On Foreign Policy an excellent prescient New York Times Op-Ed appeared on 3/26/07 Op-Ed, “What We Can Do” from Rory Stewart who has written excellent analyses and books on his recent on the ground experiences in Afganistan and Iraq last of which was “The Prince of the Marshes”. Was reading on the metro last nite and would urge all at Unity to read here this article at this link:
http://freedemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/03/rory-stewart-what-we-can-do.html
some excerpts:
"...the paralyzed leaders, afraid of their impotence, flit from troop increases to flight, from engagement to isolation. We must prevent this by acknowledging our limits, while recognizing that although we are less powerful and informed than we claimed, we are more powerful and informed than we fear....
we can continue to protect our soil from terrorist attack, we can undertake projects that prevent more people from becoming disaffected, and we can even do some good. In short, we will be able to do more, not less, than we are now. But working with what is possible requires humility and the courage to compromise.....
We will have to focus on projects that Iraqis and Afghans demand; prioritize and set aside moral perfectionism; work with people of whom we don’t approve; and choose among lesser evils. We will have to be patient. We should aim to stop illegal opium growth and change the way that Iraqis or Afghans treat their women. But we will not achieve this in the next three years. We may never be able to build a democratic state in Iraq or southern Afghanistan. Trying to do so through a presence based on foreign troops creates insurgency and resentment and can only end in failure.
“You are saying,” the politician replies, “that we ought to sit back and do nothing.” On the contrary I believe we can do a great deal. But ought implies can. We have no moral obligation to do what we cannot do."
I recommend reading the article in full! It gives wonderful insight and perspective as we go forth with meaningful and vitally important Grand Strategy delineation in this country. This IS a one of the top 3 or 4 Mega-issues we will need to adress and resolve in some way in the next 5 to 10 years if the Republic is to survive into the next Century! Unity can lead the way!
In ALL our deliberations and policies we synthesize here at Unity. We need to connect the dots so to speak and the ends-means disconnects by asking and prioritizing “Ought” with the “Can”. We ought to do a lot of things such as maybe health care, political reform, immigration reform, Foreign/Defense Policy/Grand Strategy, Comprehensive Entitlement reform, Domestic Economic Stability, Energy/Environment, etc. Throughout all we need to ask that all important “Ought Implies Can” question, because as Stewart say in the last sentence of that op-ed – “We have no moral obligation to do what we cannot do." If we talk about all the wonderful “oughts”, we at the same time need to sync up with the “can”.
If there is a discrepancy between the two, we need to be truthful and upfront (the HARD TRUTHS) with the American people and lay it all out how we will boost the “can” (what is possible – through shared sacrifice or whatever) to make sure we do what we need to do as a nation for our people and the world (the “oughts”). So to me this whole unity process is a big syncing ups so to speak of determining what is in our true and vital National Interests (the “oughts”) andnational values with the means of delivering on those oughts (the can part) on all the issues we present. Policies propounded DO have costs of implementation. The PACs and lobbyist special interests are particularly adept at exploiting this vast and growing ends-means disconnect to the detriment of the medium and long-term National interest! Thus their proliferation here on K St in DC. Jonathan Rauch in his books (‘Government’s End’ and ‘Democlerosis’) shows so well how this nexus has occurred. It’s only getting worse folks!
Our Unity candidates we present should be the best to sync up those “Oughts” and “Cans” so we do not have to suffer the big ends-means disconnects BOTH parties have foisted upon us in the last several decades of the republic! To me all the troubles we have experienced domestically and internationally in the last few decades has been the abject failure to sync up the two.
And I'll end with my favorite George Kennan quote:
"Any message we may try to bring to others will be effective only if it is in accord with what we are to ourselves, and if this is something sufficiently impressive to compel the respect and confidence of a world which, despite all its material difficulties, is still more ready to recognize and respect spiritual distinction than material opulence."
I particularly like the George Kennan quote. It rings true. We scoff at the "confessions" of the British captives, yet we have that Guantanamo captive confessing that he was behind everything except the killing of OJ's ex-wife....
This administration has been espousing democracy as the panacea, while threatening democracy here at home. It isn't unnoticed in the world arena.
When we have a better moral compass I believe the US will be better regarded.
The article is very realistic - the Iraq fiasco shows it's wisdom - wishing for something isn't of use if it isn't within your means to achieve. Whether Cheney really believed "we'd be welcomed as liberators" or not we'll probably never know, but that it was outside of reality we do know.
Denial of facts does not remove the influence of those facts.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
The American Inquisition - Foreign Policy
The Spanish Inquisition came about because the Catholic Church grew too powerful and excesses followed from that power. I see a lot of parallels between the Spanish Inquisition and how the United States is acting in its foreign policy practices of today.
The United States is the 800 lb. gorilla in the world today. We have the strongest economy, strongest military and biggest attitude of pretty much everyone else on the face of the planet and, with this administration, we have gotten into the very bad habit of throwing our weight around as we see fit. If we can replace the current administration with one less determined to prove that the American (and Republican/Democratic Party) way is the only right way I believe our relationship with the rest of the world will improve considerably.
Afghanistan was and is a "good war" and that situation would probably have been over by now if we hadn't diverted our attention and resources by also getting involved in the "bad war" in Iraq.
The world is a much smaller and much more dangerous place than it used to be and no matter how big, strong and determined we may be as a country, we cannot afford to try and go it alone in dealing with the world's problems.
As President, one of my first goals would be to work towards repairing our standing with the rest of the world.
Al Qaeda is a world problem, not just a problem of the United States or of democracies. As a world problem, Al Qaeda needs to be dealt with by the world together, not the United States going it alone (most of the time).
Don't get me wrong, the United Nations is mainly a bureaucracy that is truly incapable of solving any real problems (look at Sudan, Rwanda, etc to see how ineffective they can be), but if we as a nation work to build a true coalition before moving then the results are always a lot better for us and the world as a whole. Remember how high our standing in the rest of the world was after the first gulf war. Where is our standing now with the world community? As was recently stated by columnist Tom Hennessy, "Instead of viewing the terrorists as an enemy to be defeated through military action, see them as part of an international criminal conspiracy to be dismantled and destroyed by international police action."
We do need a coalition police force. We do not need the US to be the world's policeman. For one thing, most other countries resent it and, second, we aren't very good at it. We are in places we shouldn't be and not in places we should be, so let's not be anywhere unless we are asked and there is a compelling reason for us to be there. If a dictator in Africa is allowing people to hack the arms off of each other, then maybe we have a moral obligation (not the right) to do something to stop it. Beyond that, we shouldn't be spending all of our money stationing our soldiers all over the world. "Walk softly and carry a big stick" was excellent advice. I propose that we stick to that advice by greatly reducing our presence overseas and focusing our attention on the defense and security of our own country.
Iraq:
The current debate concerning Iraq is very polarizing and seems to settle on two choices: stay or leave. However, once again from the same column by Tom Hennessy comes this advice, "The choice is not simply to stay or leave. There is a middle course: terminate the combat mission, offer advice, training, material support and economic assistance as long as there appears to be a viable Iraqi government, launch a diplomatic effort to keep the violence in Iraq from destabilizing the region. In the end, the Iraqis will decide their fate. We cannot do so."
The Direction of Our Foreign Policy under My Administration:
The above seems like very good advice for all of our foreign relations now and in the future. We didn't destroy Russia and communism, the Russians decided to give it up themselves. We didn't tear down the wall in Germany, the Germans did that. We didn't save Vietnam from Communism, but the Vietnamese have become one of the most dynamic "free" market economies in the Southeast Asia region. We may have played a part in helping them make those decisions, but the fact is that they had to do it themselves.
Everyone and every country have a different personality and that means they try to solve problems in a different way. Doesn't mean they are wrong, just different and, who knows, by working together we may find out someone else has a better solution to the problem.
A major tenant of our foreign policy, therefore, has to be somewhat similar to that of an advisor who says, "Well, that isn't how I'd approach it, but if you're going to do it at least let me give you some advice and support." Then be there to offer support and advice if needed. I think the US might be pleasantly surprised at how well the rest of the world does without us trying to tell them how to do everything our way. The rest of the world would probably appreciate it as well and we will get along with them a whole lot better as a result.
To see my interview on a French blog site please go to:
http://forum21.aceboard.fr/1130-6326-59360-0-Exclusive-interview-Frank-McENULTY-English.htm
Thanks for your support and please continue to tell everyone you know about my efforts,
Sincerely,
Frank McEnulty
frank@frankforpresident.org
www.frankforpresident.org
Your posting the same thing under several topics.
This one is as appropriate as any and I hope the web Team deletes the others.
....don't worry about that president thing too much.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Just trying to get the message out.
Just trying to get the message out.
Thought this Rory Stewart (knows the areas and what he speaks) piece on the current situation in Afgan is excellent and points out to BOTH the extreme sides of this debate the fact that we do need above all cogent well thoughtout multi-dimensional strategy rather than repeating the mistakes we experience in Iraq without one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23stewart.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Some excepts:
"Our best hope in Afghanistan is to continue to manage the country through a light civil and military presence. Southern Afghanistan will remain unstable for some time to come. Although we cannot change this, we can contain the situation...."
"Our best hope is rather to focus on the many secure and welcoming parts of Afghanistan’s center and north. Efforts to jumpstart local economies led by members of those communities are more effective, more relevant and more sustainable than those dictated by outsiders. We have a great opportunity in the north, center and west of Afghanistan to lead development projects for which Afghans will still be grateful 50 years from now."
"This does not mean that we should withdraw and partition the country, or that the Pashtun south is doomed. But only the Afghans have the power to end the insurgency and create a stable and democratic south. It will not be easy. Residents have not yet mobilized effectively against the Taliban. Other Afghan ethnic groups still see the insurgency as a Pashtun problem and would rather not be involved. Twenty-five years of war has left a power vacuum. Politicians concerned with Afghanistan continue to underestimate the power and autonomy of provincial groups and the appeal of tribe and religion."
"Stabilizing southern Afghanistan will require uncomfortable compromises. It will certainly take 20 years for Afghanistan to develop an economy to match even Bangladesh, or a civil service or military to match that of Pakistan. In the meantime, the Pashtun areas may remain as wild and unstable as the tribal areas of Pakistan. But Afghanistan on the whole can become more stable, more humane and more prosperous than it is today."
"American-led military occupations and counterinsurgency campaigns are unsustainable and counterproductive, not just in Iraq or Afghanistan but in all nationalist Muslim countries. But this is not a call for disengagement."
"We need a new strategy that can be applied not only in Iraq but also in Pakistan and wherever else these threats emerge. It should not rely on large amounts of troops and money but on intelligence, pragmatic politics, savvy use of our development assistance and on special forces operations. Rather than throwing more troops at Afghanistan and turning it into a second Iraq, we should use it as a model for a lighter, smarter approach."
Rory Stewart is the author of “The Places in Between” and “The Prince of the Marshes.”
----
So where are our George Kennan's CIRCA 2024 when we really need them??
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com