them to some degree were motivated by two things--a strong sense of nationalism and patriotism centered on the federal government, which was weaker and sometimes entirely lacking during the first generation of American independence,  and (on the part of many Southerners) a desire to open up new territories for the extension of slavery.  And we know where the second motivation eventually ended up leading to.

The equation boils down to this: overly strong governments and strong militaries go hand in hand.  The Founders were content to forego the strong military in order to keep the strong government at bay. See Velimir's quotes from Madison.  The Republican Party today essentially wants to have its cake and eat it to, or square the circle or whatever other metaphor for doing two mutually exclusive things might be your favorite..

Todd

Quote from: Velimir on December 07, 2011, 07:26:49 AMWell there's this for example: "He's [Saddam] had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" - Dick Cheney

These speeches by Adams and Washington are not part of the Constitution or any body of law, so I don't think the analogy holds. They're just good advice. In particular, note the prophetic accuracy of Adams' warnings about getting involved in other countries' struggles for independence, and Washington's warnings against "entangling alliances." As general principles, they hold up remarkably well.



I wonder if Cheney's quote specifically means that they "believed" Iraq had functional nukes, or merely reconstituted the program to build nukes.  If they actually believed Iraq had nukes (which I very seriously doubt, to put it mildly), it would mean that the US invaded or would invade a nuclear country (which I also very seriously doubt).  I'm actually quite interested in knowing what "reconstituted nuclear weapons" even means.  They dismantled and then rebuilt the bombs?  Of course not.  It was said to bring up the frightful idea of a nuclear Iraq, which didn't exist, which is why the broader term "WMD" was so widely used, along with reliance on the fact that Mr Hussein had used said weapons before.  Not necessarily a reason to invade, of course, but a historical convenience.

The point in comparing early presidential statements to the Constitution is to point out how revering either has severe shortcomings, and overlooks inconvenient facts.  The long quote from Madison looks nice, I suppose, but it is important to remember that expansion westward happened even under such a wise man.  (Though to Madison's credit, if credit you want to call it, he was a weak war president.)  I suppose one could state that Madison's analysis is "correct," whatever that means, but had they and the ideas of Washington and Adams II been adhered to, the US would almost certainly be a smaller, weaker, and poorer nation.  Following such principles, it is hard to see how there would have been a Mexican War, a Spanish American War, a Panama Canal (possible only by fomenting "independence" for another country, but then maybe the French would have tried again), engagement in either World War, meddling in Central and South America, meddling in the Middle East, etc.  Some of these, or maybe even all of these things, may sound nice. 




Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 07, 2011, 06:32:50 PM
The aggressions against the Native Americans and the Mexicans were mentioned.  But it should be pointed out that the section of American politics that favored those aggressions and even engineered them to some degree were motivated by two things--a strong sense of nationalism and patriotism centered on the federal government, which was weaker and sometimes entirely lacking during the first generation of American independence,  and (on the part of many Southerners) a desire to open up new territories for the extension of slavery.  And we know where the second motivation eventually ended up leading to.


I'm not quite sure I can agree with the first part of this.  (Expansion of slavery is different, and it is only by luck, it seems, that the US didn't take over the Caribbean.)  The wars against the Indians continued essentially unabated for decades under every political party of the 19th Century, irrespective of the parties' ostensible political principles.  Some political leaders offered apologies, others excuses, but the results were the same.  The Mexican War and annexation of the Oregon Territory came during the most Jacksonian of administrations other than Andrew Jackson's.  Expansion and aggression has characterized US foreign policy from day one.  Pretty words have been held up as an ideal; uglier actions have been the reality.  The thing is, some of those uglier actions have ended up being very, very good for the US as a whole.  I'm not sure adhering to pretty words and their accompanying policies would have resulted in a better situation for the US, nor do I think they necessarily would do so going forward. 
The universe is change; life is opinion. - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

People would rather believe than know - E.O. Wilson

Propaganda death ensemble - Tom Araya

drogulus

     Putin has just accused Clinton of sponsoring the demonstrations against the Russian government for election fraud. This is probably false, but it's interesting to see that such a clever politician is no better than an Arab despot at blaming his troubles on "outside agitators".

     I don't think the Obama administration wants more wars. This isn't anything unique to Obama, I just think we're stretched to the limit, and no administration will be eager to pursue monsters. A year or so ago I predicted that we (U.S. and Israel) would strike Iran to destroy or delay their nuclear program. It looks like we chose a different way, at least in the short run. This is probably the right course. It's clear that we're trying to avoid war with Iran, but not at the cost of letting them have the bomb. That we can't do, so it's covert action instead. Maybe we can wait them out, while their own people figure out how to get rid of them. That's preferable to all-out war.

    Oh , one consequence of avoiding entangling alliances is that we were free to attack Mexico, and because the Indian tribes were no longer in alliance with the French or English after the revolution (and the Louisiana Purchase) they were not entangled in alliances that might have protected them. Could it be that what we really wanted was freedom of action on the continent, free of interference from the European powers? You know, like the Monroe Doctrine?

     
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Todd

Quote from: drogulus on December 08, 2011, 01:19:49 PMThis isn't anything unique to Obama, I just think we're stretched to the limit, and no administration will be eager to pursue monsters.


Yet the Obama administration is stationing troops in northern Australia and opening relations with Burma specifically to fend off a dragon.  These are policies I completely support, mind you. 




Quote from: drogulus on December 08, 2011, 01:19:49 PMIt's clear that we're trying to avoid war with Iran, but not at the cost of letting them have the bomb.



Instead they can have a stealth drone, or at least a mocked up model of one.
The universe is change; life is opinion. - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

People would rather believe than know - E.O. Wilson

Propaganda death ensemble - Tom Araya

drogulus

Quote from: Todd on December 08, 2011, 01:33:55 PM

Yet the Obama administration is stationing troops in northern Australia and opening relations with Burma specifically to fend off a dragon.  These are policies I completely support, mind you. 



     They're doing more with less, including less bombast. Pretty smart, I'd say.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

drogulus


     Are we going back to the era of TR and "speak softly and carry a big stick"? Not exactly. At the turn of the last century we were a rising power, and now it appears we're in relative decline and looking to hand off responsibilities to rising powers that understand what this means. This depends on what powers are rising and what their intentions are. Probably it will be a loose coalition of regional powers including India, Japan, S. Korea and perhaps (one hopes) Indonesia. As for China, they could go either way. Rising powers either find a role in the system or challenge it, are defeated and then find a role. What will China do? No one knows, not even the Chinese. It looks like they are preparing for whatever opportunity comes their way.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Florestan

Quote from: Todd on December 08, 2011, 12:19:07 PM
Expansion and aggression has characterized US foreign policy from day one.  Pretty words have been held up as an ideal; uglier actions have been the reality. 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hassan Nasrallah said that many times and were labelled anti-American.  :).

Quote from: drogulus on December 08, 2011, 01:19:49 PM
     we (U.S. and Israel)     

Ditto.  :)
Every kind of music is good, except the boring kind. — Rossini

Todd

Quote from: Florestan on December 08, 2011, 11:38:56 PMMahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hassan Nasrallah said that many times and were labelled anti-American.



Making statements about the history of US foreign policy is not the only reason they are called anti-American.


The universe is change; life is opinion. - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

People would rather believe than know - E.O. Wilson

Propaganda death ensemble - Tom Araya

kishnevi

Quote from: Todd on December 09, 2011, 06:32:04 AM


Making statements about the history of US foreign policy is not the only reason they are called anti-American.

Yes, but there is a certain portion of the American conservative movement who seem to think that voicing even valid criticism of the US is a sign of anti-Americanism.  Because if you really supported the US, you wouldn't want the US to look bad, or something like that.  This is the same group that labels Obama's rational treatment of other countries as an "apology tour".

Of course, on the left there is an equally reflexive "America is always wrong" meme, but it held better in check.

Karl Henning

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 09, 2011, 07:55:21 AM
Yes, but there is a certain portion of the American conservative movement who seem to think that voicing even valid criticism of the US is a sign of anti-Americanism.  Because if you really supported the US, you wouldn't want the US to look bad, or something like that.  This is the same group that labels Obama's rational treatment of other countries as an "apology tour".

Of course, on the left there is an equally reflexive "America is always wrong" meme, but it held better in check.

QFT
Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston MA
http://www.karlhenning.com/
[Matisse] was interested neither in fending off opposition,
nor in competing for the favor of wayward friends.
His only competition was with himself. — Françoise Gilot

Todd

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on December 09, 2011, 07:55:21 AMYes, but there is a certain portion of the American conservative movement who seem to think that voicing even valid criticism of the US is a sign of anti-Americanism.



True enough.  Ultimately, such puffery is not particularly important.
The universe is change; life is opinion. - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

People would rather believe than know - E.O. Wilson

Propaganda death ensemble - Tom Araya

drogulus

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0