5/28/2006
Madeline Albright was on TV the other night promoting her new Book. What interested me the most was her answer to a question "What is the result of our actions in Iraq?" Her answer "that other countries have realized that if they do not want to get invaded by the USA they have to have Nuclear weapons."
Someone might say that Libya might be a contrast to that statement but I would disagree. Libya has been under sanctions since Ronald Reagan. Finally, Libya realized the benefits of rejoining the international community.
Some Republicans think we are safer because we have attacked the terrorists where they live. In Afghanistan, that would have been true if we had finished the job. In Iraq, I think otherwise. We have created more terrorists (walk a couple of miles and kill Americans) and now more radical countries that we cannot attack (Iran) are going after nuclear weapons to prevent themselves from being attacked by the USA. This has not made us more safe!
Bush is finally realizing that his cowboy words and attitudes do not work in international relations. Diplomacy and reason, not shoot first and ask questions later, is the way to make change in the world.
This may prove the case that first appearances cannot be reversed. With Bush's declining popularity at home, other countries mistrust of Bush's intentions, Condoleeza's involvement with the doctoring of information taking us to war, the USA's foreign policy will leave the USA in flux until a different administration takes over. If that administration is seen as a continuation of this one then I see nothing but more problems dealing with the radical portions of the international communities.
A major shakeup of the Bush administration, Rice and Rumsfeld gone, would be seen as a change for the better and real progress could be made from then on in international relations. But Bush is stubborn and nothing will be done. He thinks that Gawd is on his side and he cannot make a mistake. It is a shame that he cannot realize that the Constitution said separation of Church and State actually has a deeper meaning. I hope that out next President is not just an astute politician but an intelligent astute politician.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
About Me
- outofcontrol
- The solution to any problem starts with communication. I am a troubleshooter and am able to reach solutions that others have not thought of.
Blog Archive
3 comments:
The question "what went wrong?" suggests criticisms of detail and criticisms of philosophy. Hindsight, being 20/20, has rendered errors of detail obvious to those who support and those who oppose giving freedom a chance. The real source of the debate is philosophical.
The neoconservative position, whether one agrees with it or not, can be characterized by several propositions.
One, military power can be used for moral purposes.
Secondly, the internal character of a regime affects its external behavior.
Third, our security should not be in the hands of international institutions.
The far left wing of the Democratic Party doesn't agree with any of these propositions. They reject the first, believing that we should only use reason and talk to resolve security threats and moral concerns if we are not attacked first. They reject the second, thinking that the internal character of regimes is irrelevant with regard to global stability. Lastly, they reject the third, thinking that being liked by Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin is critical to any foreign policy success.
Without resolving these philosophical differences, we'll continue to have different criteria for success. If Iraq becomes a prosperous democracy five years from now, for example, a Democrat will still be unhappy since they didn't like the use of military power, they think the internal character of regimes is irrelevant with regard to security, and a few countries may still be suspicious and critical of our behavior.
Giving Freedom a chance? So then the neocon position is to create instability and prop up governments that we support. Back to the 1950's.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Use of military power for moral purposes? Who sets the moral purpose? Is it everyones moral purpose? A supposed right wing conservative does not represent the moral purpose of America.
What is the internal character of the regime now in charge of America? Many in the world believe it is immoral and unjust, is that a reason to attack us and have regime change? They may believe that Muslim fundamentalism is the only way people should be governed. That does not give them the right to attack our Democracy.
Our security has NEVER been in the hands of international institutions. Because if your statement was true then why are the neocons in charge of America working with the International community to come up with a cohesive front against Iran?
Your three positions cannot be defended. The left wing Democratic position cannot be defined. The reason is because anything that is against the neocons is called left wing or liberal. The Democratic party has many ideas and all are discussed and positions formulated. The Republicans have hard line positions that do not allow for compromise. The world is about compromise and getting along.
Outofcontrol--
The far left position is very clear, and it is in direct opposition to the positions the party held when Clinton was in office. One, Clinton used force for moral purposes in Yugoslavia. Secondly, Clinton did not give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt in 1998 and robustly bombed Iraq. Third, WJC did not obtain U.N. approval for the operations in Iraq, nor did he obtain approval for the use of American force in Yugoslavia.
I opposed entering Iraq on strategic grounds, arguing the mission would take much more dollars, blood, and time than the administration sold it. I didn't see the WMD portion of the case as credible, and I still don't like how we went in with insufficient troops and poor planning. If done right, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
The far left has different reasoning. For them, using any proactive force at all is being like a bully. Secondly, being liked, especially by countries like France and China, is more important to the far left than being moral. Lastly, there is a difference between civilization and its discontents. Liberal democracies are not socialist dictatorships, but the far left thinks all nations are equally moral.
During the Cold War, we did use force to prevent Communist evil from dominating the globe. Sometimes we directly supported democracies, while at others, we supported tyrants friendly to us, rigged elections, and assassinated leaders. All of this was done with justification for the purpose of containment.
The USSR is no longer around, and there is no imperative to support dictators for the sake of stability. The population of Iran, unlike its fanatic leadership, has a favorable opinion of the United States. The populations of Saudi Arabia and Egypt do not. Why? We still aid tyrannies in those places, and they promote hatred of Americans and Jews to keep power. The Nixonian policies of "stability" led directly to the events of 9/11, which is why we're now promoting change in the region, starting with Iraq. Neoconservatives argue we need to take the internal character of regimes into account when formulating a coherent foreign policy. That's not our only consideration, but we'd be foolish not to consider it at all.
Post a Comment