The US must actively pursue its interest in foreign policy. As a practical matter we need the Europeans on board for successful Middle East policy. Gotta have both.
(Including withdrawing military from the region.)
I would include Russia with the Europeans.
Our current trouble is relying too heavily on mostly British support - its not enough to get things done.
We will need international heavy hitters in coming years.
Unity08 note: Having a Jewish president is just fine, but may make things more difficult in the Middle East.
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
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wayne_ma_070705_libby_a_long_time_mo.htm
Ironic that a Mossad agent outs a CIA agent.
Yeah and I believe everything I read too...
I don't believe we need things like the U.N. to guide our foriegn policy. Almost all of the world's wars could have been advoided if the Europeans could have calmed their squabbly arguments that turn in to full scale conflicts. Thats why the Founding Fathers, and particularily George Washington, warned Americans not to become entangled into European affairs regarding foriegn policy. That was the policy of the United States until the end of World War to when the U.N. charter was signed in San Fransico.
I don't believe that we need the support of Russia, (a democracy in name, a dictatorship in practice), or the squabbling band of European nations who have only now come together to launch some space craft and invent the Euro, (soveign nations in name, a United European super state in practice), to help us.
We Americans can get things done be ourselves. When the world's in danger, we'll bail out what ever God forsaken country got invaded by (A. Saddam, B. Hitler, C. The Kaiser, or D. All of the Above), but that doesn't mean we need to buddy up with them. Granted, swaying them to our cause (of liberty and freedom abroad) and our beliefs serves our interests, but it is just as best not to become to entangled in their affairs.
In general, I believe we need to extend policies like the Monroe Doctrine to further extent. That means the Russians can pump their own oil instead of getting a short leash on Hugo Chavez and the Venezulan oil reserves.
I believe that the best policy would be to follow General Washington's words of, "Observe good faith to all nations,". If we do that, no nation can rightly accuse us of being a conquering, bullying force.
______________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
I feel the United states should return to a policy of isolationism where the Middle East is concerned. With the exception of supporting Israel and maintaining garrisons of military personnel in a few of the countries of that region, for the purpose of reconnaissance and immediate strike capabiltity in lieu of national defense, we should otherwise revoke any interests and support to nations there. Our presence in the Middle East is too costly and we simply are not welcomed. So, dispand our association with OPEC, remove all foreign investments and acquisitions on our part, cut off our embassies and end immigration opportunities for their people, while beginning anew in other parts of the world. As a kind gesture, we as a nation should cancel any and all debts to borrowers in that region as well, simply to wish them luck, as we very politely and kindly divorce them.
Though we do benefit from oil resources and some other commodities there, too much is needed even to maintain our presence in the region. Local resources are quite minimal and often unobtainable because of security, climate, or political and religious restrictions that are too taxing on American interests and thus require us to bring our own supplies which any good businessman or woman knows is not a capital idea. The hostilities that have occurred over the decades alone are the most unwelcoming. We as a nation are now involved in the "War on Terror", which thousands of American lives have been lost to as well as many of our liberties being resticted if not denied, all in the name of security! The money that has been spent there has brought us little if any actual prosperity or even a more thorough understanding of the people of that region who show little regard towards their fellow man let alone any real ambition to make progress.
Though it may be their way to live in the conditions they are in and with the many beliefs they hold, this is strictly too foreign to the American way of life! We as a people have progressed by tremendous leaps and bounds in only a few centuries even reaching the moon, whereas many of these middle eastern nations have barely even made strides in the thousands of years of their existence. Why then would we want to deal with people of these standards? And though there are some individuals there willing to embrace a new and better world, they are but so few and far too little. It may be many decades before democracy is perceived as a concept over their allegiance to despotism, which is something no true blooded American could ever live with, and we as a free people can't ram that down their throats.
Simply put, let's just leave this party, for now...
The problems to "democratize" the Middle East arise from the fact that we're democratizing it in the completely wrong way. For example, look at Iraq - when a "war of liberation" has caused massive destabilization in the country, people begin to associate democracy with chaos. Now Iraq has a barely functioning government, a destroyed infrastructure and economy, and a civil war.
And it isn't because the people there "don't want democracy" - they do, but not at the cost of stability. Going from some form of autocratic government (whether it's the secular dictatorship of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or the theocratic "junta" of sorts of modern-day Iran) to a democracy isn't a change that can be caused by military action, especially if it's in a country with virtually no middle class (the backbone of democracy), a poor infrastructure and economy, poor education, etc. Just as an example, around 70% of Iranians are under 30, which seems irrelevant, until one takes into account the fact that they were born AFTER the Islamic Revolution (or were incredibly young when it happened) - the words "death to America" and "destroy the Shah" don't resonate with them. Hell, many would prefer to GO to America than chant for its death. Many Iranian intellectuals also regret the fact that many of them took part in the Revolution - they refer to it as a time when they "collectively lost their heads", and they simply went from one repressive regime to another. Of course, it also doesn't help when the Islamist (to those unaware, Islamist = Muslim extremists who utilize Islam for political gain) regime goes to great lengths to destroy monuments, books, etc. of pre-Islamic Iranian civilization, as many of the Iranians are nationalists who take pride in their country's pre-Islamic (and Islamic) history. However, these Iranians also realize that violent revolution isn't going to guarantee a stable democracy or republic, and would rather gradually reform and democratize the country by electing pro-reform, progressive candidates. What we're hopefully going to see in Iran is a non-violent revolution more akin to, say the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, or the Color/Flower Revolutions in Eastern Europe today as opposed to a violent revolution like the one that created the USA.
As for other countries with repressive regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere, we need to free the markets there and build stable economies with a solid middle class before we can begin freeing general society. And, while no one likes to support dictators who first free the markets before freeing society, it's often for the best, as it hopefully leads to a stable, functioning democracy or republic when the dictatorship or junta ends.
"I am King of the Romans, and am superior to the rules of grammar." - Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
Sigismund,
I hope you are correct but how/when is that going to happen when the elections (like many) are a farce?
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2005/may-2005/iran-elections-24505.shtml
Election fraud is undoubtedly the biggest hurdle for the Iranians to overcome, but there really isn't any other way. Like I said, Iran has a theocratic "junta" of sorts (all power rests with the Guardian Council, if I'm not mistaken), so we need to wait for an effective leader (or leaders) to eventually begin/continue reforms. Of course, another way is for the reformers to start trying to convince the military to force the current regime out of power, but that might just lead to a military dictatorship. Then again, the Carnation Revolution was bloodless and led by the military, and now Portugal has a functioning liberal democracy.
Of course, if the Iranian market is freed (I'm afraid I'm not sure how free it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranian government forbids foreign investment from ideological enemies) and foreign investment is encouraged, a stable economy would be built (and nations would thus have an interest in gradual reform to prevent instability and possible monetary losses, if not worse), which would also hopefully guarantee a liberal democracy. The precedent is there, just look at Augusto Pinochet and Chile or Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore, or (hopefully) Pervez Musharraf and Pakistan.
"I am King of the Romans, and am superior to the rules of grammar." - Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor
I feel the United states should return to a policy of isolationism where the Middle East is concerned. With the exception of supporting Israel and maintaining garrisons of military personnel in a few of the countries of that region, for the purpose of reconnaissance and immediate strike capabiltity in lieu of national defense, we should otherwise revoke any interests and support to nations there. Our presence in the Middle East is too costly and we simply are not welcomed. So, dispand our association with OPEC, remove all foreign investments and acquisitions on our part, cut off our embassies and end immigration opportunities for their people, while beginning anew in other parts of the world. As a kind gesture, we as a nation should cancel any and all debts to borrowers in that region as well, simply to wish them luck, as we very politely and kindly divorce them.
Though we do benefit from oil resources and some other commodities there, too much is needed even to maintain our presence in the region. Local resources are quite minimal and often unobtainable because of security, climate, or political and religious restrictions that are too taxing on American interests and thus require us to bring our own supplies which any good businessman or woman knows is not a capital idea. The hostilities that have occurred over the decades alone are the most unwelcoming. We as a nation are now involved in the "War on Terror", which thousands of American lives have been lost to as well as many of our liberties being resticted if not denied, all in the name of security! The money that has been spent there has brought us little if any actual prosperity or even a more thorough understanding of the people of that region who show little regard towards their fellow man let alone any real ambition to make progress.
Though it may be their way to live in the conditions they are in and with the many beliefs they hold, this is strictly too foreign to the American way of life! We as a people have progressed by tremendous leaps and bounds in only a few centuries even reaching the moon, whereas many of these middle eastern nations have barely even made strides in the thousands of years of their existence. Why then would we want to deal with people of these standards? And though there are some individuals there willing to embrace a new and better world, they are but so few and far too little. It may be many decades before democracy is perceived as a concept over their allegiance to despotism, which is something no true blooded American could ever live with, and we as a free people can't ram that down their throats.
Simply put, let's just leave this party, for now...
While I apreciate the sentiments stated here and agree, on some level, to all of them when are we going to pull our heads out of the sand? The UN is an impotent, corrupt, useless organization period. With the possible exception of the refugee work. Also, Russia is no ally anymore and cozying up to them may prove dangerous. I hope I am wrong there but recent activity with Putin and Chavez have me squeeming.
Finally and most importantly Europe may not be around to have as an ally for long. Look at the birth rates alone. Italy, for example, has birth rates so low now that they aren't even replacing their own populations. Now compare that with the Muslim communities in Europe.
Frank,
I appreciate your optimism, but:
"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."
How exactly do you work with nations (i.e. Iran) when the President of that country openly calls for the annihilation of Isreal and the Jews?
---
People want to go back to isolationism? Fine, but please take it to it's fullest extent. Pull our Military from all of them. Stop sending aid to the Palestinians, Africa, et al. Kick the UN out of the US and stop the funding. That being said, you had better keep up the military because sooner or later, they are coming...