Teach me - Should the USA rethink our stance?

[coltrainSTL]

The answer is very simple. Damned if you do,damned if you don't. You may not like this cynical view, but that's the way it is and the way it will always be.

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to the start of the war in Iraq, everything regarding the implementation of the democratization of a Middle-Eastern country was published and on record. Further, Paul Wolfowitz was interviewed during the run up to war and admitted that the administration was focusing on WMDs, because WMD's were a better rallying point than a complicated foreign policy paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I was just talking to my dad today, and while he was working for Exxon in 1999, he was chatting up some people in Iran in the hopes that USA would soon allow Exxon to do business there. He went to Washington to make sure what they were doing was ok, and some guy suggested he shouldn't bother with Iran and focus on Iraq instead, as USA was planning a regime change in Iraq

[ArturiusX]

This is so much more complicated than people realise. Iraq has never produced a terrorist, and only very loosely ever sponsored terrorism. Even so, taking Iraq was critical in winning the war on terror. Why? To explain would take too long, but there are some good books on the subject.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've always been one of those people that believed in what the US typically does. You know a country has a problem and we all the sudden send 1k-500k troops.

I hear a lot of people say that we, as in the US armed forces, should stay out of other places. Their feelings are that other countries should be able to fix their own problems. Another argument on their side is that our country needs all the attention that we're giving other countries.

While this makes sense from one point of view the other has always been that if we don't help then people like Sadaam will take over and eventually get so big that they're a huge threat to us.

My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen? Like for example if we didn't go to Kuwait in 1990 to force Sadaam back to Iraq what do they think or what would they have hoped happen?

My line of thinking has always been if we don't stop them when they're small then they can become so big we wouldn't be able to stand up to them ourselves.

I'm don't want this to become a thread where people bash back and forth. I'm would like to become educated on this subject so maybe I'll have a better understanding of their beliefs and change my line of thinking.

What I was really hoping is that some people who really didn't like the way we do it to carry me through their thought process and let me know how they THINK it would be if the US did it their way.

Anyway I hope that I've made sense of what I'm really trying to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking a huge, complicated, open-ended question. I don't think you're going to get any fully satisfying answers. But, one thing is for sure, just because your country's elected government chooses a particular course of action, and that course of action is supported by a majority of the population, does not make that particular course of action right.

Regarding the war in the Middle-East, the Left will tell you that the war is about oil. The Right will tell you that the war is about terror, freedom and democracy. They are both right and they are both FOS.

Very simply, if there was no oil in the Middle-East, than it would simply be another Africa. Just like we are not in Africa, we would not be in the Middle-East.

For a president who had no foreign policy and few issues to focus on, 9/11 provided a Mount Rushmore moment (historically, the greatness of a president is determined by the events that occur during their presidency). For his foreign policy wonks (Cheney, Wolfowitz et al) 9/11 was the golden opportunity to advance a preexisting agenda that had been offered to, and refused by, the two preceding presidents.

Essentially the policy was based on the post WWII success of Germany and Japan. Democratize a Middle-Eastern country and, like moths to a flame, all the other countries will be drawn to the shining beacon of light and hope that would be their newly democratic, neighbor.

This concept is eerily reminiscent of LBJ's culturally flawed thought process regarding the North Vietnamese. Which basically centered around LBJ thinking he could just " set right down with old HO and work out a deal to solve this little old dispute among neighbors".

The thought process behind Middle-Eastern policy is, at minimum, more culturally flawed, and IMO, not very likely to work in any short-term (<8-years) time-frame. Further, the commitment required of a unilaterally acting US exceeds the available resources of men, material and money. Finally, the US public does not possess the will to fight a long-term foreign war of democratization.

Few people know that during WWII the US was precipitously close to financial collapse and that there was a strong under-current of desire to prematurely end the war.

With all of that said, we as a country and as a world, need access to oil that is stable, economical and reliable. Until there is an alternative source, we can not afford, on any level, to be forced into a potentially, devastating oil crisis.

On a final note, any US citizen who thinks that they were lied to or duped into supporting the war is either a liar or ignorant.

Prior to the start of the war in Iraq, everything regarding the implementation of the democratization of a Middle-Eastern country was published and on record. Further, Paul Wolfowitz was interviewed during the run up to war and admitted that the administration was focusing on WMDs, because WMD's were a better rallying point than a complicated foreign policy paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome post BPA. This post really clarifies both sides of the main issues and I think it's important to note how both political parties are fatally wrong when choosing to address only one portion. (I.e., Republicans should acknowledge their were some economic motivations behind the war, and Democrats should acknowledge there were security and ideological motivations as well)

What is an interesting question to ask is whether the confluence of these issues is accidental. Is it just an accident of history that the world's security issues are intimately tied to its economic ones? Did and does terrorism and authoritarianism arise because of economic incentives to do so? A very gross survey seems to show that countries that export valuable natural commodities seem possess these maladaptive governments. Why?

[Jeffmet3]

Just so you know, no one who will makes any real decisions in washington believes that the US shouldn't ever intervene in other countries when necessary.

Isolationism to "take care of problems in the US" is a myth that far out members of the left can preach all they want, but it's not going to happen.

Basically, the foreign policy in America will shift between what it was under Clinton and what it is under Bush.

In simplistic form, they are to see a problem and then react or to anticipate a problem and act.

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton worked on the first strategy throughout the 90's, and then the Bush administration has worked with the second.

They both have flaws, with the Clinton one not doing enough, and the Bush one too much, and we'll have to see how the next administration walks the line in between.

But the reality is that in almost all cases, the actions taken would be similar under either party.

[Hoi Polloi]

I think there are some basic misconceptions in your understanding of the history and rationale of US foreign policy.

[ QUOTE ]
You know a country has a problem and we all the sudden send 1k-500k troops.

[/ QUOTE ]
Example of all of a sudden sending 100k troops somewhere? PG1 is maybe the only example of this and certainly that would require a fairly broad definition of "all of a sudden", wouldn't it? 100k+ and all of a sudden don't really go together.

[ QUOTE ]
I hear a lot of people say that we, as in the US armed forces, should stay out of other places. Their feelings are that other countries should be able to fix their own problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
When are the 100k getting to Darfur? Which brings up the question of which battles does the US choose to fight and why? Do we really care if Saddam is a bad guy if he's not a bad guy sitting on all that oil?

[ QUOTE ]
My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]
How would you respond to the assertion that the US only fights battles that it understands as directly impacting its own interests?

You cannot point to Iraq as evidence that our fights are choosen altruistly if you cannot answer why we haven't invaded Darfur, IMO.

In short, it is naive and inappropriate to base this inquiry in the form of "is the US always on the side of the angels or not?" How could we be? There is never a simple good/bad dicotomy in political/social/economic matters. It is always a question of competing interests. We do good, we do bad; we're an actor on the world stage, and an important one, but nothing guarantees that our interests or our actions are aligned with truth and justice. In fact, how could they always be so?

For example, we overthrew popularly elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile (more of an assist) and supported the murderous, repressive regimes that replaced them. Are you aware of these events?

But, seriously, read a book or three about the history of US foreign policy. It's somewhat complicated for a forum post.

[ArturiusX]

I had a few people PM me about what I said, so just read this article first, if you still have questions ask me:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/sefd0/...fal19may03.htm

[Dr. Zoidberg]

[ QUOTE ]


Isolationism to "take care of problems in the US" is a myth that far out members of the left can preach all they want, but it's not going to happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really?

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are some basic misconceptions in your understanding of the history and rationale of US foreign policy.

[ QUOTE ]
You know a country has a problem and we all the sudden send 1k-500k troops.

[/ QUOTE ]
Example of all of a sudden sending 100k troops somewhere? PG1 is maybe the only example of this and certainly that would require a fairly broad definition of "all of a sudden", wouldn't it? 100k+ and all of a sudden don't really go together.

[ QUOTE ]
I hear a lot of people say that we, as in the US armed forces, should stay out of other places. Their feelings are that other countries should be able to fix their own problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
When are the 100k getting to Darfur? Which brings up the question of which battles does the US choose to fight and why? Do we really care if Saddam is a bad guy if he's not a bad guy sitting on all that oil?

[ QUOTE ]
My question is if we were a country that never fought other peoples battles what do they think would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]
How would you respond to the assertion that the US only fights battles that it understands as directly impacting its own interests?

You cannot point to Iraq as evidence that our fights are choosen altruistly if you cannot answer why we haven't invaded Darfur, IMO.

In short, it is naive and inappropriate to base this inquiry in the form of "is the US always on the side of the angels or not?" How could we be? There is never a simple good/bad dicotomy in political/social/economic matters. It is always a question of competing interests. We do good, we do bad; we're an actor on the world stage, and an important one, but nothing guarantees that our interests or our actions are aligned with truth and justice. In fact, how could they always be so?

For example, we overthrew popularly elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile (more of an assist) and supported the murderous, repressive regimes that replaced them. Are you aware of these events?

But, seriously, read a book or three about the history of US foreign policy. It's somewhat complicated for a forum post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt anything you say here. I don't know but it sure sounds like you know a lot more about our foregin policy than I do.

I should pick up a few books. But not just about our foreign policies.

I still wish I could get my point across better. I'm sure it's just a lack of my ability to express myself.

What I'm still trying to find out is for the people out there that suggest a military presence isn't the answer then what is?

Is it to put financial struggles on the country, Maybe an oil embargo? Hoping to break their will and get them to conform to what we deem as proper?

Oh, I do realize that many/most of the times the USA goes in and uses force it's as much for our gain as it is the people we're going in to help. I don't like it and I wish the USA would help people even if they don't have oil or something of value.

[Jeffmet3]

[ QUOTE ]

What I'm still trying to find out is for the people out there that suggest a military presence isn't the answer then what is?

Is it to put financial struggles on the country, Maybe an oil embargo? Hoping to break their will and get them to conform to what we deem as proper?

Oh, I do realize that many/most of the times the USA goes in and uses force it's as much for our gain as it is the people we're going in to help. I don't like it and I wish the USA would help people even if they don't have oil or something of value.

[/ QUOTE ]

3 things.

1) Embargos don't work. Don't listen to what you see on TV. They never have and they never will. The simple reason is that creating an embargo just makes it much more financially rewarding for other people to break it. So all an embargo by the US does is put money into the pockets of France or China or Russia who don't care.

And an oil embargo would never happen. All that would do is jack up prices for Americans while not hurt whoever you want to boycott.

2) Unfortunately, nothing can take the place of sending troops in. While it's waning, the US is still a hegemonic state and thus this is what has to be done.

3) You're 3rd point contradicts yourself. You don't want to send in the military to help in places where it affects American interests, but you do want to send it in places where they're not affected? The US gives more money than any in the world (by a large margin) in charity to poorer countries to help them. But, when it comes to sending in troops, Zimbabwe is not up there with Iraq. Plus, if troops were sent in, there would be 1 million people marching on washington complaining that the US has no business going into another country. Creating a fair democratic, capitalist country is an American "agenda."


Overall, I find it dissapointing how many people get sucked into this belief that America is "bad."