Fighting Terrorism and Promoting Democracy

I echo George's feelings, though Nixon shouldn't be overlooked here. I disliked Nixon, and still regard him as an aberration. Nixon's distain and disregard for the Constitution tends to obscure his skill in foriegn policy. Nixon recognized the split in the Communist Block before most, and had the courage to explite it. Reagan always struck me as being slightly out of touch, but his ability to engender confidence was instrumental in rebuilding the damage done by Carter. The renewed emphasis on military preparedness and Star Wars played an important part in bringing the Soviet Union crashing down. Carter, perhaps the nicest and most well-meaning man to ever serve as President, was a foriegn policy disaster of the first order. Clinton, in my opinion, came close to being a traitor by making sensitive American Intelligence available to agents of PRC. I admire the Senior Bush's commitment to using military force, even though many in the liberal and Democratic establishments cringed at the thought of another "Vietnam". Shrub is a spoilt over priviliged playboy, BUT he has done pretty good so far. Let's wait and see.

Asherman,

I agree. Well said.

bush
Thanks, LW for the decent overview. I'm interested in the willingness of the American public to believe that we are genuinely concerned to export our ideals to "evil" undemocratic countries. It seems quite clear to me that thist is little more than rhetoric. We have always been more concerned to export capitalism (or economic democracy, as opposed to political democracy, if you will), to other countries, and we have been more than willing to support autocracies that opposed communism. Look at what happened to the democratically elected Allende in Chile. I feel that "democracy" is overrated, as Jeanbean declares, but only because it is rarely truly realized. Democracy without a high level of education and sophistication quickly becomes a de facto oligarchy. In communism it becomes a downright tyranny. Consider the effectiveness of the demogogic manuevers by Big Money in this country to the majority of citizens to vote against their interests. Reagan and George W have falsely presented themselves as cowboys (and are no more so than was John Wayne), economic elites presenting themselves as ordinary folks to win over the minds of working class people into thinking that they are "like them." Wolves in sheep's clothing is how I see them.
Democracy in Afghanistan? in a country (as with all the "stans") with centuries old traditions of low levels of education and high levels of dependence on patrons? where it is seen as normal that Khans (we call them warlords) patronage armies of clients who support them in their competitions for resources with other khans. Democracy is truly alien to them. We can't just drop the idea into the society and expect them to embrace, or even understand it. I truly believe that most Americans have very little understanding of the significance of democracy in their lives; they are too willing to barter their freedoms for promises of material gain. Democracy as a world-view Utopia is a sham. It should exist but only after decades of sacrifice on our part to provide the necessary material and educational infrastructure--as large in scope as as the Marshall Plan. I could go on, but I shall be merciful and air my notions and feelings on this topic in response to other contributions and criticisms. Thanks again, LW!

...At the risk of being redundant, I'll have to say something I've said in oher threads. "The United States has no permanent allies, only permanent interests." Although people usually agree with this, they may wrongly believe our main interests are democracy, and human rights. No... It's the money stupid! We promote democracy in name. But if your government policies help promote the wealth of U.S. corporations, who cares how many people you kill?
...The results of the poll shocked me. Oddly enough, the first thought that popped into my mind was Nixon opening up trade with China. Then reality set in; he was killing ten's of thousands of Vietnamese, to stop communism, while opening up trade with the largest communist country in the world. (Never thought about Cuba ) I thought about Carter and then voted for Clinton thinking I would probably be almost the only one to vote for either one. (Please excuse my arrogance. )...The thing I liked about the policies of these presidents, were pushing for human rights, and trying to get warring factions to the peace table to work out their problems.

In part of the article, the militarty was said to set foriegn policy in Afghanistan. This is one of the most shortsighted policies imaginable.

In a country run by war lords, the military might be respected, but they are not prepared to educate anyone in the country on free markets and cooperation among tribes as far as transportation and manufacturing are concerned. The thinking in the country hasn't progressed that far. Each little dominion wants full, totalitarian control. To make any effective changes will take long years of education.

By going into Iraq, the same problems will be encountered. From the article:

"Iraqi politics prior to Saddam Hussein were violent, divisive, and oppressive. And the underlying conditions in Iraq -- not just the lack of significant previous experience with pluralism but also sharp ethnic and religious differences and an oil-dependent economy -- will inevitably make democratization there very slow and difficult. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, the United States would have to commit itself to a massive, expensive, demanding, and long-lasting reconstruction effort. The administration's inadequate commitment to Afghanistan's reconstruction undercuts assurances by administration officials that they will stay the course in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Has our country EVER stayed the course? In my memory, we have stayed only as long as it was benificial to our needs, especially in countries with little to offer other than oil or military bases.

I couldn't vote in the poll. Jimmy Carter was, by far, the most decent man in the bunch. Nixon had impressive skills, even Ronald Reagan was surprisingly good, as was Bill Clinton, but they all had that underlying moral failing of selling out to the most corrupt governments if it was to our momentary benefit.

In my opinion, Colin Powell should be given credit for keeping GW's aggressive, cowboy instincts under partial control. His negtiating skills, both domestic and foriegn might put him in the running for the most effective formulator of foriegn policiy.

Lightwizard<

I have not read the Foreign Affairs article as yet.

The lack of a coherent, consistent foreign policy in this administration is very disturbing to me. The Middle East, Iraq and North Korea -- are we headed for WWIII? Are we waiting for another attack similar in impact as 9-11? Or, as I suspect, has 9-11 become a day in our history that most Americans have forgotten as they go about their business of making a living and raising a family?

After reading the "Foreign Affairs" article it has reinforced my belief that no one on this planet is free from fear.

Control is the dominant factor in all governing bodies and any hint of what could be considered "out of control" behavior by any country or group unnerves us all.

Putting aside our dependence on oil, it is up to us to be realistic and not expect overnight solutions. We have a couple thousand years of behavior to overcome. We as a county are still the new kids on the block and we have a lot of growing to do. Slow and steady--that's my recommendation.

George W. let our country use it's brain instead of it's brawn.

First of all, I must forgive myself for the mistake I made in the Poll. I picked RICHARD NIXON instead of RONALD REAGAN. For shame, but I just saw the "R".

I have yet to read the essay, so will return when that's done.

Oh, that's okay, Tex-Star. The question is not which had the best or most successful foreign policy but when foreign policy made the most sense. Convoluted and stealthy foreign policy does not fit. Nixon certainly had an easy to understand foreign policy but there was a lot of stealth (having known someone high up in the administration, I know how stealthy it was). Reagan was not as easy to understand and when he let the CIA make that horrible gaffe of allowing the abortive assassination attempt in Lebanon , I lost it with him. Then came Irangate where the foreign policy became foreign ideas on a backpeddling into "I don't remembers." He is way over credited with the fall of communist Russia -- they' been bankrupt since the Vietnamese war and the space race, neither instigated by the Oscar worthy performance of Mr. Reagan. Are you sure not seeing RR was not a telling mind block?

Clinton's was the easiest to understand although not always successful (like all foreign policy). Now that this administration seems headed for the same "appeasement" of the North Koreans through their own obsfucated brand of negotiations, it's really rather difficult to choose until the history has passed us in another twenty years. If I'm around, I may have changed my opinion. It seem imparative that the administration try to make it look like successful diplomacy rather than appeasement or they could come out looking like hypocrites. At least the right-wing media will have to make a rationale I'm waiting with baited breath to see.

I'm somewhat humorously prodding you, Tex-Star as your rejection of Bush II as the foreign policy that makes the most sense is, in my view, extremely commendable even if I'm not agreeing with your other choice.

Although i know i'm sticking my neck out here, i would like to know why everyone is ignoring Carter's accomplishment in negotiating with Israel and Egypt. Taking Egypt out of the "get Isreal" coalition fatally weakened Arab resolve to keep pressure on Isreal. This also gave the US leverage to keep a lid on the most militant of Israelis. Subsequent administrations have totally wasted the opportunity. The most of our image problems in the middle east, and all of the violent antipathy to the US in that region, stem from the not wholely incorrect perception that we are willing to back the Israelis in any policy, even one that indiscriminately targets Palestinian women and children.

I don't think in the context of the article as a basis that anyone purposefully would ignore Carter's accomplishment but they might want to ignore that subsequent administations didn't just ignore it and take advantage of it, they tended to act in roiling the pot. The aforementioned attempted assassination which prompted a ban on assassinating world leaders made that seem like too little, too late. We should have never advocated killing world leaders. It obviously does more damage than good, would change little and makes us again look like imperialistic opportunists. That may be often a mischaracterization of our intent, but doesn't change that that is what occurs. Another example of our sloppy, mis-directed PR. PR is essential in our foreign policy.

PR being an acronym for public relations, press relations and presidential relations.

Stop dazzling us with that danged liberal intellect.

If you two boys can't play nice . . . at least entertain us with insults and invective, 'k?

Liberal intellect. I hope that doesn't mean there is no conservative intellect. I only consider myself intelligent enough to be a liberated intellect.

The disdain for intellect coming many times from the right always seems to come out of the classrooms and those damned grade average raisers. How they were hated by the average students because they could easily have the effect when grading on the curve of thee Cee student becoming Dee students. They resented not being allowed to stay in the category of average learners. Of course, there's always the possibility that rich Dee students are able to buy their Cee average. There's always that possibility. I dare not mention that anyone would cheat to maintain a Cee average.

What were my grades in school? Private. And then, I was a fine art and commercial art major and English minor. That may not impress some. Funny how one semester of business administration got me my first job as a controller/credit manager. I could never figure that out. Lasted five very long years (but I was painting all along). Yikes!

My experience with foreign affairs is well documented -- two of my romantic relationships were from outside of the country. :wink:

Setana.
...Look again,friend. While not specifically stated, the noble efforts of Camp David, etc., have at least been alluded to. Hell, just look the poll results

Foreign policy seems to be the steadiest in the polls during an administration as foreign affairs is the least understood of the President's responsibilities. I don't think even with the overall boost in Bush's ratings after 9-11 that foreign affairs took any big bump. Many would say it should have gone down! He's been going uphill trying to convince anyone the he or his adminstration ia adept at foreign affairs. Colin Powell has done remarkably well, I must say, but I don't see him making enough trips to foreign countries like I expected. It's like he's only sent over there on an emergency basis. We have a Department of Homeland Security but perhaps that's because we haven't and a Department of Foreign Affairs. I know, it's suppose to be the State Department but it sure seems like that has been like a Medusa, a monster with a lot of eyes looking out around the world but looking more aggressive than diplomatic.

lightwizard, who knows yet whether Bush II will some day be named as the president with the best foreign policy?
He could end up as the most brilliant bluffer in the history of the world. Then, we could all end up in WWIII which could either be a bad thing after 10, 15 years, or a good thing after 1, 3 or 10 or 15 years.

We hear every little tiny heartbeat of news and that would turn anyone into a "split personality." Bush has to practically change with the moment and nobody really knows, except a psychic, what "the times" are exactly. Are we in a Holy War and if so why 9/11? No, it is no holy war, but just someone wanting more land which they don't care to buy.

Right now, I have faith in George Bush. .

Anyhoo, why is it surprising I didn't vote for Bush II? I voted for Bush Sr. but also for Carter, but not Reagan. Guess I pretty much agree with Asherman, they all were good at something, lousey at something else.

But, Reagan did bomb Lybia, called Kadafy "Darth Vader." He gave the country a good feeling but missed killing Kadafy. Carter was a good intermediary between Sadat and Begin? But, Sadat, with good intentions, was murdered. Mubarak is ?????, who knows.

How does anyone think they know so much, except in hindsight?

Again, Reagan's abortive attempt at assassination of an Arab religious leader set off all sort of ramifications we are now facing.
Kadafy now appears to want to cooperate in the war on terrorism --what do you think of that? Maybe not killing him turns out we would have gotten somebody worse.

You're right -- Presidents have done some things that were thought had negative results and historians as well as much of the public determined they were positive. Learning from history is tricky and requires intelligence. This could turn out like the Spanish American war or the War with Mexico. It may not turn out to be another Vietnam because obviously the committment will have to be go in and win the battle and deter it from becoming a full blown war.

Your faith in Bush II and his administration I hope is arrived at without any blinders on.