Issues 2004 - Foriegn Policy

Jeff is killing me with the frequency of his Issues 2004 posts. I told him I'd try to keep up with him. But I've got a day job and the no child left behind due to blogging act is still in force in my family.

But I also can't let myself get more than a couple posts behind Jeff or I am toast.

So with that said, here goes my take on foriegn policy, in response to Jeff's excellent post on the same topic.

The US is the sole superpower in the world today. I do not believe we will hold that position for very long, though. I think China will catch us and probably surpass us in either my lifetime or my kid's lifetime.

So acting like the king of the world isn't too smart. It pisses people off.

We need to be willing to live with reality that the rest of the world won't always see things the way we do. In that case, we have two choices; do what we want and not worry about the impact or work with the rest of the world to get them to see things our way. I prefer the latter. I do not agree with Jeff when he says, "we cannot set that as the standard or else we find ourselves hostage to the French et al."

I think the Bush's doctrine of preemption is extremely dangerous and it is the primary reason that I feel very vulnerable with him as the leader of our country. This doctrine is based on unilateralism and U.S. international military dominance. I already stated that the former isn't my prefered way to operate and the latter isn't something that will always be the case. We may have the technological and economic advantage for now, but just go visit China and you'll realize that these advantages are not going to last forever.

For these reasons, I want the US to be a consultative leader. It's true that terrorism is a scourge in our world and we need to fight it. It's true that weapons of mass destruction are more available than ever and are in the hands of bad people (unfortunately its Kim Chong-il, not Sadaam that has them). It's true that there are lots of tyrants opressing their people. It's true that there's genocide going on in the world today. And it's true that the middle east remains a very volatile place.

Our role needs to be the leader in a world wide effort to deal with these problems.

Our role should not be to solve them all unilaterally.

The former approach (consultative leader) is frustrating in the short term but endears us to the rest of the world. It's democracy on a world scale.

The latter (preemptive unilateralist) is satisfying in the short run but ultimately ineffective (look at what's really going on in Iraq) and also extremely dangerous.

So that's my world view. Now on to Jeff's three ending statments and my responses, marked with >>

1. We must support the growth and strength of democracy.
>> Yes. But only with the aid of our democratic partners. We can't be the democracy police. It gives democracy a bad name in the world when its forced unilaterally on people.

2. We must protect our citizens.
>> Absolutely. A strong defense of our country is the primary reason that the american public support the enormous amount of money we invest in "defense" spending. When we use these resources offensively, it puts us at more risk, not less. The "best defense is a strong offense" approach may work in football, but not in foriegn policy. It didn't work for Hitler, Napoleon, The Romans, The Greeks, and it won't work for us either.

3. We must respond to human suffering under tyrannical regimes.
>> Maybe. But as Jeff correctly points out, "Who plays God? Who's the devil? Which tyrants do you choose to take out? Shouldn't we liberate North Korea? Shouldn't we be shuttling to Africa when wars and tragedy break out? Is Saudi Arabia oppressive enough to liberate? And isn't there a danger -- a history -- of using this doctrine not to liberate but to overturn for political convenience?"

I realize that I am going to get slammed by Hector, Hey, and a host others for my "weak, soft, pathetic, stupid, idiotic" views on foriegn policy. I don't really care. Because I know I am right on this one.

Comments

[Tony Alva]

Nothing you've noted shocks anybody who reads your blog, and it's probably not worth trying to convince you otherwise of how wrong you are especially with regard to supporting the growth and strength of democracy and our involvement in ending tyrannical regimes. I'll let those more eloquent than I have at that. I say this without anger, resentment, or animosity and with the utmost respect.

The only assessment I will offer is that, like most liberal minds, you base your positions on the flawed premise that the rest of the non-free world thinks like the people of the free world do. You cannot explain to any die-hard communist or religious zealot the concept of democracy and a truly free secular society. They will either not grasp the concept, or find it completely contemptible. Once you truly understand this, many of your beliefs begin to fall apart. As an example, the fundamentalist Muslim world will NEVER just let the free world live our secular lives without threat from them even if the United States COMPLETELY pulled out of every interest we had in the Middle East and paid them reparations for whatever damage they'd claim we've done. There is no peaceful parallel world that we could create. If there was, we'd do it in a heartbeat.

I'm no Republican and I'm no Democrat. I consider myself simply an American realist. Your positions remind me of the scene in that bad Will Smith movie “Independence Day” where the “Liberals” were running up to the rooftop to greet the friendly aliens against all warnings to the contrary only to end up the first to be vaporized.

We want everybody to be as rational as we are, but sadly, it’s just not the reality.

Your Friend,

Tony Alva

[Hector]

Excellent post. Your thoughts on China are spot-on.

This post reminds me of a story. Where I grew up, a popular rule of thumb was that if a rival gang invited you to a rumble, you don't show up with just one person. Similar to your Iraq analogy, it would be nice to have more people in our gang, but it's not mandatory. We basically kicked the other gang's ass with minimal real support (though with plenty of nominal support) so there's a good chance that for our next rumble, there will be others that want to join in the fun. We went to this rumble more or less alone because the other gang was showing us no respect and because it had been a few years since we really kicked anyone's ass, and it's important for our gang to remind everyone we're bad asses from time to time. And it also gives our gang something to focus on. Yeah, we're not perfect, but the other gang is worse and if they had their druthers, they'd kill us all.

Liberals hate Bush's foreign policy because they effectively a) don't believe in rumbles, b) think the other gang is just a bunch of misunderstood, neglected people, c) think that we can solve anything by talking it out with the other gang, and d) think that whatever disputes we have with the other gang need to be mediated by a "gang council", with one representative from each gang deciding how to resolve a dispute. Sort of like in "The Warriors". Except most of the gangs, if you remember, were criminals! Yeah! And guess what? So are the leadership of China and Russia! And the French and the German leadership are implicated in the oil-for-food scandal! And Syria runs the UN Commission on Human Rights! In fact, the UN is riddled with non-democratic, corrupt regimes that are morally as suspect as the gang council in the movie. Fred's pal Bill Clinton loved putting US troops under UN command and if he could, would put all our troops under UN command one day.

Fortunately, this Administration is neither that stupid nor that corrupt. The U.S. is a benign superpower, a reluctant empire, and among nation-states the greatest (net) force for good on the planet bar none. I challenge anyone to demonstrate a greater force for good among nation-states. Oh and Jackson: you can't use Cuba or Yemen as examples!

[Tony Alva]

Update: Car bomb explodes in Iraq killing many Iraqi children.

Do you beleive that the perpetrators of this crime have ANYTHING to say that would convince you that what they have done to their OWN kin is somehow justifiable? Do you think you or some other diplomat could sit down and broker peace with them, or simple coexistance? Or, assuming you wearn't killed by the mere fact that you showed up, would the minds of these barbarians suddenly change just as soon as complete disengagement was worked out? They'd just find someone else to kill with their car bombs, and most likely it would be peoples of the free world. We need to win this WAR. It's too late to "talk" to them.

[jackson]

Tony, I think you miss Fred's point. He's not saying, in fact nobody's saying let's NOT wipe this scourge off the face of the earth. I'm all behind kicking the ass of terror. The point is, it's too costly and unwise to go it alone. As I've said before, this is every free nations fight, and we need to use what leverage we do have left to convince, coerce, or even extort these 'allies' into getting behind the program. Disengagement isn't an option, we know that.
It seems Hector doesn't understand how UN forces work. Who do you think commands UN forces Hector-the Dutch? We do, or the Brittish. It's our Generals, everybody's troops.

[Hector]

Thanks for the primer on the UN, Jackson. How could I have forgotten! "UN Command" really means US or Brit command! Doh! Yeah right. And French women shave their armpits.

As for your "everybody's troops" comment, I'm just curious - what % of all active NATO (that's NATO, N-A-T-O) forces do you think are U.S. vs. non-U.S.?

[hey]

i get called out in a post... you loveme, you really really love me...

anyways, small points: it worked for the greeks and romans for rather a number of centuries... byzantium only fell in 1453.. pretty good success for a state that started in 4-500 BC

consultative leader is what we aspire to be, but its rather difficult when people view their goal in life as opposing you (germany, france) or see it to be in their strategic interests to oppose you (china, russia).

how do you propose to improve human conditions when it goes against the interests of major countries? france, china and russia profited from saddam; china profits from the sudan; etc... most countries even opposed action against afghanistan

finally, no other country behaves this way, only demanding it of someone who is more powerful than they are. China does what it thinks it can, and props up NK for multiple reasons. Russia will kill chechens unless the US invades (there is little we can do diplomatically from a game theory perspective). France forced soldiers into the ivory coast against the wishes of parties there to create a peace. Heck france still acts rather like a colonial master in most of its former colonies in africa.

good intentions, but not fit for how the world is, nor for how the world will be in the future. As well, by providing security and maintaining relations with china, we can get them to focus on economics and avoid to SE Asian military build up likely if it looks like the US will disengage while China becomes dominant.

but then you believe the police will protect you, rather than only coming to pick up the pieces after a home invasion/robbery/worse...

[Tim]

Unapologetic Jacksonianism: Glenn Reynolds writes for the Guardian

Cross-pollinating or leaving droppings, you decide.

[Tony Alva]

"It’s kind of a dirty little secret, but there’s no sense denying it: the American people value American lives more than we value the lives of citizens of other countries. “Well, we shouldn’t,” assert the “progressives,” and I can’t really argue with them. But the fact that we shouldn’t doesn’t change the fact that we do. This is why George W. Bush’s “we fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” message resonates so strongly with the American people. Given the choice between a car bomb in Baghdad and one in Baltimore, we’re going to choose Baghdad every time.

Does this make us bad people? Not really. It’s a universal truth."

The absolute truth by Glenn Reynolds. A very good read.

[Pierre]

On Andy Sack's blog he mentions how strange and dangerous it is to be living in a country where the two sides can't understand how the other is so far off fm reality.

Reading the comments here, and because of my slightly liberal leanings particularly those of Hey and Hector, it's frightening to see how they refuse to consider the possibility that our leaders are acting less on the public's (read the people of the U.S.) interests and more on their geopolitical and corporate interests.

Power corrupts, so why can't this be true about those we now have in power? As for the UN, just because decisions they make don't conform to what the US would like doesn't make this a bad organization. Where were your voices when the US opposed sanctions against Iraq at the UN when they were originally using the chemical weapons on Iran and later on the Kurds? Cut me a break, our country isn't out there liberating any one unless it suits our short-term initiatives or some grandeur geopolitical goal.

Do you really believe that we went to Iraq to liberate their people fm a tyrant? Please! Come on Haliburton even did business w/Iraq though it was prohibited. This isn't about conspiracy theories, it's about world business, which much like business any where is amoral. It's not about the people, it's about power and money, who's got it and who wants it.

Don't worry, I'm not sitting here advocating that all other countries are right and the US is wrong, it's just that we need to temper this idea of right and wrong and understand the motivations that drive these outrageous acts. Pre-emptive wars don't make sense unless there's some financial benefit at stake. All of these issues are shades of grey. The term "Iraqi insurgents" is an oxy-moron considering that many if not most of the people fighting against the US are Iraqis.

When you look at all the gov't officials that have left the administration and read what they had to say about it then you begin to understand that there's much more here than meets the eye. You can argue w/Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill, but they were both part of the machine and both were trusted individuals w/in the administration. Read and understand what they had to say before putting our current president and his administration beyond reproach.

OK, off the soap box now :-)

Keep up the controversial posts Fred, makes for fun reading :-)

/p

[Fish]

I hear a lot of support toward continuing the war and winning the war in Iraq. The problem is that we have no focus or relevant goal in Iraq that would define it as a war. There was never any evidence to support the existence of terrorist infrastructure in Iraq. We invaded Iraq, to oust Sadam, and accomplished our mission. Now the stability in the area is disrupted and the difering factions are fighting for control. Our responsibilites now entail assisting in the stabalization of the region, which would involve reconstructing the infrastructure we destroyed, and stabalizing the government. Instead, we are trying to police a civil war without any objective, while offering a prime target, for terrorist, and motivating a whole new generation of them. The war is over, the new objectives must be clearly understood, decided upon, and acted out, with a diferent form than a war focused occupier.

Things to consider in Iraq:

**What controlling faction in Iraq represents the majority of the populace, should we help that faction, and if so in what way and how much?

**If that faction rose to power, will the other countries in the middle east support them, if not how can we compromise with them to assist in stabalizing the middle east with a new power in Iraq which is exceptable to the surrounding States?

**We can not police a civil war, we are becoming viewed as an occupier - the terrorist and other interest are propagating this idea through the media, how do we remedy this situation?

**Do any of these decisions rely on us staying in Iraq, and if so, in what form, how many troops, for what exact purpose, until what objective wil be achieved?

A seperate issue, is terrorism.

It has become confused with the our occupation of Iraq, but they do not have massive infrastructure in Iraq, nor has it ever been the ground for their training camps, or high-level leadership.

We are not destroying the terrorist infrastructure by fighting in Iraq, we are in the middle of a civil war, caught between the factions fighting for power now that Sudam is ousted, and providing a large profile target for the terrorist to hit at the same time. So to say, "Stay the course, we will win this war," is completely erroneous of any logical sense.

Things to consider:

**What geographical location(s) is the terrorist infrastructure (money, equipment, leadership, training centers)?

**What is motivating the terrorist, and what can we do to deflate that motivation for even a small percentage of the terrorist and potetial terrorist population?

This is where it is important to disregard the assumption that the terrorist are preemptive strikers with only the goal of terror in mind - they have asked for foriegn occupiers to leave their land for almost a century, and their actions are embirthed from religious texts: there is a psychology behind what they are doing beyond evil acts of violence. Vietnam was impossible to win, because we were not destroying the infrastructure, they were being supplied with men and supplies from other islands and countries, nothing could be achieved in the jungles, but perpetual war. To fight terror, in a place that does not contain the infrastructure, and leadership, while ignoring the motivations and the chance to lesson the enlistment of future generations by paying attention to the demands, fits very neatly into the age old adage, "history repeats itself." We have to take another approach, another position for analysis, and let go of our assumptions if we hope for any success other than perpetuating the war machine.