Is the US's new Policy the right way?

[Imran Siddiqui]

THAT is now US policy.

And if so, it is dumb. Frankly, I think most of it is rhetoric, so I'm not that concerned. If we were to attack any country that made a threat, we'd be in constant warfare and our military would make the military of the '80s look miniscule. And THAT would be the decline of the US.

[Mr. President]

I don't mind who we attack as long as we're honest about the reasons for it. So we should be saying "Iraq is our enemy and we don't like it's government so we're going to dismantle it" rather than "Iraq is really our friend but Saddam is a bad bad man so we want to free the Iraqi people from him".

[Chris 62]

I think the current line is WMD thing.

Although with saddam, you can pick from dozens of reasons to dump him.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


Actually, I think that Bush might actually do something like this after Iraq.

Bush is no Clinton. I think both sides will pay close attention to what he says. Agreement is probable - but we need first to get Iraq behind us.

Yeah, I'd say there's just about zero chance of that happening. Bush does not know how to make peace, only war. He's one of the worst statesmen to ever hold the Presidency.

The problem beyond that, though, is that I doubt any future president would have the balls to do something that radical, and it certainly won't be backed by congress. The US, for whatever reason you want to ascribe to it, simply will never threaten Israel with withdrawing aid and arms.

[Ned]

Kontiki, From what you say here, I assume you approve of Chamberlain's appeasement policy.

[Guardian]

Originally stated by Winston Churchill

Americans always try to do the right thing. -After they've tried everything else.

[Roland]

"So now, we will destroy anyone that even makes the threat."

If you can. And you can't.

But it's a brilliant policy. Will speed up the decline of the US by maybe 20 years, or so.

Actually I found this funny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/24/in...st/24IRAQ.html

"Three retired four-star American generals said today that attacking Iraq without a United Nations resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests."

Shalikashvili, Clark and Hoar.

Agh, those appeasing cowards.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Chris 62

Want to be safe?
Don't threaten the US, because you will now get what you asked for.

Well, some people don't "want to be safe".

Some people just want to screw you over and f**k you up any way they can, and they don't care what happens next as long as you're f**ked.

THAT is your problem, and if you're going to run around threatening to bomb anyone who even looks at you funny, there's a pretty good chance you'll be getting more of it, not less.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Illyrien
jimmytrick
Which side should we support then?

But basically I agree, the isreal-palestine situations seems almost unsolvable

The US should lean heavily on Israel, get the UN to sanction a "once and for ever" boundary and US peacemakers should go in and stay there for the duration of human history. We've left forces in Germany and Japan since WW2. Why can't we have troops in the Middle East?

[Prometeus]

Is the US's new Policy the right way?

No.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
Kontiki, From what you say here, I assume you approve of Chamberlain's appeasement policy.

Huh? That's quite the leap in logic, since I never mentioned anything about appeasement or anything remotely close to it. But, for the sake of arguement, I'll play along.

Although I'm really not sure what you are getting at, I'll assume it's one of two things:

1. Attacking Iraq. Let's see, according to you, not attacking Iraq unilaterally = giving away land from soveriegn states because another leader demands them. Yep, that makes sense.

2. Bush's statesmanship. Well, he just rolled out a national security plan that explicitly states that no nation can ever be allowed to build up its military to anything close to the US or it risks being attacked. It also states that any nation that is perceived to be a threat to the US anywhere down the road can also be attacked. He has strained relations with Europe to points not really seen since WWII - and these are the freakin' ALLIES. He has slapped on protectionist trade barriers, has really done nothing serious about Israel-Palestine, and has not attempted a diplomatic solution to anything.

[Jack_www]

The UN can't do anything really. Every time there is a crisis in the world, by the time they vote on the matter and act, all the killing has been done and it is too late. I have heard of peace keeping troops standing by as they watch people get killed or taken away, and God knows what happens to them. The UN is just as useless as the League of Nations that proceed it.

[Guardian]

Unfortunately, this is very often true, and it's more or less the reason why I couldn't be a Peacekeeper.

At some point, I would probably have ended up thinking "Rules and regulations be damned, I am NOT going to just sit here and watch this!"

...and then all hell would have been loose...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki



Huh? That's quite the leap in logic, since I never mentioned anything about appeasement or anything remotely close to it. But, for the sake of arguement, I'll play along.

Although I'm really not sure what you are getting at, I'll assume it's one of two things:

1. Attacking Iraq. Let's see, according to you, not attacking Iraq unilaterally = giving away land from soveriegn states because another leader demands them. Yep, that makes sense.

2. Bush's statesmanship. Well, he just rolled out a national security plan that explicitly states that no nation can ever be allowed to build up its military to anything close to the US or it risks being attacked. It also states that any nation that is perceived to be a threat to the US anywhere down the road can also be attacked. He has strained relations with Europe to points not really seen since WWII - and these are the freakin' ALLIES. He has slapped on protectionist trade barriers, has really done nothing serious about Israel-Palestine, and has not attempted a diplomatic solution to anything.

Well, Kontiki, the question is what are we to do about Iraq? (The policy we can discuss later.) We have 11 years of defiance by Saddam, sanctions have not worked and only harm the Iraqi people. He has chemical and bio weapons, and is seeking nuclear - all in violation of UN mandates.

What do we do?

To cave into Iraq at this time, to end sanctions, to withdraw our no fly zones will certainly reward defiance and incent aggression. Undoubtedly, millions of Kurds will die as victims of chemical weapons in the short term. In the longer term, Israel is facing a preemptive first strike that could virtually destroy Israel. What do you think will happen if Iraq attacks - even if Israel gave them a chance, which I don't think would happen.

What do we do?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Does this mean that we should roll over and let an international council tell us how to run our country?

We already do, it's called the WTO.

[DinoDoc]

Granting IGO's any amount of sovereignty can certainly be a pain in the arse.

[Capt Dizle]

I would always oppose letting any organization have any authority over the US.

[Capt Dizle]

Including the federal government.

[chequita guevara]

You oppose the WTO, jimmytrick?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, Kontiki, the question is what are we to do about Iraq? (The policy we can discuss later.) We have 11 years of defiance by Saddam, sanctions have not worked and only harm the Iraqi people. He has chemical and bio weapons, and is seeking nuclear - all in violation of UN mandates.

What do we do?

To cave into Iraq at this time, to end sanctions, to withdraw our no fly zones will certainly reward defiance and incent aggression. Undoubtedly, millions of Kurds will die as victims of chemical weapons in the short term. In the longer term, Israel is facing a preemptive first strike that could virtually destroy Israel. What do you think will happen if Iraq attacks - even if Israel gave them a chance, which I don't think would happen.

What do we do?

This is veering quite off topic from my original post, which was ameliorating the Israel-Palestine situation, but oh well....

The problem with your thinking, IMO, is that your assuming only two options: 1. Attack Iraq ASAP with little to no international support, save for Britain; or 2. Pack everything up and let Iraq be.

There is a very reasonable third option (and likely others) which, as far as I can tell, is supported by most of the international community. Get the inspectors back in there, backed with the threat of force for non-compliance. If Saddam doesn't fully comply, then it seems that most of the rest of the world will support a US-led assault. Now, I know you are going to bring up the whole UN acts too slow/won't act at all thing, but that's where real statesmanship comes into play - sadly lacking on Bush's part.

As for your second paragraph, it seems to be a major difference of opinion between you and me. See, while you and other right-wingers assume that Iraq is itching to use WoMD, I see absolutely no evidence of that. I know I mentioned this on another thread (can't remember which one), but I fail to see where the threat lies. Saddam has, in the past, attacked Iran with the full blessing from the west, and invaded Kuwait resulting in a royal ass-kicking. He has also used chemical weapons against defenseless Kurds without the world caring a whole lot. What he has NOT done is use chemical weapons against the 1991 coalition, even though we know he had them then. He also has far less military power than pre-Gulf War (some say 1/5th, whatever - it's still substantially less). True, there have been no-fly zones in place ostensibly to protect the Kurds and Shia Muslims (or is it the Suni or something else altogether, I can never remember), but that doesn't stop him from moving ground forces into those areas and slaughtering millions of people - again, which he has not done.

Bottom line? I don't like Saddam and I'd love to see him go. But I don't think that the US acting in defiance of the vast majority of the world and just about all Arab states is smart. On the contrary, it WILL stir up a hornets nest. It seems pretty evident to me that Iraq is not an immediate threat to anybody, and spending a little more time building up international support isn't going to hurt anyone. In the meantime, I'd rather see something done about Israel-Palestine.

[DinoDoc]

In the meantime, I'd rather see something done about Israel-Palestine.

Personally, I'd rather see Israel and Palestine do something about the Israel-Palestine situation.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

In the meantime, I'd rather see something done about Israel-Palestine.

Personally, I'd rather see Israel and Palestine do something about the Israel-Palestine situation.

So would I, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen. The reality is, the US is the only agent that can actually affect change, if only it wanted to.

[Ned]

Well, Kontiki, you and I are on the same page. I agree with you. Surprising for a far right, conservative fascist, huh?

But, you do have to give Bush a lot of credit for going to Congress and going to the UN. As for statemanship, that speech he gave at the US was terrific. The whole speech, delivered without ever taking his eyes off the membership, was delivered with a seriousness that no one could mistake. A tremendous speech that has move the world. Without the speech, a tough new SC resolution on Iraq would simply have been impossible.

[Mr. President]

Americans always try to do the right thing. -After they've tried everything else.

0 / 10

I expect more from such a flagrant, unashamed leftist.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Mr. President

I expect more from such a flagrant, unashamed leftist.

Who, me?

Well, I suppose I could do better if I put some time and effort into it...

Guess I'm not quite the poster I used to be.
It seems lately I've been mostly just going after quick and cheap points...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kontiki

2. Bush's statesmanship. Well, he just rolled out a national security plan that explicitly states that no nation can ever be allowed to build up its military to anything close to the US or it risks being attacked. It also states that any nation that is perceived to be a threat to the US anywhere down the road can also be attacked. He has strained relations with Europe to points not really seen since WWII - and these are the freakin' ALLIES. He has slapped on protectionist trade barriers, has really done nothing serious about Israel-Palestine, and has not attempted a diplomatic solution to anything.

The plan does not state that anyone who approaches the U.S. in military power risks being attacked, so please calm down. It says that the U.S. will simply build up it's own forces even more in such a case.

The bottom line? The administration hopes that this will keep others from trying to build themselves into parity or superiority with the U.S. Talk is a lot cheaper than defense spending. Will it work? Perhaps in the short run, but certainly not in the long run.

As for the preemption idea, I agree that in many ways it is troubling. However it has been a part of U.S. policy since the Cold War, albeit in a different context. This is another clause which IMO is meant to have more rhetorical effect than actual use. Bush want's some leverage to use on perrenial bad boy states as well as permissive states who allow terrorists to base themselves with impunity, and to put those terrorists themselves on the defensive.

This policy has already paid some dividends. North Korea is making more pleasant noises these days. Though sympathy and the carrot played a large part in most of the world in regards to aiding the war against terrorists, you can bet that the threat of the stick also played a part in generating unprecedented cooperation against terrorists.

As for the European-American relationship being reduced in importance, this was part of Bush's pre- 9/11 foreign policy. Bush's original foreign policy goals were to pull back U.S. military involvement wordwide. The Cold War is over, and Europe seems to be more than strong enough to take care of itself. Thus the importance of NATO and the requirement that the U.S. and Europe constantly cooperate closely were de-emphasized. This was not popular in Europe, but much of the criticism by Europe was indirect, ie criticism about Kyoto etc. This criticism was also in large part caused or encouraged or tolerated by various European governments in an effort to harm the administration. It was not however very honest in many cases, mainly because IMO most of the European governments didn't really know how to react to it. So the consensus was resist it indirectly by resisting the Bush administration and hope to prevail that way. As far as I can see little provision has been made to deal with the implications of Bush success in implementing this policy.

The most direct rhetoric out of Europe that I hear uses the phrase "unilateralism". There is hardly any mention at all about the military realities involved, namely that the U.S. has power projection capabilities which it pays dearly for, as well as numerous security interests worldwide. Europe does not get a vote about the use of this capability or U.S. policy in other parts of the globe in many cases because it doesn't deserve one. While we were sharing the burden of the Cold War, a global war where action in various parts of the globe were often related it made more sense to cooperate more closely. By 2001 with few exceptions it did not.

Europe was not the only Cold War legacy that needed to be tidied up. The Korean conflict has kept tens of thousands of troops in Korea and Japan for 50 years. In the Middle East unsolved problems abounded. Both Iran and Iraq pose grave threats to stability in the region. In the case of Iraq, a regime which has twice sneak attacked it's enemies in an effort to gain territory, as well as using chemical weapons for the first time since the 1st world war cannot be taken lightly. It's willingness to toss Scuds at a nuclear armed Israel even while it is being pounded by a mighty coalition stood the idea of the sort of deterrence we were used to in the Cold War on it's head. Iran for it's part not only fights a proxy war against nuclear armed Israel in Lebanon, but also stoops to murderous terrorist acts unheard of in the Cold War as well. What will it do when it too manages to marry nuclear weapons to delivery systems?

Hence the Axis of Evil, states that by their very nature make a hasty withdrawl of U.S. power in their respective regions a recipe for disaster. A nuclear war anywhere on the globe would be a disaster of global proportions. Add in the proximity to the largest deposits of petroleum on the planet and the implications are even graver for the rest of the world than the threat from fallout. Economies will be gravely threatened, the West will be thrown into economic chaos, and the more marginal economies will likely suffer far worse as transportation systems grind to a halt. Mass starvation already exists in many places, how bad would it be if there were a serious disruption in oil production?

The attack on the U.S. last year has thrown the Bush administration's plans into turmoil. The Nato charter was implemented for the first time to deal with an attack on a member state. Indeed, the U.S. has been drawn into more areas like South and Central Asia where it's plans had called for little or no focus. An administration which philosophically was ill-suited to internationalism has now been forced to engage even more widely with the world, and the results have been mixed at best. IMO it's a shame that this administration didn't follow immediately after Bush I. It would have had the time and freedom to tie up some of these loose ends and America could have withdrawn from some of the world intact.

Instead we had 8 years of Clinton dithering, where we managed to let Al Quaida and Sadaam do their thing while we fought Europe's war in the Balkan's rather than using that occasion to help shape European identity and institutions by letting them figure it out themselves. Instead of shouldering the President's main duty (foreign policy leadership), Clinton was happy playing the statesman by trying to please the (mostly) Europeans, and spending his time politicking a domestic audience (it's the bubble economy stupid). We will pay for the opportunities squandered for some time.

Now we have to see if Bush is up to the task of growing into the job at hand rather than applying a plan that has not survived contact. So far the results are mixed. The campagin in Afghanistan has gone pretty well so far. (Go back and read some of the doomsaying threads from last year at this time to see how much it has exceeded the expectations of those who love to hate Bush, the U.S. and / or the military.) The Arab-Israeli conflict continues on the downward spiral begun during the Clinton administration. Bush's attempt to ignore this problem failed, and his own policy solutions have not yet proven failures, but they certainly are not building a lot of confidence either. Failure here is par for the course, but the consequences keep escalating. Whether Bush is being too ambitious by going for Iraq at the same time he fights the war on terror is still an open question IMO, though I myself would tend to be more cautious.

The rest of the world should be on notice though, that the United States is not going to be capable of this level of involvement in the rest of the world for very long. I look at this generally as a positive development, and I'm sure that many agree with me. The eventual retreat may not be as pretty as it was drawn up on Condi Rice's white papers. It's time for a lot of the world to grow up and fend for itself, a prospect that contains at least as much opportunity as it does peril.

[Capt Dizle]

Great post.

[Roland]

Good points.

"This was not popular in Europe, but much of the criticism by Europe was indirect, ie criticism about Kyoto etc."

It's a split here. You know that politicians are slow inertia-dominated animals, and the current generation can't think beyond what we had for the last 50 years.

"There is hardly any mention at all about the military realities involved... Europe does not get a vote about the use of this capability or U.S. policy in other parts of the globe in many cases because it doesn't deserve one."

Depends. Unless the US rebukes the Nürnberg precedent and the UN charta, pre-emptive wars are illegal without SC backing. As for other matters, the US wants us to put up the tap in peacekeeping and rebuilding. So if you look at the package beyond the simple "bomb'em" there is some merit to the criticism of unilateralism.

"It's willingness to toss Scuds at a nuclear armed Israel even while it is being pounded by a mighty coalition stood the idea of the sort of deterrence we were used to in the Cold War on it's head."

They knew Israel would not retaliate to conventional attacks.

"An administration which philosophically was ill-suited to internationalism has now been forced to engage even more widely with the world, and the results have been mixed at best."

Well they have mostly used 9/11 to push the agenda they had before. But I think I have to give uo the assumption that they are playing some cold-blooded games. Several actions and the rhetoric point to a megalomaniac messianism.

"The campagin in Afghanistan has gone pretty well so far."

It has, problem is it's going nowhere now.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
Good points.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Roland
"There is hardly any mention at all about the military realities involved... Europe does not get a vote about the use of this capability or U.S. policy in other parts of the globe in many cases because it doesn't deserve one."

Depends. Unless the US rebukes the Nürnberg precedent and the UN charta, pre-emptive wars are illegal without SC backing. As for other matters, the US wants us to put up the tap in peacekeeping and rebuilding. So if you look at the package beyond the simple "bomb'em" there is some merit to the criticism of unilateralism.

I tried to be careful with my language here because I agree with you, both sides are being reasonable at times and unreasonable at others depending on the case.

I'm not happy about the potential for preemptive attack believe me, but I also have to acknowledge that the potential damage from letting your enemy get in the first blow is much greater than it was in WWII. The U.S. made changes in it's laws during the Cold War to make MAD possible, giving the power to wipe the Soviet Union off the map to the National Command Authority and cutting Congress completely out of the picture in the interest of expediency, so the precedent for this sort of thing in U.S. law is there. In such a situation we didn't worry too much about international law. Now when the potential for losses on the enemy side is much less, the spectre of prosecution is infinitely greater. Oh the irony.

Originally posted by Roland
"An administration which philosophically was ill-suited to internationalism has now been forced to engage even more widely with the world, and the results have been mixed at best."

Well they have mostly used 9/11 to push the agenda they had before. But I think I have to give uo the assumption that they are playing some cold-blooded games. Several actions and the rhetoric point to a megalomaniac messianism.

They are actually trying to do both at once. There is a lot going on around the world right now, much of it in places that the Bush team in their wildest dreams couldn't have imagined they'd be involved. India, Pakistan, Central Asia, Georgia, Djibouti, Yemen, The Phillipines, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. The war on terror doesn't need as much political persuasion, so it doesn't get as much ink, but it's big.

Originally posted by Roland
"The campagin in Afghanistan has gone pretty well so far."

It has, problem is it's going nowhere now.

This is an area I would tend to move more slowly and thouroughly than Bush is. He has us stretched pretty tight right now. The sorts of people we need to help build up Afghanistan either don't exist in the numbers we need (like linguists and area experts etc.) or are on duty in one of the many places mentioned above. There are enough military forces to carry on in Iraq (if something else doesn't pop up that is), but we will face the same shortage of personnel during the rebuilding phase, with the same risk that we don't put an end to things.

[Roland]

"I'm not happy about the potential for preemptive attack believe me... In such a situation we didn't worry too much about international law."

You could justify something like "clear and present danger". The main problem is that I do not trust a militarism and paranoia driven apparatus to make that decision, be it the Bush White House, China's Commie relicts, Russia's collecting russian earth crowd or whoever. The same logic and auto-determining legitimizes eg China attacking Taiwan - just claim a threat. Also by US standards it is absurd to demand restraint from India against Pakistan.

"The war on terror doesn't need as much political persuasion, so it doesn't get as much ink, but it's big."

Big but very lowscale.

"This is an area I would tend to move more slowly and thouroughly than Bush is."

Well what is the US doing in Afghanistan apart from some special forces that go cavesearching and play bodyguards for Karsai ?