The US' Role

[cavalrytrooper]

Forget about the United States being the worlds policeman, because they don't have enough cops. The troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are worn out. Some of them have been there 3 and 4 times, some of them maybe more. I went to Viet Nam once, that was enough for me. There enough men and women to replace them, not enough enlistments. Maybe the government should trying to make democracies and concentrate on building up the armed forces. I hope the trouble until we are ready.

 

[Humanoid]

Quite right

It seems that the world can't seem to make up its mind as to what they expect of the United States. On one hand, they expect us to mass export our food for foreign aid, and they use our forces to spearhead almost every United Nations 'joint-effort'. Yet, they seem to be quick to turn and snap in our faces. First they wanted a war on terror, so by god we gave it to them, full-scale engagement, overwhelming airpower, sea support, hundreds of thousands of troops, but now we are an unwelcomed foreign power that even our allies won't stand by.

The USA should be done being the protector of the world. For too long have we been the scorn of others for our 'cowboy' attitude when it comes to going after the bad-guys. If countries want our foreign aid, then shouldn't we also have their support when it comes to international action?

 

[canned happines]

It seems that the world can't seem to make up its mind as to what they expect of the United States. On one hand, they expect us to mass export our food for foreign aid, and they use our forces to spearhead almost every United Nations 'joint-effort'. Yet, they seem to be quick to turn and snap in our faces. First they wanted a war on terror, so by god we gave it to them, full-scale engagement, overwhelming airpower, sea support, hundreds of thousands of troops, but now we are an unwelcomed foreign power that even our allies won't stand by.

The USA should be done being the protector of the world. For too long have we been the scorn of others for our 'cowboy' attitude when it comes to going after the bad-guys. If countries want our foreign aid, then shouldn't we also have their support when it comes to international action?

I am not sure that the USA should stop trying to protect the world, maybe everyone capable who is not trying should start. I think that alot of the time, it is not the world that the USA is actually woried about though. I think that alot of the time the USA, or any country for that matter, has faught anywhere has been motivated by its own interests. Every time anyone fights they are trying to avoid potential threats or gain profit. Even getting a thankyou and creating a good reputation is a personal gain. In the end we are all in this together. If the bad guy gets away with something with someone else, its only a matter of time until it becomes everyones problem. It is all of our responsibility to stand up together. I personally do not see the world as multiple seperate entities, but as THE EARTH. If you see a full grown man beating a child on the street, it is ultimately your decision wheather you ignore it or do something about it. You could say, 'this isn't my neighbourhood, what do i care?' The question is what would you do, or expect others to do in that situation? I think that countries are peoples way of bieng able to say 'that is not my problem.' After all a country is just a lump of dirt. But hey, maybe im wrong, maybe it isn't our problem.

 

[Marc 1]

First they wanted a war on terror, so by god we gave it to them, full-scale engagement, overwhelming airpower, sea support, hundreds of thousands of troops, but now we are an unwelcomed foreign power that even our allies won't stand by.

Sorry, looks like history is being re-written here - exactly who wanted a war on terror? As I remember it was GWB who stood in front of the world's cameras after 11 Sept 2001 and basically said "you are with us or against us".

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sorry guys but the US isn't the worlds policeman and it doesn't act purely out of anthropogenic intentions, the US intervenes throughout Eurasia because it is in its interest to do so. The US has intervened in Iraq 1991, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq 2003 for in order to achieve one single strategic goal, the prevention of regional hegemonic powers gaining influence in Eurasia. The US fought the first gulf war to prevent Iraq from dominating the Middle east, it fought over Kosovo to prevent Serbia from dominating the Balkans, it fought in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent any larger Muslim entity from forming under the leadership of extremists. Its been perusing this strategy since 1917. It fought world war one to prevent a single power from dominating Europe, it fought world war two for the same reason in Europe and to prevent Japan from dominating Asia in the east. It fought the Cold War to prevent Russia from dominating the whole of Eurasia (its biggest threat).

Preventing any power from gaining prominence over some or all of Eurasia is a core strategic objective for the US for a single reason: the only way a nation could challenge US global naval dominance (the foundation for American security), is if it controls the a large part of Eurasia and does not have any regional rivals that force it to maintain large land forces. It prevented global powers from achieving total dominance on the Eurasian landmass, so now US strategy has moved to blocking smaller, regional hegemons.

U.S. military interventions throughout the world have nothing to do with being a "policeman", international rules or morality. If that were the case then why would it stand back while the worst crimes go on in Africa? Even an air deployed brigade combat team would have prevented much of the genocide in Rwanda, which would be a proper thing for a global policeman to do wouldn't it?

The truth is the US isn't the worlds police man, its just the dominant power looking out for its own interests (just like everyone else). That not to say US actions in WW2 and the Cold War hasn't benefited millions around the globe, it has. But that's not why the US acted in the way it did.

 

[Gannet]

You are absolutely correct

Forget about the United States being the worlds policeman, because they don't have enough cops. The troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are worn out. Some of them have been there 3 and 4 times, some of them maybe more. I went to Viet Nam once, that was enough for me. There enough men and women to replace them, not enough enlistments. Maybe the government should trying to make democracies and concentrate on building up the armed forces. I hope the trouble until we are ready.

I also had only one tour of duty in country "nam". This 3 or 4 tours of duty really must be unduly messing up their lives and their family. This is why I believe when the country goes to war the "whole country" goes to war and not just the military. In otherwords, when congress declares a war they automatically need to initiate the "draft". There probably be less wars if this was the case.

 

[Tubub]

Sorry guys but the US isn't the worlds policeman and it doesn't act purely out of anthropogenic intentions, the US intervenes throughout Eurasia because it is in its interest to do so. The US has intervened in Iraq 1991, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq 2003 for in order to achieve one single strategic goal, the prevention of regional hegemonic powers gaining influence in Eurasia. The US fought the first gulf war to prevent Iraq from dominating the Middle east, it fought over Kosovo to prevent Serbia from dominating the Balkans, it fought in Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent any larger Muslim entity from forming under the leadership of extremists. Its been perusing this strategy since 1917. It fought world war one to prevent a single power from dominating Europe, it fought world war two for the same reason in Europe and to prevent Japan from dominating Asia in the east. It fought the Cold War to prevent Russia from dominating the whole of Eurasia (its biggest threat).

There are several reasons to decide to go to war or intervene. Its root is an interventionist policy, but it is much more than that... There are several factors, some of which lie in moral groundings.

Preventing any power from gaining prominence over some or all of Eurasia is a core strategic objective for the US for a single reason: the only way a nation could challenge US global naval dominance (the foundation for American security), is if it controls the a large part of Eurasia and does not have any regional rivals that force it to maintain large land forces. It prevented global powers from achieving total dominance on the Eurasian landmass, so now US strategy has moved to blocking smaller, regional hegemons.

nfloorl: You read George Friedman I see. I tend to disagree with his views that the world will return to its 19th century ways of Byzantinian and set-piece politics... Specific events tend to reflect other occurences in history; however, time periods do not echo.

U.S. military interventions throughout the world have nothing to do with being a "policeman", international rules or morality. If that were the case then why would it stand back while the worst crimes go on in Africa? Even an air deployed brigade combat team would have prevented much of the genocide in Rwanda, which would be a proper thing for a global policeman to do wouldn't it?

The US is a democracy. Though it has a general outlook on the world, policy changes from President to President and some make different decisions than their predecessors or have a different Legislative branch in power. Priorities shift... Specific policy changes.

The truth is the US isn't the worlds police man, its just the dominant power looking out for its own interests (just like everyone else). That not to say US actions in WW2 and the Cold War hasn't benefited millions around the globe, it has. But that's not why the US acted in the way it did.

Again, the US has several reasons to do what it does. Interventionism, expansionism, and globalism revolve around the belief that expanding 1st world economies and Westernization of the world is good. I happen to agree with those beliefs.

 

[Marc 1]

Again, the US has several reasons to do what it does. Interventionism, expansionism, and globalism revolve around the belief that expanding 1st world economies and Westernization of the world is good. I happen to agree with those beliefs.

So everybody in the world has to as well - isn't that the inference? It is precisely this type of arrogance that has annoyed people the world over. Who are you to decide that a subsistence farmer in Africa will be better off than he is now? Cuba, (you know, one of those 'bad' communist countries that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world) has arguably a better medical system than your country. Why do you want to give this country a worse health system? How will that benefit the cuban people?

You have a typically narrow minded approach to the problem. Maybe more economies in the world would CHOOSE to emulate the USA (As opposed to having our western ways shoved down their throats) if the USA concentrated more on providing for its own citizens - a working health system that is inclusive of all would be a good start.

 

[Tubub]

So everybody in the world has to as well - isn't that the inference? It is precisely this type of arrogance that has annoyed people the world over. Who are you to decide that a subsistence farmer in Africa will be better off than he is now? Cuba, (you know, one of those 'bad' communist countries that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world) has arguably a better medical system than your country. Why do you want to give this country a worse health system? How will that benefit the cuban people?

Its not arrogance; Its progress. You clearly did not understand what I am saying, since I never expressed any intention to invade Cuba :unknown.

A farmer in Africa has his own freedom to make decisions. But the culture he lives in will likely assimilate Western tradition and what they think is beneficial.

You have a typically narrow minded approach to the problem. Maybe more economies in the world would CHOOSE to emulate the USA (As opposed to having our western ways shoved down their throats) if the USA concentrated more on providing for its own citizens - a working health system that is inclusive of all would be a good start.

What are you talking about? How am I saying I want to shove anything down peoples throats? You obviously wanted to get in a rant and chose someone you thought fit the profile of your ideal antagonist... how lame. Interventionism does not equate Colonialism you bigot.

And what exactly does Healthcare have to do with foreign policy? Try to make some tenuous connection but they are different things for two different arguments.

 

[Marc 1]

Its not arrogance; Its progress.

Not if it is forced on a people. Us aid is often tied to certain 'strings' for example so the receiving nation dances to a different tune. I'm not just pointing a finger at the 'states, Australia can be just as guilty in this regard.

You clearly did not understand what I am saying, since I never expressed any intention to invade Cuba :unknown.

And if you are really going to get stupidly pointlessly picky I never mentioned invasion. Your point is that you believe the US' role to be: "expanding 1st world economies and Westernization of the world is good".

All I pointed out is the point according to whom is it good? Do you ask the people in the various nations whether they wish to have a 'westernised' economy? Or is this part of your "moral groundings" (from post #7). Now, this is just a guess, but how do your middle of the road christian moral groundings work when interacting with a population that is of different moral groundings (say a different religion, culture and political system) ? What the rest of the world sees is that the US will generally try and eliminate the old ways and replace it with a local version of their own. I realise that all this is all about perception, but as somebody inside America, you are in no position to judge whether this is true. It is a perception I offer from somebody who is pro US generally. I have right wing politics, I was in the Australian Regular Army, I have exercised with American troops, my father fought alongside you guys in Vietnam. But, particularly recent administrations have been overstepping their bounds.

A farmer in Africa has his own freedom to make decisions. But the culture he lives in will likely assimilate Western tradition and what they think is beneficial. What are you talking about? How am I saying I want to shove anything down peoples throats? You obviously wanted to get in a rant and chose someone you thought fit the profile of your ideal antagonist... how lame. Interventionism does not equate Colonialism you bigot.

Yes he does, but that decision is made more difficult if the chemicals and seed he is 'given' to westernise' his agricultural practices destroy the natural methods his people have used for millenia and make him dependent on purchasing more from that particular agricultural congoleration. There are GM grains that cannot be resown from seed gathered at harvest - this makes them dependent on a foreign company for seed whereas they used to be self sufficient. Infant formula was responsible for many child deaths as mothers would use this powdered formula (often provided free initially), the mothers would find their milk would dry up, then they were dependent on buying formula. Frequently they could not afford the recommended dosages, so they would dilute the stuff to the point that their children died of malnutrition.

And what exactly does Healthcare have to do with foreign policy? Try to make some tenuous connection but they are different things for two different arguments.

I disagree. Basics such as healthcare are very important to foreign policy. And I notice you don't seem to have an answer for why the cuban's have a better health system than the US. But, that's fine mate, you keep deluding yourself that the planet would be a better place if it all marched to the US drumbeat.

It would be instructive if other people from other countries would also provide their views on this. THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR AMERICA BASHING, more a question of how the US is viewed by the rest of the world, and whether the rest of the world think that the US should try and 'westernise' their economy. As americans as a whole tend to be quite insular it may assist the average american to understand how they are viewed by the rest of the world.

My last on this.

 

[brian00]

Its not arrogance; Its progress. You clearly did not understand what I am saying, since I never expressed any intention to invade Cuba :unknown.

A farmer in Africa has his own freedom to make decisions. But the culture he lives in will likely assimilate Western tradition and what they think is beneficial.


What are you talking about? How am I saying I want to shove anything down peoples throats? You obviously wanted to get in a rant and chose someone you thought fit the profile of your ideal antagonist... how lame. Interventionism does not equate Colonialism you bigot.

And what exactly does Healthcare have to do with foreign policy? Try to make some tenuous connection but they are different things for two different arguments.

Hmmm at this rate i dont think this thread will last long,

I think the US has acted in its own interests, ultimately in the past, some countries have benefit from the relationship with the US and in other cases they have suffered (the phillipines, indonesia and their history with the imf comes to mind), this is more due to the people who were in power at the time rather than some kind of national attitude.

To stay on topic, the US' role since 1990s has largely changed due to the end of the cold war, during which they have lost much of the faith many people had in them and their role as protector of the free world. The Iraq war (not UN sanctioned) has damaged that moral reputation and the financial crisis has exposed its greed and excess.

Going forward, America will continue to intervene internationally, however many will question its motives, i think the idea of the US policing the world for the greater good of everyone one on the planet is well and truly dead

 

[OPSSG]

@Tubub, I'm at a loss as to why you are reacting in this manner to relatively mild criticism. IMO, the American government generally acts to further their own self interest. Since you cannot take feedback from non-Americans, perhaps you would consider reading Robert D. Kaplan, writing on 'The Revenge of Geography', as food for though and as a counter point, on the rehabilitation of realism in contrast to your articulated conception of interventionism, expansionism and globalism.

Its not arrogance; Its progress.

An American worldview is valid point of view from your perspective. Likewise, a person from another part of the world would have an equally valid but non-American point of view. Let me remind you that an American worldview, like yours, is not the only way to see the world. A fact that is often not well understood by some Americans.

Please do not take my above response as an attempt to debate with you. I'm not debating with you. I'm telling you that you are entitled to your point of view and I don't intend to change it. I'm merely pointing out that your response to Marc 1 seems to indicate that you have a particular worldview.

You clearly did not understand what I am saying, since I never expressed any intention to invade Cuba :unknown.

Yes, I agree that you never expressed any intention to invade Cuba. However, as I see it, you also never took the trouble to understand the point Marc 1 was driving at.

What are you talking about? How am I saying I want to shove anything down peoples throats? You obviously wanted to get in a rant and chose someone you thought fit the profile of your ideal antagonist... how lame. Interventionism does not equate Colonialism you bigot.

We can communicate our point of view but we cannot, as it were impose it on others. This is because culture is a lens thought which humans see the world. It is this lens of culture and that we (as humans) have to learn to see the world. IMO, culture is makes all of us uniquely human and there is a diversity of human cultures. You can choose to learn more about different cultures or you can seek to defend your point of view. You choose.

BTW, there is no need to call someone a bigot just because they disagree with you. As a fellow forum member, I ask you to reconsider your mode of engagement. Kindly take a look at the forum rules (in particular, rule 7) before you continue.

 

[dragonfire]

First they wanted a war on terror, so by god we gave it to them, full-scale engagement, overwhelming airpower, sea support, hundreds of thousands of troops, but now we are an unwelcomed foreign power that even our allies won't stand by.

Without commenting on the rest of the post or the earlier one on the thread, I would only like to remind that no one except US wanted a war in Iraq, Millions of Protestors across the globe underscored their anti-Iraq Invasion sentiments not only in countries who were traditionaly US allies but also across the US of A as well. Many nations also openly disagreed to the US stance as well as the UN not agreeing to the same. Remember the time when 'French Fries' as much a cultural part of American cuisine as Hamburgers were renamed to 'Freedom Fries' just beacuse of the French Opposition to the invasion - a case in point on how US bulldozed through international opposition to conduct that Invasion

Also remember the 'WMD' crap that th CIA came up with ostensibly to prop up an otherwise purely political and family need to invade Iraq, initialy they had even tried to pin the 9/11 attacks partly on Iraq to justify the Invasion, which was withdrawn though

Pls note I used the term invasion in the post and not war on terror.

 

[Tubub]

Not if it is forced on a people. Us aid is often tied to certain 'strings' for example so the receiving nation dances to a different tune. I'm not just pointing a finger at the 'states, Australia can be just as guilty in this regard.

UN aid is not the sole factor in developing nations and not the one I was talking about in that statement. I was talking about Globalization.

And if you are really going to get stupidly pointlessly picky I never mentioned invasion. Your point is that you believe the US' role to be: "expanding 1st world economies and Westernization of the world is good".

Your right... That is my point. What is yours again?

All I pointed out is the point according to whom is it good? Do you ask the people in the various nations whether they wish to have a 'westernised' economy?

If Bob the Farmer has less crops for a couple of years, he will likely blame it on something else than globalization. If Western presence is obvious, than he will likely blame it on such... but is that really where the truth lies or is that really where we should base major decisions? I don't want to say they are not capable of making such decisions for themselves, for that would undemocratic... then again, I never believed in a pure democracy run by complete general consenus anyway."Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself."
John Adams

[ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5633239795464137680"]Globalization is good1[/ame]
Globalization is good2

Or is this part of your "moral groundings" (from post #7). Now, this is just a guess, but how do your middle of the road christian moral groundings work when interacting with a population that is of different moral groundings (say a different religion, culture and political system) ? What the rest of the world sees is that the US will generally try and eliminate the old ways and replace it with a local version of their own.

As I said before, it is widely known that third world cultures have assimilated what they see as beneficial from Western culture into their own. Many have adopted Western customs and systems. (I am the Wrong person to discuss religion with.). I am not someone who advocates the aggressive destruction of cultures... but cultures do not have a privilege to exist just because they exist.

I realise that all this is all about perception, but as somebody inside America, you are in no position to judge whether this is true. It is a perception I offer from somebody who is pro US generally. I have right wing politics, I was in the Australian Regular Army, I have exercised with American troops, my father fought alongside you guys in Vietnam. But, particularly recent administrations have been overstepping their bounds.

No doubt. I never supported prolifigate or pre-emptive wars, you only assumed I did when I gave rationale for intervention.

Yes he does, but that decision is made more difficult if the chemicals and seed he is 'given' to westernise' his agricultural practices destroy the natural methods his people have used for millenia and make him dependent on purchasing more from that particular agricultural congoleration.here are GM grains that cannot be resown from seed gathered at harvest - this makes them dependent on a foreign company for seed whereas they used to be self sufficient. Infant formula was responsible for many child deaths as mothers would use this powdered formula (often provided free initially), the mothers would find their milk would dry up, then they were dependent on buying formula. Frequently they could not afford the recommended dosages, so they would dilute the stuff to the point that their children died of malnutrition.

So... the farmers decision to buy a seed was the sellers fault for buying it? This sounds like first world exploitation of third world markets. Third world countries need to accelerate themselves to reach a status as a mutual trading partner, or they will never succeed. These are sad cases.... but how this is a case against the Free Global Market, I do not know.

I disagree. Basics such as healthcare are very important to foreign policy. And I notice you don't seem to have an answer for why the cuban's have a better health system than the US. But, that's fine mate, you keep deluding yourself that the planet would be a better place if it all marched to the US drumbeat.

Sorry my man, but the US is not the West. England, France, Spain, USA... and, uh oh, AUSTRALIA. I am talking about Western society and culture. I am not talking about Western hemisphere.

I pushed aside the healthcare issue because it is irrelevant. I am not here to talk about Cuban healthcare... They have a host of other problems, some of which may be the benefactors of sources that led to a good Cuban economy. In any event, I much rather live where I do now: California.

whether the rest of the world think that the US should try and 'westernise' their economy.

You keep refferring to the US "westernizing" foreign economies as if we would always do so in force. Do you understand what the WTO, GATT, and other global banking organizations are?

 

[Tubub]

I think the US has acted in its own interests, ultimately in the past, some countries have benefit from the relationship with the US and in other cases they have suffered (the phillipines, indonesia and their history with the imf comes to mind), this is more due to the people who were in power at the time rather than some kind of national attitude.

The US is a democracy. Though it has a general outlook on the world, policy changes from President to President and some make different decisions than their predecessors or have a different Legislative branch in power. Priorities shift... Specific policy changes.

Ultimately, the Philippines did benefit from a US relationship. What are you refferring to with Indonesia?

To stay on topic, the US' role since 1990s has largely changed due to the end of the cold war, during which they have lost much of the faith many people had in them and their role as protector of the free world. The Iraq war (not UN sanctioned) has damaged that moral reputation and the financial crisis has exposed its greed and excess.

Domestic policies has a lot to blame for such activity. Neo-Conservatives primarily... though I am pinned by Mark as such a ignorant idealist, I am of the old school of Republican thought and do not share most of their aggressive thoughts.Anyway, hope in the US should only go so far anyway... I am sick of this nation bearing the burden of Western obligation. We have not run the Long War exactly as we have in the last 8 years, but I'll say we've run it a hell of a lot better than NATO could... especially Spain, who wimped out after terrorist attacks. At least we've done a goddamn thing and we actually finish the job.

Going forward, America will continue to intervene internationally, however many will question its motives, i think the idea of the US policing the world for the greater good of everyone one on the planet is well and truly dead

The US is a superpower in a shrinking world... what role do you think it should play? Define policing the world.

 

[Tubub]

@Tubub, I'm at a loss as to why you are reacting in this manner to relatively mild criticism. IMO, the American government generally acts to further their own self interest. Since you cannot take feedback from non-Americans, perhaps you would consider reading Robert D. Kaplan, writing on 'The Revenge of Geography', as food for though and as a counter point, on the rehabilitation of realism in contrast to your articulated conception of interventionism, expansionism and globalism.

The only aggressive thing I can think of is calling him a bigot... Other than that, I did mean to exude frustration or aggression. I will check the book out, thanks.

We can communicate our point of view but we cannot, as it were impose it on others. This is because culture is a lens thought which humans see the world. It is this lens of culture and that we (as humans) have to learn to see the world. IMO, culture is makes all of us uniquely human and there is a diversity of human cultures. You can choose to learn more about different cultures or you can seek to defend your point of view. You choose.

the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

Culture, IMO, is much more than just a way of looking at the world. Look, I do not mean to disrespect other cultures... but a culture does not have a privelege to exist just based on the merits that it exists. Some cultures the world would be better without. Does that mean I want to set out and physically destroy these cultures? I won't have to.

BTW, there is no need to call someone a bigot just because they disagree with you. As a fellow forum member, I ask you to reconsider your mode of engagement. Kindly take a look at the forum rules (in particular, rule 7) before you continue.

I didn't call him a bigot because he disagreed with me. I called him a bigot because he pretended I said something I didn't...He responded to me like I had talked about Imperialism or Colonialism when I was talking about Interventionism. It seemed he just wanted to rant his points of view regardless of what I had said... Anyway, sorry.

 

[OPSSG]

The only aggressive thing I can think of is calling him a bigot... Other than that, I did mean to exude frustration or aggression. I will check the book out, thanks.

BTW, it is not a book, just an article. Just click on the link above and there are 2 links provided (please click on them, with one to the article and the other to the rules).

Culture, IMO, is much more than just a way of looking at the world. Look, I do not mean to disrespect other cultures... but a culture does not have a privilege to exist just based on the merits that it exists.

For the sake of clarity, I mean 'culture' and 'world view' (click on the link provided to see what I mean) in an expanded anthropological sense and not in the reductionist sense of the defined terms articulated. IMO, it is not about respect, rather it is about difference and the ability to spot the difference. However, you are free to interpret it in any manner you see fit, as you are crafting a differentiated response to the point I brought up for your consideration.

I didn't call him a bigot because he disagreed with me. I called him a bigot because he pretended I said something I didn't... Anyway, sorry.

IMO, feel free to disagree with others but try to keep your metaphorical punches above the belt.

Cheers and have fun interacting with others.

 

[WhiteLionV1]

there's no easy answer

i'm a European (British) i have to say the criticism on the USA is part warranted but is also made up of arrogance and jealousy from the former world superpowers in what Rumsfeld and others refer to as "old europe".

You have the biggest and best military in the world and i don't think anyone could argue that if the mission could be successful in Afghanistan then the drugs production will stop and democracy can begin thats a good thing.
As would a democratic Iraq. everything a superpower does is overly scrutinised however it is my belief that America does act often with personal and financial self motivation.

Anglo-American superiority will be short lived as emerging Asian powers and South America. and rather than world Co-operation the USA would much rather be the number 1 than share power and be peaceful.

Empires come and go since WW2 the USA has been a superpower and has done what all superpowers do. expand and try to hold influence.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

There are several reasons to decide to go to war or intervene. Its root is an interventionist policy, but it is much more than that... There are several factors, some of which lie in moral groundings.

There are, however there are also driving factors which guide wider policy. That's why foreign policy trends are generally predictable even when governments change. You could not get more ideologically opposed leaders than Bush and Obama, but in terms of foregin policy, what has changed? Rhetoric, and that's about all.

nfloorl: You read George Friedman I see. I tend to disagree with his views that the world will return to its 19th century ways of Byzantinian and set-piece politics...

I do in fact, amongst others. I'm not sure why you would give him a nfloorl:. Friedman and stratfor keep making the right calls as far as I can tell, and he uses geopolitics for the foundation of many of his forecasts.

And while I agree different time periods are of course individual, there are fundamental forces that transcend individual time periods. You can trace the same geographical and demographic forces causing similar actions by the same nations over periods of hundreds of years. The historical record does not lie. Or do you think that this period in history is somehow so special that forces that have guided international actions over the last 500 years have suddenly stopped? We saw more change in the 20th century than the last thousand years yet the same conflicts that played out in the 1700's repeated again with the same, albeit modern protagonists. However the ideological justification could not have been more different.

The world never left power politics, what do you think the cold war was exactly? Good guys vs the Bad guys? Commies vs the Imperialists? I'll let you in on a little secret, it was competition between the US and Russia and their respective ideologies wouldn't have mattered a damn. Yes we have international institutions now, which is something new. But do you really think they dominate foregin policy decissions?

No our time is not special. Its just like every other age. Defined by its technology but still just the earth and its nations.

Specific events tend to reflect other occurences in history; however, time periods do not echo.

Have you actually read Friedman? There is ample evidence that the opposite is in fact the case. Individual events and details are governed by the particulars of that time frame i.e.e technology, partizan stance ext ext and rarely resemble prior events (Barbarossa and Napoleons invasion looked quite different). But the general trends repeat themselves over and over again, simply because there are fundamental forces that determine what actions are in a nations interests, and almost without exception a leader will act in the national interest. (Both Hitler and Napoleon launched a summer campaign in order to defeat European Russia).

The US is a democracy. Though it has a general outlook on the world, policy changes from President to President and some make different decisions than their predecessors or have a different Legislative branch in power. Priorities shift... Specific policy changes.

But that's the thing, in terms of foreign policy especially, policy trends DO NOT change when there is a change of government. Look at the US's Iraq policy over a 20 year period. Bush sr defeats Iraq in Gulf War 1, establishes a policy of containment. Democratic president Clinton elected, continues the policy of containment and launches punitive air strikes. Republican president Bush Jr elected, continues the policy of containment, and after 9/11 invades, post surge has a policy of phased withdrawl depending on security conditions. Democrat President Obama elected, continues the policy of phased withdrawal. 4 presidents from both sides of politics, no substantial change in policy from the president before them on the most contentious foreign policy agenda of our time. The only thing that changed was the rhetoric.

Same story on North Korea, Europe, Iran, China, the entire cold war, grand strategy in general. Rhetoric may have changed, and new policy may have been implemented as the international situation evolved. But not once was there a paradigm shift in foreign policy after an election. And by Paradigm Shift i mean a President decided to totally reverse a foreign policy stance simply because they thought it was the right thing to do.

The UK followed a policy of maintaining the continental balance of power for hundreds of years, through not only partisan changes of government but constitutional changes as well. Why didn't someone decide to abandon the policy when they came to power?

The approach to a policy may change, but the fundamental doctrine almost never changes because said doctrine is always a logical reaction to international developments. The US never fundamentally altered its policy of containment of the Soviet Union, despite several changes of government, simply because it made seance.

That doesn't absolve the people or leader of responsibility for certain actions, but there are things that were bound to happen simply because they were logical.

Do you think the US would not have invaded Afghanistan if Al Gore was in power? I could go on forever.....

Again, the US has several reasons to do what it does. Interventionism, expansionism, and globalism revolve around the belief that expanding 1st world economies and Westernization of the world is good. I happen to agree with those beliefs.

I disagree, they revolve around the notion that they are good for the United States, i.e. because it is in America's national interest. Anny additional benefit is superfluous. That is the fundamental question any leader will consider when they make a foreign policy choice, "is this in the national interest?". If the answer is no the no action is taken. There is nothing nessisarilly wrong with that. What more can you expect from a leader?

You speak of interventionism, if national interest was not the primary driving factor of military intervention then explain why the US only intervenes when it's interests are at stake? A leader can think a course of action is the morally correct thing to do, but they will rarely do it if it does not directly benefit their nation. Clinton is a good, moral man. Why didn't he use the US military to stop the bloodshed in Rwanda or West Africa? The answer should be obvious.

This is the fundamental foundation of geopolitics, a nation will always act in its own self interest (much like the individual in a free market). That self interest is usually determined by, among other things, its geography (what happens in Cuba has little effect on Australia, but Indonesia is critical because of its geographical position). If you accept these basic principles, and there is a mountain of evidence to support them, then you can't laugh at Firedman's work. Its a methodical extrapolation of a nations actions using those principles, and so far he has been pretty close to the mark.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Empires come and go since WW2 the USA has been a superpower and has done what all superpowers do. expand and try to hold influence.

Precisely. That fundamental point transcends morality.