Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Karl Henning]

Snap polls for the third presidential debate

[Karl Henning]

China wants one, too.

[Todd]

"The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back" is a great comedic line, and it's getting recognition even though Obama delivered it in maybe the least funny way possible.

I took a look at the transcript for this line:

Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida's a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years.

Obviously a rehearsed line, and a disingenuous one.  Perhaps Russia is not the biggest geopolitical threat facing America.  To the extent there is a single largest geopolitical threat facing America, it is China, not al-Qaida.  Even Obama is pivoting toward Asia.  But beyond that, perhaps Obama, his advisors, or his supporters on this forum can explain to me, if Russia poses no threat to the US, why the US still maintains 70,000 troops in Germany, still belongs to NATO with an eye to expanding it farther east, and is building up a missile shield in Eastern Europe.  Does anyone really believe the shield is intended to stop Iranian missiles?  The Russians do not seem to think so.  Perhaps Obama and his fans can explain how al-Qaida stifles UN Security Council measures, presents a logistical challenge in operating supply routes in Central Asia, uses energy resources as political weapons against US allies, supplies weapons to the currently most murderous regime on earth, and possesses a nuclear arsenal of not a little significance.  From a geopolitical standpoint, al-Qaida seems like something of an also-ran when compared to Russia and China. 

[mc ukrneal]

I took a look at the transcript for this line:

Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that al-Qaida's a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al-Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years.

Obviously a rehearsed line, and a disingenuous one.  Perhaps Russia is not the biggest geopolitical threat facing America.  To the extent there is a single largest geopolitical threat facing America, it is China, not al-Qaida.  Even Obama is pivoting toward Asia.  But beyond that, perhaps Obama, his advisors, or his supporters on this forum can explain to me, if Russia poses no threat to the US, why the US still maintains 70,000 troops in Germany, still belongs to NATO with an eye to expanding it farther east, and is building up a missile shield in Eastern Europe.  Does anyone really believe the shield is intended to stop Iranian missiles?  The Russians do not seem to think so.  Perhaps Obama and his fans can explain how al-Qaida stifles UN Security Council measures, presents a logistical challenge in operating supply routes in Central Asia, uses energy resources as political weapons against US allies, supplies weapons to the currently most murderous regime on earth, and possesses a nuclear arsenal of not a little significance.  From a geopolitical standpoint, al-Qaida seems like something of an also-ran when compared to Russia and China. 

Now who's being disingenuous? Russia doesn't not pose a threat, but neither should it be the focus of our foreign policy (as it used to be). In my opinion, neither candidate really understands Russia (or China for that matter). Russia generally respects strength, and in this regard GOP policy might actually yield more results in the end. But there does not seem to be any real strategy on Russia (despite so called resets). Let's forget the past and start fresh doesn't work unless both sides do it. In this Obama was completely unrealistic. One hopes he's learned his lesson if he wins re-election.

[Karl Henning]

When Romney rehearsed his sabre-rattling, he gave Putin a good laugh.  He must have been hoping that Obama didn't bring that back up.

[Todd]

Now who's being disingenuous?

Well, the President himself seems to think, based on public statements, that al-Qaida is the number one geopolitical threat to the United States.  I contend that, given the capabilities and policies of Russia and China, that they pose greater geopolitical challenges than al-Qaida.  They will be around longer, too, at least in meaningful form.  And at least one of those countries has the capability of physically destroying the United States.  Unless something has changed recently, al-Qaida does not. 

Instead of stating "if Russia poses no threat" I should have written "if Russia poses a smaller threat than al-Qaida."  Now that wording is more ingenuous, perhaps someone can explain how al-Qaida is a more significant geopolitical threat (or challenge, if you prefer) than Russia.

I do agree that Russia should not be the focus of US foreign policy; rather, it must be one of several foci.  And it should be discussed more seriously by Presidents and presidential candidates. 

[mc ukrneal]

Well, the President himself seems to think, based on public statements, that al-Qaida is the number one geopolitical threat to the United States.  I contend that, given the capabilities and policies of Russia and China, that they pose greater geopolitical challenges than al-Qaida.  They will be around longer, too, at least in meaningful form.  And at least one of those countries has the capability of physically destroying the United States.  Unless something has changed recently, al-Qaida does not. 

Instead of stating "if Russia poses no threat" I should have written "if Russia poses a smaller threat than al-Qaida."  Now that wording is more ingenuous, perhaps someone can explain how al-Qaida is a more significant geopolitical threat (or challenge, if you prefer) than Russia.

I do agree that Russia should not be the focus of US foreign policy; rather, it must be one of several foci.  And it should be discussed more seriously by Presidents and presidential candidates. 

That makes sense. But as to disussing it seriously, you first have to understand. I always feel like they are the doctor and we are the patient and they are prescribing drugs not understanding if the patient really needs them or how the drugs will work. The last President I thought had a clue on any of this was Bush Sr. - he seemed to better understand. They also don't discuss consequences. It sounds good to say we will call China a currency manipulator, but they never seem to find time to discuss the negative consequences of that (and there will be). Of course, it could be the usual hot election air, but there is a vocal element of the GOP that would like to follow through.

[kishnevi]

Well, the President himself seems to think, based on public statements, that al-Qaida is the number one geopolitical threat to the United States.  I contend that, given the capabilities and policies of Russia and China, that they pose greater geopolitical challenges than al-Qaida.  They will be around longer, too, at least in meaningful form.  And at least one of those countries has the capability of physically destroying the United States.  Unless something has changed recently, al-Qaida does not. 

Instead of stating "if Russia poses no threat" I should have written "if Russia poses a smaller threat than al-Qaida."  Now that wording is more ingenuous, perhaps someone can explain how al-Qaida is a more significant geopolitical threat (or challenge, if you prefer) than Russia.

I do agree that Russia should not be the focus of US foreign policy; rather, it must be one of several foci.  And it should be discussed more seriously by Presidents and presidential candidates.

It's hard to think of anything that could not be discussed more seriously by presidential candidates. 

alQaida and the Islamic extremism it represents are more important because 1)it does not have clear and limited goals  2)is a severely destabilizing factor in several areas of the world in which the US must be interested, for one reason or another. 3)unlike Russia, they would not think of a nukes as something to be used as a last resort; instead they would treat them as just another weapon if they got their hands on some.

Russia and China on the other hand both have clear and limited  goals for the short term and long term, and many of them don't directly conflict with US interests.  We could probably live with a China that dominates Southeast and East Asia, and a Russia that dominates the ex-Soviet countries and even dominates much or all of Europe.   They might even be of use--China in keeping North Korea in line,  Russia in contending with the jihadis and Iran, since their interests would eventually be parallel to ours. 

Jihadis in control of a substantial portion of the Middle East or Southwestern/South Central Asia, however, would be much harder to live with, and extremely dangerous once they got their hand on nuclear weapons.

ETA: here's a metaphor in terms of human health.  Russia and China are serious chronic illnesses; the jihadis are cancer.  You don't ignore the chronic illnesses, but it's the cancer which you treat aggressively and which you are not satisfied with simply maintaining at a manageable level.

[Todd]

The last President I thought had a clue on any of this was Bush Sr.

I completely agree.  Bush Sr was the best foreign policy President post-Eisenhower. 

Of course, it could be the usual hot election air, but there is a vocal element of the GOP that would like to follow through.

It's definitely hot air, and the reality is that foreign policy isn't going to change a great deal no matter who is elected.  The US will still leave Afghanistan; drones will continue to be used throughout Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia; the US will still have to deal with Iran in some fashion; the US will still continue to pry open Myanmar and improve relations and form treaties with other nations in Asia; the missile shield will still be deployed, and will still be one of the biggest cash sinkholes in human history; and the Pacific Fleet will still be in place.

[Todd]

al-Qaida and the Islamic extremism it represents are more important because 1) it does not have clear and limited goals  2) is a severely destabilizing factor in several areas of the world in which the US must be interested, for one reason or another. 3) unlike Russia, they would not think of a nukes as something to be used as a last resort; instead they would treat them as just another weapon if they got their hands on some.

Suffice it to say, I disagree.  On item 1, there are indeed multiple goals for al-Qaida and other Islamic groups, and that can be used against them.  Divide and conquer, and all that.  It's obviously not that easy, but fractured groups can be used by outside parties.  On item 2, they are destabilizing, but they are also weaker than they were, and the US must weigh costs and benefits of involvement in any particular squabble or nation.  Instability in Country X may or may not warrant direct US involvement.  For instance, the US has lived with murder on a horrifying scale in Central Africa for decades, but as long as Nigeria pumps out oil to the west, it's fine.  On item 3, I'm not sure how probable it is that an Islamic group will get a nuke.  Iran may, but I freely confess that I'm one of the people who can live with that.  In other countries, above all Pakistan, the US should work with whatever forces can prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, including unsavory military dictator types.  It is worth noting in all of this that the US must deal with the actions of Russia and China, as they have their own interests, and I'm not convinced that Russia's interests in the region will ever be in alignment with ours.  And again, Russia and China have military capabilities that Islamic states and "organizations" do not.  That is why great powers remain more important.  We are in the midst of a new Great Game, and one of the players is the same.

As to Russia dominating former Soviet countries, well, in some cases they do.  Belarus and Ukraine come to mind.  The US should raise a stink here and there on this or that human rights issue, etc, but ultimately those countries will be dominated by Russia and US blood and treasure ought not to be expended in trying to stop it.  China will become ever more influential in East Asia, and the slow but steady rise of Yuan usage in the region attests to that.  Fine by me.  The trick is to know when to try to hem it in, and when it is important to act militarily.  Ideally, it would be never; avoidance of symmetric warfare (ie, great power warfare) should be the paramount goal of US foreign policy.

[Florestan]

We could probably live with a China that dominates Southeast and East Asia, and a Russia that dominates the ex-Soviet countries and even dominates much or all of Europe.   

Oh I'm sure you could, as you in fact did for 50 years. The problem is that much or all of Europe could not --- and would not.

You see, it is exactly this kind of imperial cynicism that turn people who are otherwise normal in every respect into fierce anti-Americans. Continue like that and you'll see even your friends turning their back to you. 

[Todd]

Continue like that and you'll see even your friends turning their back to you.

Time to borrow from Palmerston: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

[Florestan]

Time to borrow from Palmerston: We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

I know, I know.... but this is also valid for Iran, China, Russia, Al-Qaeda, Pakistan, Syria and every other country / organization in the world --- and also the surest way to ensure eternal and perpetual conflicts. 

(I hasten to add that I am one of those friends of the US --- my criticizing some aspects of US politics and policies notwithstanding --- I was alluding to in my previous post and I sincerely  hope not to live the day I would be really forced to turn my back on US...  )

EDIT: And besides, who is this "we" Palmerston talked about? The British Liberal Party? The British Government? The British People? The British Empire? Who?

[mc ukrneal]

I know, I know.... but this is also valid for Iran, China, Russia, Al-Qaeda, Pakistan, Syria and every other country / organization in the world --- and also the surest way to ensure eternal and perpetual conflicts. 

(I hasten to add that I am one of those friends of the US --- my criticizing some aspects of US politics and policies notwithstanding --- I was alluding to in my previous post and I sincerely  hope not to live the day I would be really forced to turn my back on US...  )

EDIT: And besides, who is this "we" Palmerston talked about? The British Liberal Party? The British Government? The British People? The British Empire? Who?

Who's on first! (Sorry, just could not resist a joke that is probably obscure to non-Americans and even some Americans - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8bc_vdH0E)

[Florestan]

Who's on first! (Sorry, just could not resist a joke that is probably obscure to non-Americans and even some Americans - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8bc_vdH0E)

You wrote "Sorry, just could not resist", thus implying I could somehow object to your post. Since I am non-American, could you please enlighten me as to its meaning? 

[mc ukrneal]

You wrote "Sorry, just could not resist", thus implying I could somehow object to your post. Since I am non-American, could you please enlighten me as to its meaning? 

Can you watch the link - explanation is there.

[Florestan]

Can you watch the link - explanation is there.

Oh ok, I will, just have no time right now. 

[mc ukrneal]

Oh ok, I will, just have no time right now. 

It's one of my favorite comedy bits of all time.

[Todd]

And besides, who is this "we" Palmerston talked about? The British Liberal Party? The British Government? The British People? The British Empire? Who?

Who cares?  I borrowed the phrase to describe the US. 

As for realism in international affairs being the gateway to permanent warfare, the US is in a state of permanent warfare right now, just on a low level, largely outside the view of the public.  Hell, even the Washington Post started a three-parter on it just yesterday - the US just can't get enough remote control killing via drones.  And the military is funding research into autonomous weapons systems as I scribble.  And then of course there is Afghanistan, not to mention troop deployments in what, 150 countries?  The US needs to pull back from permanent warfare, reduce its commitments in certain parts of the world (read: Europe), redeploy reduced resources to where they matter more (read: East Asia), pay increased lip service to international bodies (read: the UN and ICC, without actually joining the latter), and generally talk a lot and kill a little.

[Brian]

So is everybody super-duper excited for Donald Trump's big announcement in a half-hour?!??!?!? I can barely sit down!