US foreign policy

[JamesHackerMP]

I'm sure the good members of MLW have their own opinions on what is wrong with their neighbor's foreign policy.  It gets brought up a lot.  But I think there is one aspect that, even if alluded to, isn't often discussed outright.

First, its inconsistency from one administration to the next.

Barack Obama is elected president.  He abandons Bush's more cowboy approach in favor of trying to get everyone to "like" America.  (This is a foolish idea, imho, because some people never will no matter what we do.  "If you try to please everybody, nobody will like it.") So we appease the Russians and Kim Jong-Un, even when he sinks a South Korean destroyer and shells an island in SK killing 18 South Korean personnel, and make an executive agreement basically giving another untrustworthy regional power [powderkeg], Iran, the ability to develop nuclear weapons.

Donald Trump is elected president and vows to undo all of that.  However, I won't bring him up too much, because he's been in power for five months.  A wild ride, to be sure, but let's wait and see (even if it is like watching a horror film your friends conned you into watching).

This has gone on for more than just the past 16 years, it seems to be a repeating pattern, increasing in its flip-flopping since the end of the Cold War, and the demise of the bipartisan "consensus" during that period.  It's now to the point where if you make an agreement with the United States, said agreement will have a maximum shelf-life of about 4 to 8 years.

Second, its inconsistency within the same administrations.

At the beginning of the Clinton Administration, our feeling on the ethnic cleaning resulting from the after effects of the disintegration of Yugoslavia was that "it's Europe's problem, it's their backyard."  This allowed brutal strongmen to massacre hundreds of thousands, maybe more.  We eventually did get involved once the EU's "reaction" proved inept, not before the massacres took countless civilian lives.  When the war began over the Kosovo province, Clinton didn't wait as long, and started bombing Slobodan Milosovic before the same thing happened again.  (I realize this is an oversimplification, of course.)

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George II (2001-2009) vowed not to put boots on the ground to "nation-build".  That promise was broken pretty quickly after September 11.  (Please, do me a huge favor and spare us all the 9/11 conspiracy theories!)  We invade Afghanistan (we're still there, unfortunately).  And, seemingly for shits and giggles ("hell, while we're at it.....") we invade Iraq.  I won't get into a debate over whether that was over oil and little else, except to say that, either way, it proves my point about inconsistency.

Decrease that 4-8 year shelf life to about a few months... 

Third, it reacts too slow at times, not taking action when it ought to.

See my above example about former Yugoslavia.  Also, as far as not doing something when it ought, we should have toppled Saddam's Ba'athist regime in March, 1991.  Instead, George I (1989-1993) calls it quits just short of total victory.  13 years of cat-and-mouse with the UN and no-fly zones, all of which would not have happened if we had found an insider who wasn't batshit (a tall order, yes) and put him in charge.  Most of the Iraqi Army had surrendered and his grip on power was falling apart by the time Bush called a cease-fire.  Perfect opportunity which Bush 1 pissed away.  In 1993, there were fears that Saddam was getting ready to remobilize his army near the Kuwaiti border and do it all over again.

I can also go back as far as WWII: FDR tried to get the US involved, since a National Socialist-ruled Europe would have eventually been a threat to the US, and Congress and other actors on the federal stage in Washington did nothing, until we were directly attacked killing several thousand civilians and military personnel alike, and most of our Pacific Fleet lay at the bottom of Pearl Harbor.  If we had gotten involved in what we figured was "Europe's problem" a little earlier...well, who can say.  Hindsight is always 20/20 but it might have been over sooner.  however, that was pretty hard to convince the American People (and Congress) at the  time, so that's probably not the best example.

We react not at all when Syrian President Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people (the first time).  Even the second time, Pres. Trump was not going to react; a few days later, he changed his mind (which proves my previous point just as well, about the same president flip-flopping himself).

Also, the above example of where Obama did not react with strength to the sinking of the SK destroyer and the shelling of SK personnel is applicable.

Fourth, it reacts where it shouldn't.

See above (2003 invasion of Iraq).

Fifth, we lack expertise in many regions, especially in the Middle East.

All those civil servants working at the Dept of State really must not have a clue.  Or maybe it's the White House staff, many of whom come and go with each administration. (This is part of my next point on the complexity of the US Government.)  They're paid well enough that they ought to have a brain but somehow that doesn't seem to work.  We always listen to the wrong "advice".  Washington tends to like the stories spun by "back parlor exiles" like Ahmed Chalabi and others, rather than finding out for themselves what's actually going on in the region.  Washington hasn't got a clue about the Middle East and many other regions of the world.  This is party due to the isolationsist streak in Americans.  There's nothing to restrain the idiocy of our foreign policy because Americans in general feel like "It isn't our business" about everything that takes place outside our borders.  State, CIA, Defense...they might feel differently.  In any case, we need to start listening to people who don't have an ulterior motive in pressuring the US to intervene.  And it's hard to tell whom to listen to, when you're living in a country that's thousands of miles away from the particular crisis in question.

Sixth, the government has no united front.

The United States, whatever you may think, is not a calculating, monolithic bogeyman.  It's inept, slow to react, and there are too many forces at work.  Harry Truman said "the buck stops here".  that's a nice theory of presidential governance, but no one rules alone.  There are different opinions from State, CIA, Defense, the White House staff, about what he ought to do at any given juncture.  Thus, the President himself ends up listening to, or surrounding himself with, the wrong damn people.

In the show Yes Prime Minister, a civil servant complaining about his government hit the nail on the head, and it could easily apply to the US Government: "It would be different if the government were a team, but they're a loose confederation of warring tribes."

 

I could go on all day, and I've had to oversimplify some things, but those are the six biggest problems with American foreign policy.  sorry it was so long but I've wanted to release my vitriol at the government for a while.

[bush_cheney2004]

Consistent with your OP, U.S. foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum.  It is often reactive by design within an economic and geopolitical framework of allies and competitors that can vary depending on geography, resources, national interests, and power projection bounded by the countering capabilities of other nations.   U.S. "gunboat diplomacy" has existed for well over 100 years and has been exercised by many presidents in varying degrees and purpose, regardless of declared wars. 

The differing foreign policy of U.S. presidents and associated administrations are often categorized as historical "doctrines" bearing their names, going all the way back to President James Monroe (1820's).   President T. Roosevelt urged the U.S. to "speak softly, and carry a big stick" to prevent  a larger potential crisis.   Many other presidents had doctrines that shared the common basis of American military power and the will to use it.

The U.S. emerged as the world's lone superpower as the direct result of decisions and failures of existing world order and the foreign policies of other nations, particularly in Europe and Asia.   Right or wrong, a "world policeman" motivated by national interest was born regardless of a united domestic front.

Accordingly, a consistent U.S. foreign policy only exists when international conditions are static, which is rarely the case.  The U.S. is only one of many players in the game.  Domestic politics can influence short term rhetoric and actions, but ultimately U.S. power projection will emerge in its usual form.  

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was in fact a continuation of U.S. foreign policy in the region going back more than a dozen years to the previous Gulf War over two administrations.

 

[JamesHackerMP]

I don't agree with your last point.  The invasion of Iraq served no practical purpose.  The WMD issue didn't quite pan out to be as the government explained it to us.  I don't want to get off topic about THAT, however, but despite conditions being non-static, other countries are better at making long-term strategies than the US.  You can still make such a policy adaptable; that's still different than the patchwork quilt of individual policies that make up US foreign policy in general.

[bush_cheney2004]

We can disagree on Iraq, but that just underlines my perspective on U.S. foreign policy in general.   U.S. foreign policy is scrutinized and criticized far more than other  nations' policies simply because of scope and scale, or the practical matter of their relevance and impact on the world stage.  

U.S. foreign policy is ultimately about U.S. interests, even when acting in concert with allies, and this is almost always a moving target.

[Omni]

29 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I don't agree with your last point.  The invasion of Iraq served no practical purpose. 

And of course it turned out to be illegal and it served to beget ISIS. There's some foreign policy that backfired big time.

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

on the ethnic cleaning resulting from the after effects of the disintegration of Yugoslavia was that "it's Europe's problem

It was a US planned and orchestrated war crime, one of many that the US has ensured over the years since WWII.

 

Quote

 

Lying for Empire

 

How to Commit War Crimes With A Straight Face

 

by David Model

 

Common Courage Press, 2005, paper

 

 

p246
Orwellian bastardization of language was never more evident than when the bombing of Serbia was called a humanitarian campaign. In an Orwellian inversion of language where war becomes peace and hate becomes love, Clinton defined the bombing of Serbia as a humanitarian campaign when, in fact, the United States and other NATO leaders were engaged in a campaign to break up the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under the pretext of stopping ethnic cleansing. The SFRY was guilty of preserving its socialist approach to social and economic policy after the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Michael Parenti explained, in To Kill a Nation The Attack on Yugoslavia, that:

... Yugoslavia (FRY) remained the only nation in the region that would not voluntarily discard what remained of its socialism and install an unalloyed free-market system... It also proudly had no interest in joining NATO. The US goal has been to transform the FRY into a Third World region, a cluster of weak right-wing principalities

... One test of U.S. intentions in the bombing of Serbia is to compare the atrocities in Kosovo to those occurring in Turkey at the same time. Since 1980, Turkey has been committing atrocities against its Kurdish population with $15 billion of arms from the United States. Forty thousand Kurds have been killed and two million rendered homeless. Before the NATO bombing of Serbia began, 2000 people had been killed as a result of the civil war in atrocities in Kosovo to those occurring in Turkey at the same time. Since Serbia. If the U.S. was pursuing humanitarian goals why was it not only turning a blind eye to the atrocities perpetrated against the Kurds but also arming Turkey?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Clinton_Yugoslavia_LFE.html

 

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

U.S. foreign policy is scrutinized and criticized

No, it isn't at all. The US has more war crimes under its belt than any country, more terrorism than all combined. You constantly brag about these evils, which illustrates your "moral base".

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

No, it isn't at all. The US has more war crimes under its belt than any country, more terrorism than all combined. You constantly brag about these evils, which illustrates your "moral base".

 

"Moral base" ?   Keep you morals to yourself.

Economics trumps virtue in foreign policy too.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

"Moral base" ?   Keep you morals to yourself.

Economics trumps virtue in foreign policy too.

Thanks for confirming you have no moral base. Some people weren't quite sure.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Thanks for confirming you have no moral base. Some people weren't quite sure.

 

Nonsense...you haven't been around here very long.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nonsense...you haven't been around here very long.

You don't make any attempt to hide it. You revel in US war crimes/terrorism. You brag about how it is part of making America great.

 

[JamesHackerMP]

Can we keep it more or less civil? It's one thing to accuse a country of terrorism.  It's another to start getting personal with other members on here.

Anyway, what do you mean by "war crime" and "terrorism"?

[JamesHackerMP]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

he differing foreign policy of U.S. presidents and associated administrations are often categorized as historical "doctrines" bearing their names, going all the way back to President James Monroe (1820's).   President T. Roosevelt urged the U.S. to "speak softly, and carry a big stick" to prevent  a larger potential crisis.   Many other presidents had doctrines that shared the common basis of American military power and the will to use it.

I wish to point out, that that illustrates my point.  Every new president has some sort of unique foreign policy doctrine, often at odds with his predecessor, and not for any particular change in the geopolitical situation.

[bush_cheney2004]

13 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I wish to point out, that that illustrates my point.  Every new president has some sort of unique foreign policy doctrine, often at odds with his predecessor, and not for any particular change in the geopolitical situation.

 

OK, but it is still American foreign policy regardless of who is president, with the same foundation built of economic and military power.

Why would there be any expectation of seamless continuity between U.S. administrations ?   What are elections for ?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Another problem - the power of small lobbies. Apparently, the Trump administration is considering a tougher line on Cuba despite a broad coalition, including many Republicans and businesspeople, in favour of closer ties.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-hardliners-us-defenders-battle-trump-policy-48002878

 

 

 

[eyeball]

22 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Sixth, the government has no united front.

The United States, whatever you may think, is not a calculating, monolithic bogeyman.  It's inept, slow to react, and there are too many forces at work.  Harry Truman said "the buck stops here".  that's a nice theory of presidential governance, but no one rules alone.  There are different opinions from State, CIA, Defense, the White House staff, about what he ought to do at any given juncture.  Thus, the President himself ends up listening to, or surrounding himself with, the wrong damn people.

No, its more like a marauding misbegotten creature, a tragically confused Frankenstate. A restless sleepless giant who needs some serious quiet time.

Interesting individual to be quoting in a thread on US foreign policy and inconsistencies thereof.   

Quote

the Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government, though the predecessor Truman administration had opposed a coup.[15] 

Source

Truman should have blown the whistle on Eisenhhower and AFAIC by not doing so he became as much an enabler to the shitstorm this pivotal coup unleashed on the planet as anyone. 

 

Quote

 

In the show Yes Prime Minister, a civil servant complaining about his government hit the nail on the head, and it could easily apply to the US Government: "It would be different if the government were a team, but they're a loose confederation of warring tribes."

 

I could go on all day, and I've had to oversimplify some things, but those are the six biggest problems with American foreign policy.  sorry it was so long but I've wanted to release my vitriol at the government for a while.s

 

It would also be different if America really was a Shining Beacon where stated principles actually mean something to the people charged with upholding them.  That said, perhaps a democratically government is no better than the people who elect it suggesting there's something wrong with Americans themselves.

Its the grotesque inconsistencies in America's character as evidenced by America's conflicted principles that's really at issue. 

 

 

[JamesHackerMP]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Its the grotesque inconsistencies in America's character as evidenced by America's conflicted principles that's really at issue. 

I respect your views, eyeball, but I was at least hoping--obviously I was being foolish--if the debate could tend more towards constructive criticism.  There was no need to insist, as you did in your post above, that there "is something wrong with Americans themselves."  We're all human beings, eyeball.  I'm sorry if you see us as subhuman.  But let's try to keep it civil, shall we? You don't see me going around saying that there is something wrong with the Canadian character, at least any more than is wrong with any other human being on planet Earth.  Funny how some people set the bar so high for America but not any other country.

But your use of the word "conflicting" is correct in my opinion.  We have principles, our application thereof is quite conflicting.

 

19 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Why would there be any expectation of seamless continuity between U.S. administrations ?   What are elections for ?

A valid point.  Other countries also have variations in their foreign policies.  But they don't change so radically overnight.  Our foreign policy is short sighted because we're not thinking of our interests over the next ten or twenty years, only to the next election, or even the next congressional midterms, at worst.

Edited June 14, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

A valid point.  Other countries also have variations in their foreign policies.  But they don't change so radically overnight.  Our foreign policy is short sighted because we're not thinking of our interests over the next ten or twenty years, only to the next election, or even the next congressional midterms, at worst.

 

Agreed...U.S. foreign policy is often more tactical than strategic, because domestic politics leads to turnover, purposely opposed executive and legislative branches, and posturing for the very next election cycle.    President Wilson reversed policy on entering Europe's WWI only after domestic support swerved to a majority (driven by news events).

However, there is still a consistent arc of power projection in support of American interests regardless of ruling party.   Europe and Canada's reaction to the possible loss of U.S. military protection / umbrella after what they call "70 years of post WW2 order" reflects their self interest and flawed perception of a consistent U.S. foreign policy when that has not been the case.

[JamesHackerMP]

good point: more tactical than strategic.  That was what I'm talking about.

Perhaps it is because we allow the executive branch--the administration of the day which only lasts 8 years at most--the greatest power in foreign policy, rather than a more stable body like the Senate.  yes, they have the authority to approve treaties, but of late American presidents have caught on to the idea of the "executive agreement", which is often done to bypass the attempt of the senate to veto such an agreement.  Who wants those pesky senators meddling in the executive branch's business, right?

If you read the rough draft of the constitution of 1787, foreign relations were pretty much under the control of the Senate if I remember rightly.

[bush_cheney2004]

31 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

....If you read the rough draft of the constitution of 1787, foreign relations were pretty much under the control of the Senate if I remember rightly.

 

The U.S. Constitution requires that treaties have the "advice and consent" of the Senate, but this was challenged from the 'git go with the Jay Treaty.   Jefferson fought as best he could, but ultimately the treaty's inertia overwhelmed proper political process.   The tug-o-war has continued ever since, with the latest circumvention being the "executive agreements" that you reference.   The Kyoto Protocol treaty was DOA in the U.S. Senate....vote was 98 - 0 against.   So now the internationalists run a game to bypass treaty processes in nations for expediency and a stroke against any opposition.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm#2

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I respect your views, eyeball, but I was at least hoping--obviously I was being foolish--if the debate could tend more towards constructive criticism.  There was no need to insist, as you did in your post above, that there "is something wrong with Americans themselves."  We're all human beings, eyeball.  I'm sorry if you see us as subhuman.  But let's try to keep it civil, shall we? You don't see me going around saying that there is something wrong with the Canadian character, at least any more than is wrong with any other human being on planet Earth.

Trust me, I hold ourselves to the same account for being so accommodating towards our allies and their policies.  There's definitely something every bit as wrong with us.

After 16 years of listening to the acrimonious belligerent refusal to accept virtually any criticism of US foreign policy, which is to say the foreign policy of the alliance we belong to and effectively our's, I'm afraid our character stemming from our lack of principles is just about all that is left to discuss.

Perhaps if our exceptionalism in the face of our fear of tyranny, that requires and justifies our support for tyranny, was clearly and boldly if not proudly expressed in the prefaces of our foreign policies, there'd be something more tangible than our unprincipled characters to discuss.

Quote

But your use of the word "conflicting" is correct in my opinion.  We have principles, our application thereof is quite conflicting.

I'd argue that we actually don't have any principles worth mentioning at all given how badly we've shit on and abused the ones that matter to us the most.

Edited June 14, 2017 by eyeball

[CITIZEN_2015]

A whole bunch of brainless idiots are the US politicians starting with the President himself.

Recently Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a vocal Trump supporter, praised the recent attacks in Tehran and suggested that the United States should work with the Islamic State to counter Iran. He praised the recent Islamic State attack in Tehran as a “good thing” and suggested that maybe the United States should work with the militant organization.  He is suggesting working with ISIS who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity including kidnap and rape of women and ethnic cleaning, and who stand for a very backward and brutal version of Islam even condemned by a great majority of Muslim extremists. Never mind the fact that many innocent bystanders not government officials got into cross fire and murdered by the terrorists.

If it was anyone else so openly supporting ISIS or suggestion working with ISIS would have been arrested or put in jail. We have indeed witness that people who sympathized end up in jail.

Edited June 15, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[hot enough]

21 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I respect your views, eyeball, but I was at least hoping--obviously I was being foolish--if the debate could tend more towards constructive criticism.  There was no need to insist, as you did in your post above, that there "is something wrong with Americans themselves."  We're all human beings, eyeball.  I'm sorry if you see us as subhuman.  But let's try to keep it civil, shall we? ... Funny how some people set the bar so high for America but not any other country.

Funny how the US set the bar so high for the German people, when they had little to no control over their government policies - Hitler was a dictator. 

The US has over 70 illegal invasions of sovereign nations just since WWII, the deaths of tens of millions, world leading terrorism, by far, numerous genocides, ... . 

Do you suggest, James, that you are unaware of all this?

[hot enough]

On 6/13/2017 at 8:28 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

Anyway, what do you mean by "war crime" and "terrorism"?

Who is this addressed to and what could you mean?

[bush_cheney2004]

25 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

...What a fucking idiot this US congressman is. Shame on Americans and shame on USA.

 

Wrong country...."shame" is a Canadian value...not American.

 

Trump didn't run away from the battle like spineless Trudeau, all while begging President Trump not to trash NAFTA.

Edited June 15, 2017 by bush_cheney2004