We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, August 10. 2014
The Obama-Paul paths in foreign policy are immoral in
Both Barack Obama and Rand Paul are products of trends in
Barack Obama epitomizes those who at a young age adopted the
Defense of this mindset requires belief that Vietnam was
Rand Paul was raised in this defeatism as spread through the
Due to the shortage of US military forces following the
The results in encouraged and enlarged hostile terrorists
The Obama administration and most of the media are being as
The very limited and very late small measures by the Obama
Hillary Clinton mouths empty words about being a bit more forceful than Obama. She tries to position
Both the Obama and the Paul
Tracked: Aug 10, 18:44
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
How about a post about what you feel is the proper role for the US in the larger world.
I have no idea what it ought to be, and never did. Other than self-defence, and keeping treaties.
I need to think about that for a while. You make some interesting points.
I have been, for some time a proponent of a much more careful policy of involvement in other countries business.
Examples - Israel is a long time ally and in theory we have if not written then verbal agreement of support. And we should. The are surrounded, and too small to support the kind of war they face. Europe I think is lazy, they want the US to carry the burden and it's not our burden to carry. Yes there are national security issues to deal with and if Europe get's off it's collective hind end and asks, then we should consider it. Being stuck with the majority of the task is unreasonable.
I don't believe we should have gone into Iraq when we did - we might have had to at some point, but I don't believe we were there yet. We should have focused on Bin Ladin.
Walking away from Iraq was - stupid, I'm very much inclined to agree with your analysis as to the motivations of leftist, the reluctant, and isolationist. Those should not overrule the fact that we created a power vacuum and it was going to get filled with a strong force. We removed a strong ruler (a bad one) and put a week one in his place, in a region that only understands strength of force. This is a disaster no longer waiting to happen.
My current think is:
Bringing the republic to countries that aren't in the process of fighting for democracy is, failure waiting to happen. If intel (sadly a epic fail for us) shows that the majority want a republic - then we need to consider carefully the consequences of extending ourselves into that conflict. There are always unintended consequences. Note that I said republic - not democracy - democracy always eats itself in and orgy of mob rule - perhaps republics do as well, or maybe we just haven't figured out how to keep a republic from thinking it's a democracy...
I struggle with the moral dilemma of allowing tyrants to control large groups of people when we could stop them, vs the cost to ourselves in doing so. There are practical limits to how much we can extend ourselves in foreign affairs... until we either become a warrior nation feeding ourselves on war, or become so bankrupt that we end up where we are heading sooner rather than later (although at this point I don't believe it will be much later).
I don't believe it's moral to conscript a force to send over seas, and force those remaining to pay for it. If you lack sufficient volunteers and send them anyway, you might was well just shoot them at home and save the shipping costs (yeah that sounds kind of heartless and brutal). Those we send must be volunteers and those who pay must also be volunteers or you simply trade one morality for another. Maybe it's better one way than the other but I'm not convinced yet.
I will definitely be thinking about it though.
We withdrew from Afghanistan in 2002? If only that was true!
That is when we should have packed up and left after a successful raid. We have accomplished exactly nothing in the ensuing dozen years except wasting American lives and treasure.
I've listened to Rand Paul - his ideas sound like the old TR policy of a walk quietly and carry a big stick - which I support. What our foreign policy needs right now is some selfishness.
Obama is just as war happy as Bush/Cheney. He just prefers to war in Africa. I reckon he figures his home turf can use a large nation building welfare program. Or twenty. Maybe he is correct, why should Asia get all the goodies?
Having lived my adult life with the U.S. defending everywhere since '45, I'm eager gto hear political leaders discuss the bixarre concept that just maybe it's not our sole responsibility to throw men and money into every area of the world where people are being mean to each other. We had no business bombing the Serbs or ripping Kosovo from their territory. Ditto extending NATO to the Russian border, unseating Gaddafi, orsubverting the Ukrainian government.
We escaped Obama's crazy planned involvement in an air war against Assad but are involved in the ground war.
Not to mention the new national pastime -- demonizing the KGBthugkleptocratassasin Putin. Or our lunatic "nation-building" exercises in Eyerack and Afghanistan.
Talk about actions unlinked to any strategy, to borrow from you.
Circling the wagons somewhere in Nebraska isn't the answer but until we face the threat of Islam (not "islamists" barf) and China and stop giving the European parasites a free ride, I say "Go Rand!" And I couldn't care less what President Twinkletoes has to say on Miley Cyrus let alone U.S. foreign policy. Let it be said.
Right now whatever we're doing overseas isn't close to being a policy and for darn sure it's as foreign as a lutefisk (sp?) taco.
The comments above are exactly the tiredness I am speaking of, compounded by the justified wariness of Obama's ineffectual half-steps. -- Wholesale withdrawal is not the solution, it just compounds the problems and grows the threats. Instead, demand strength and purpose of Republican contenders for 2016 rather than propel a Obama-like isolationist Rand Paul. -- What a shame to have become in effect defeatists, furthering the goals of those undermining America's security.
What is missing is a clear definition of our "purpose." Until something more coherent than "police the world," "right wrong," "help poor people," and "advance Islam" are presented to Americans as our foreign policy, we should defend our own borders. Period. It's hardly defeatism to be sick and tired of having our national "purpose" defined by anonymous officials, lobbyists, sheiks, bankers, Mexican presidents, and contractors. The mindless demonization of Russia that all the rage today is a good example of our moronic approach to foreign policy.
Our foreign policy is incoherent. End of story. Until that is changed we need to stop spinning our wheels and throwing good money after bad. Stop the aimless, pointless hemorrhaging.
I've never seen anyone get it so wrong. Ever.
The U.S. achieved unrivaled dominance and worldwide support after letting the rest of the world go to hell. It had, up until Pearl Harbor a pathetic little army, a joke of an air force and a peacetime navy.
The world didn't listen to us after WWII because we grew the hell out of our power, it listened to us because we offered an option for peace and freedom unseen on the planet until 1945 after people learned through death and destruction that there must be a better way.
We tried it. We armed to the teeth to make it so.
The world grew weary of us and we in the military, of them. It had nothing to do with Vietnam or shortage of forces. Hell! It was Vietnam that made the military at least finally convince the ruling elite that applying minimal force was a pointless waste of time and effort. We went in in overwhelming force in all subsequent wars.
We just couldn't win the peace. Nobody had suffered enough, you know, other than the maimed and the dead and too, the scale of suffering that the world could / would tolerate grew out of recognition.
We don't care about ourselves is good. You are going to be quite terrified by the movement that springs up to show our concern first about ourselves. Remember the people that opposed the FDR administration? They were pink liberal pantywaists compared to what we are going to get. You see it in Europe now and I don't say it is wrong. The lib/progs are going to pay for throwing away 90 years of sacrifice and effort in an overnight appeasement to people who are 'other'.
WMD for breakfast some day, just like we woke up one morning on the West Coast to watch the second plane fly into another of the World Trade Center towers.
OK. Let’s stop our pretend defense. The Europeans and Japan are fellow democracies (mostly) who can take care of themselves. No more subsidies. No more NATO. No more US umbrella.
Let us use our power and wealth and blood where it is most needed. We must re-conquer the lands formerly held by the West in North Africa and the Levant and force Islam back into the deserts and peninsulas from which it sprang.
So now we want a government who cares? Not just for the poor and the weak at home, but all across the globe?
I reject this deeply Progressive view that any government -- much less the American government -- is properly charged to remake the world into a more peaceful and loving place.
Some random thoughts.
From my point of view it is difficult to have a coherent foreign policy when the views of the GOP and the Dems are so diametrically opposed. No FP can have a horizon further than the next presidential election because with the change in parties, FP can take on an entirely new tack.
Recall how State opposed Bush's FP when he was in office? He found out it was difficult to execute any FP that was at odds with the State Dept's vision of FP.
In the abstract, our FP should reflect and advance our national interests. What is in the national interest is likely where we disagree. I do not see where protecting people who hate our guts and want to kill us furthers the national interest. I also don't see how providing weapons to people who hate our guts and want to kill us is a rational plan either. But then I admit to being feeble minded.
I believe the overwhelming percentage of readers here at FM would like a muscular FP, we just don't want our strength and credibility frittered away on fools' errands, and if it is defeatist to think that way, it comes from bitter experience.
Finally, FP is at least partly reflected by the opinion of the electorate. Do you think the 10s of millions of third worlders living here give a rat's behind about FP? My thinking is they are more interested in the size of Uncle Sam's handouts and politicians are catering to that. Ditto for the millions of people that have been forced out of the job market and have little prospect of landing another job. This thinking does not bode well for any competent long term geopolitical strategy.
Bruce, IMO your thinking coincides with a percentage, perhaps a majority of the GOP, but that percentage is very small when the rest of the electorate is included.