Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with US foreign policy is that it has become extremely narrow and in my view, tactical. We seldom hear a great deal about the Bush administrations efforts in Asia, Latin America, or with India, Russia, and the EU. Not to say that it has never been discussed but what makes up the vast bulk of US foreign policy is simply the Middle East.
After the fall of the Soviet empire, there was great hope that finally inroads could be made and a potential great trading partner would emerge from the emerging and fledgling democratized Russia. This has never really materialized and instead a second chill has fallen over the lake of diplomacy. While not an escalating cold war, it is a relation that is coming under greater and greater strain each day, most specifically over the various Middle East interests.
Since the wall fell in the old Soviet state, there has been a new European Union emerge that is no longer under the same dark shadow of fear from Soviet invasion. Subsequently there is also a lessened need for US protection and intervention in the region as the EU now sees itself as being able to protect, defend and manage its own destiny, independent of any US influence.
In Asia, and specifically China, there has been a rapid movement towards capitalist style economics, while increasing populations of people striving for a higher standard of living has put enormous pressure on shrinking energy and food supplies. Even still, they have become an economic juggernaut that we are indebted to in sums greater than most of us care to think about.
There has also been a growing solidarity among Latin American nations, as they view the EU as a model to follow. Question remains, what will their relations be with the US as compared to the EU, Asia, and OPEC nations? Will we develop a more comprehensive trading-political relationship with the region or will it resist US efforts to intervene such as in Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua?
However, as we have all been witnessed to the past 7 years of our, "humble, no new nation building" style of Middle East intervention, it is in fact about the only place we have focused and the rest of the world carries on.
Some times it is necessary to stick a gun in someones face, sometimes, it is necessary to sit down and talk to folks, the choice then becomes, will we choose someone who has the strength to do both but knows which course is best for our long term interests.
Many believe it is a failure because it has not achieved the most important aspect of the surge - you know, the Diplomatic part. But that is the Achilles heel of the current administration and it's followers. The refusal to talk to our enemies is only the cream on the sauce of failure, as Diplomacy involves negotiating peace in the theater of war as well as Before an escalation of War. When one appeases the adversary with monetary gifts, the assumption would be a smoother diplomatic road. This; however, has not been the result. Simple math suggests if the surge is a success the violence should have subsided long term - this has not happened. Simple math suggests the pre-surge level troops would be home - this has not happened. Perhaps humanitarian, evidence would be 4 million people flocking home from refugee camps, right?
No?
You want us to believe the incredible tale of the most powerful military on the planet, infused with billions of dollars, engaged with a few insurgents, need a few more years until we can even get a timetable for when they might come home? And this makes sense?
Perhaps I'm looking at this totally wrong....I await enlightenment.
Yes there was consensus that it WAS successful, I am not sure that since the incursion into Basra and the damaging attacks on the Green Zone the consensus is still that strong. Remember numbers of Iraqi soldier just stopped fighting and went home. That was a real surprise. I can't remember when in their history they went home rather then fight.
Some times it is necessary to stick a gun in someones face, sometimes, it is necessary to sit down and talk to folks, the choice then becomes, will we choose someone who has the strength to do both but knows which course is best for our long term interests.
No one is and can be. None of the candidates have real experience in the diplomatic arena. Now the wild card is if McCain picks Rice. Then you have to decide if she is responsible for or helped to prevent things from being worse.
The problem with US foreign policy is that it has become extremely narrow and in my view, tactical. We seldom hear a great deal about the Bush administrations efforts in Asia, Latin America, or with India, Russia, and the EU. Not to say that it has never been discussed but what makes up the vast bulk of US foreign policy is simply the Middle East.
After the fall of the Soviet empire, there was great hope that finally inroads could be made and a potential great trading partner would emerge from the emerging and fledgling democratized Russia. This has never really materialized and instead a second chill has fallen over the lake of diplomacy. While not an escalating cold war, it is a relation that is coming under greater and greater strain each day, most specifically over the various Middle East interests.
Since the wall fell in the old Soviet state, there has been a new European Union emerge that is no longer under the same dark shadow of fear from Soviet invasion. Subsequently there is also a lessened need for US protection and intervention in the region as the EU now sees itself as being able to protect, defend and manage its own destiny, independent of any US influence.
In Asia, and specifically China, there has been a rapid movement towards capitalist style economics, while increasing populations of people striving for a higher standard of living has put enormous pressure on shrinking energy and food supplies. Even still, they have become an economic juggernaut that we are indebted to in sums greater than most of us care to think about.
There has also been a growing solidarity among Latin American nations, as they view the EU as a model to follow. Question remains, what will their relations be with the US as compared to the EU, Asia, and OPEC nations? Will we develop a more comprehensive trading-political relationship with the region or will it resist US efforts to intervene such as in Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua?
However, as we have all been witnessed to the past 7 years of our, "humble, no new nation building" style of Middle East intervention, it is in fact about the only place we have focused and the rest of the world carries on.
Some times it is necessary to stick a gun in someones face, sometimes, it is necessary to sit down and talk to folks, the choice then becomes, will we choose someone who has the strength to do both but knows which course is best for our long term interests.
We also hear little about the Administrations admirable efforts in Africa. We are paying attention; however, to what they wish us to focus on, and that is the War. Somehow it is the sum of all that ails us, until we are presented a new scapegoat. What is disconcerting is, if this is the play we are to see, the participants have been found wanting in their presentation.
Diplomacy is the game of chess, and we have found all the players aligned without us.
Interesting you choose the Sicilian defense with the Najdorf Variation, being one of the most complex as well as highest scoring defenses since it aggressively seeks to control the center of the board.
Kasperov once said that while the world plays the game of geopolitical chess, we are busy playing checkers. I can't help but look back at Brzezinski's plan to goad the Soviets into Afghanistan and hand them their own Vietnam, or as some know it as the Afghan trap. At the time, there was no fear of radical Islamic fundamentalism since we were helping it to fight the common enemy at the time, the Soviets. After the Soviets pulled out, I recall mention that Brezhnev warned that the genie (radical fundamentalist Muslims) were let out of the bottle and pleaded with the US to retract funding of various groups. Such is history that it might lead us to today. Even still, there was a sense that the US looked out unto the world and saw a checkered board, today I get the feeling we look out the window and only see sand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
