Failed US Foreign Policy (manifesto style)

[cannon_fodder]

As the United States myopically focuses its attention on the Middle East we are losing prestige and influence in the rest of the world.      From influence at the world bank (which will be lost) to the United Nations (which has openly turned against US) or even to long standing allies such as Panama or Thailand - who are holding military exercises with Venezuela and China respectively. The United States is no longer the sole influence.

It was inevitable and favorable that our influence be diminished, not by our decline, but by the rise of other nations. As other nations rise we can gain greater trading partners and enjoy the fruits of their societies inventions, culture, and products.  However, the manner in which this transition is occurring is one in which we are in danger of losing not only primary influence but our voice altogether.

Only a fool would refuse to admit that the United States is not always a positive influence.  However, on the whole, during America's hegemony the world has grown more peaceful, more prosperous, and more understanding.  Clearly the world has not reach Nirvana and as much some want to argue this point, it has undoubtedly improved more so in the last 50 years than in the previous 200.  I do not feel the alternatives to American influence share my values of freedom in economics and politics that would allow the world to continue to improve.
---

The America's are our domain.  Ever since the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed no other power has been able to meddle and we have dominated this hemisphere for better or for worse.  However, with out attention turned elsewhere, hyperbole spouting Hugo Chavez has been able to gain power and influence over the region. Though his influence is growing, he makes an uneasy bedfellow as wealthy and educated Venezuelans continue to flee the country and nearby neighbors stock up on arms.  With all our political attention focused elsewhere our friends in the region have turned to him for aid, guidance, and policies even though they fear his radically talk.

Not only is this bad for the United States, but in the long run his socialist policies will end in ruin and his nationalistic goals will drive off any and all foreign investment.  Certainly not improving the position of a region in dire need of economic improvement.  Without any voice in the matter not only can the United States not gain economically, but we have less say in the drug trade, human rights, pollution (for as bad as our pollution record is look at Hugo's 40 cent gasoline with no sulfur or carbon removal, rain forest removal) or any other area you happen to deem important.  Fidel Castro - who ran his own country into the ground, is more popular in South America than the USA and may have more influence with the masses.

Our longtime allies in Europe have long ago abandoned us for oil and arms contracts with Saddam.  But until recently they at least pretended to respect us.  With the growing prominence of the EU economic zone we are at risk of losing even more influence.  There is no need for the US to be at odds with nations that share our desire for economic growth and many of our belief in inherent freedoms.  But our inability to work with them OR make amends when things did not go well has cost us dearly in Europe.  Though Europe show's no true desire to grow its influence in the world, certainly having the most industrialized, prosperous, stable and free nations as bed fellows wouldn't be a bad thing.

And yet another location where we have had great influence was in Asia.  Thailand, Laos, India, Singapore, Honk Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan:  all were countries in which the US Embassy was the center of political and often economic life.  With our attention focused elsewhere China has stepped in to fill the void with increased aid packages, economic free trade zones (which we cant do because we refuse to talk to Burma) and growing military influence.  With nearly half of world population this emerging area would be a good one to focus on I would think. However, if we "stop paying attention to us, [they] have only one suitor and only one option." - Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18246414/site/newsweek/page/2/

We are losing access to their markets, their people, and their leaders.  The US is more popular with the Vietnamese than China is, believe it or not, but currently China is extending a much more gracious hand.  Even Japan is being forced to recognize that China may soon be THE major player in Asia.

For that matter we have lost any and all inroads to Russia.  Our brief close ties have dried up in the face of renewed oppression by that government.  One has to wonder if US support for parliamentary factions (parliamentary not paramilitary) may have been able to slow down the damage.  The current threat from Russia isn't the nuclear weapons or invasion, but it's quest to regain influence over Eastern Europe through economic coercion and rumors of outright political assassination.  Emerging nations like the Ukraine and Poland are worth out time and attention, both are currently friendly to US interests and I would like to see it stay that way.

Africa... and Africa.  We continue to ignore Africa as we always have.  True oil robbery in Nigeria, extremists taking power in Egypt, genocide in central Africa, renewed war in Somalia.  I don't have a solution to these problems in Africa, but certainly ignoring them isn't it.  Unfortunately most of Africa isn't even developing or emerging... let alone an important trading partner.  But that doesn't mean it cannot be in the future.

Basically, we are ignoring every diplomatic or economic opportunity in the world at the moment.  All of our political attention is focused at the same place our military attention is placed and I am not seeing much of a return from either.
--

This isn't a matter of US pride or the decline of an Empire.  The structure, economy, and modernity of the United States means it is not the same beast that has come before.  The barbarians are not going to crash through our gates.  In a modern world of interlocking economic spheres and a near impossibility of military conquest influence and access to markets will make or break a nation.  Neither economics nor politics is a zero sum game.  Other nations can thrive and have political input, but I want to ensure the United States remains as the important figure in global economics and world politics.

The United State's currently reign's supreme in both area's and we have the technology and knowledge to maintain that hegemony.  It is my belief that the continued influence of the United States in world politics and world economics can drive to improve the world in the 21st century as we achieved in the 20th century by pushing for freedoms in politics and economics around the world.  A world with more freedoms is a world with greater possibilities to all, less repression, and reduced poverty. The alternative leaders that are stepping forward do not share my values of political nor economic freedom, but unless some fundamental policies shift those influence may soon surpass our own.

[shadows]

Posted - 04/24/2007 : 10:14:30
CF posts.
As the United States myopically focuses its attention on the Middle East


What number is your volume on ideology of the perfect solution in the today world attributed to?  Reads like you have achieved being the worlds greatest debtor where Carthage failed.

They are taking volunteers for their war games now.      

[mr.jaynes]

Most empires, on average, sooner or later go into decline in terms of influence. I think that the US's obsessive commitments to the Monroe Doctrine and the Good Neighbor Policy where LAtin America were concerned was only as effective as long as we didn't get too distracted in other parts of the world. Today, we are bogged down militarily in the Middle East and are failing miserably at that, and with the time we put into the effort there, we simply do not have the capability to flex in the rest of the world, especially the Americas. Evenso, our policies in regards to Central and South America did leave much to be desired.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Posted - 04/24/2007 : 10:14:30
CF posts.
As the United States myopically focuses its attention on the Middle East


What number is your volume on ideology of the perfect solution in the today world attributed to?  Reads like you have achieved being the worlds greatest debtor where Carthage failed.

They are taking volunteers for their war games now.      

Wind blows.
From the depths a fart was released.
Scent burns my eyes.
Carthage is burning, but not from a fire.
Can anyone save me?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by shadows



What number is your volume on ideology of the perfect solution in the today world attributed to?  Reads like you have achieved being the worlds greatest debtor where Carthage failed.

They are taking volunteers for their war games now.      

Wow.  Just wow.  This is possibly the most random grouping of words, sentences, and thoughts ever written.  The first sentence simply doesnt make sense,  I tried reading and re-reading it.  dissecting it.  I have no clue.   PLEASE, PLEASE give me an example of what would be an appropriate response to you inquiry.  You have managed to combine parts of the English language in a truly unique way.  Surely, no one has ever used those words, sentences or even thoughts in that order before the instant you wrote them.

What number is your volume on ideology of the perfect solution in the today world attributed to? Umm, 7? The answer has to be a number based on the start of the question.  In essence, its asking "what number is the writing attributed to?"  In "today world", we would call that a non sequitur.
---

The next sentence fragment (lacks a subject) is apparently trying to comment on my credit worthiness?  I'm not sure.  I was not aware of any great credit issues with the city state of Carthage nor myself.  Nor was I aware of any debt implications in my novel of a post.  Wow.  Just wow.  Where did this come from?  What made you think to post this?
---

And the last jab about Carthaginian war games, I don't get it.  I thought Carthage was burned and the citizens slaughtered by Scipio in 146 BC.  Are you implying that I am an exotic tribal warrior who fights as a specialist as the Punic forces of Carthage are fabled for fielding?  If so, thank you (I think).  If not, I have to ask again what you are talking about?

Is my education so woeful and my intelligence so lacking that he is simply speaking over me, or is it as nonsensical and random as it appears?

[Conan71]

And here I always thought Carthage was a sleepy little town in SW Missouri. []

[iplaw]

quote:Is my education so woeful and my intelligence so lacking that he is simply speaking over me, or is it as nonsensical and random as it appears?

I believe that it's Engrish.

Does the United States note myopically in the Middle East in order to adjust the focus, as for your capacity to ideological of the complete solution of what kind of several present worlds returning cause?

Like you the fact that it is the obligator where the world where Carthage which is achieved fails is splendid is read.

The volunteer for the war game now you take those.

[mr.jaynes]

With a myopic foreign policy as has been suggested here, along with a "President" who simply cannot recognize failure (much less admit it), leave us to say that we've had better days. Hey, I survived Katrina, so I know a thing or two about misplaced priorities where this administration is concerned.

As for the current "President," never confuse ideological bullheadedness with moral decisiveness and valor. These concepts obviously are mutually exclusive where he is concerned.

[iplaw]

Nor should we confuse State and Federal emergency management and supremacy, but hell, what do I know, I never lived in Chocolate City.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Nor should we confuse State and Federal emergency management and supremacy, but hell, what do I know, I never lived in Chocolate City.

I was actually born and for the first few years of my life, was raised in Greater New Orleans before moving to the Tulsa area, and returned there after leaving Tulsa area. Even after leaving New Orleans for Biloxi, it is a city that has kept my heart in so many ways. Sure, the local and state governments have plenty to be accountable for, just as the Federal Government does.

I'm fortunate that my condo and my vehicle came out of the storm reasonably safe, but only because I'm a little more elevated), but I can drive around the area and see people who were not as fortunate.

But back to foreign policy.

Sooner or later, empires tend to lose their grip on their colonies, vassal states and satellite nations. At some point, they will tend to elect leaders who are concerned about their own national sovereignty, and if the "colonial power" is already too distracted by other military adventures, the momentum for these experiments in independence will become greater. I'd say that the time is ripe for it these days, as opposed to the Cold War era, since the US is bogged down to distraction in the Middle East.

[iplaw]

quote:Sooner or later, empires tend to lose their grip on their colonies, vassal states and satellite nations. At some point, they will tend to elect leaders who are concerned about their own national sovereignty, and if the "colonial power" is already too distracted by other military adventures, the momentum for these experiments in independence will become greater. I'd say that the time is ripe for it these days, as opposed to the Cold War era, since the US is bogged down to distraction in the Middle East.

Oh boy.  Shadows part deux.

[cannon_fodder]

Alright, I'll take the bate...

What constitutes the United State's "colonies, vassal states and satellite nations?"  What nations do we currently repress that want their independence and how is that a reflection of the Iraq war?

Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico all voted to stay as affiliates of the US.  Our troops under under government invite in every country we currently occupy (including Iraq and Afghanistan) with the exception of Bosnia and Yugoslavia where we remain under a UN mandate and Cuba where we lease territory.  

It is true that we occupy conquered lands from coast to coast.  Even the South could be considered reconquered after thee civil war.  Russia officially refuses to recognize the sale of Alaska and some native Hawaiians think statehood was a joke.  But if those count as colonies, vassals or satellite nations then so do every other country on Earth - who all conquered their lands at some point.  Maybe I am wholly unaware of something and need to be enlightened...

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Alright, I'll take the bate...

What constitutes the United State's "colonies, vassal states and satellite nations?"  What nations do we currently repress that want their independence and how is that a reflection of the Iraq war?

Guam, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico all voted to stay as affiliates of the US.  Our troops under under government invite in every country we currently occupy (including Iraq and Afghanistan) with the exception of Bosnia and Yugoslavia where we remain under a UN mandate and Cuba where we lease territory.  

It is true that we occupy conquered lands from coast to coast.  Even the South could be considered reconquered after thee civil war.  Russia officially refuses to recognize the sale of Alaska and some native Hawaiians think statehood was a joke.  But if those count as colonies, vassals or satellite nations then so do every other country on Earth - who all conquered their lands at some point.  Maybe I am wholly unaware of something and need to be enlightened...

While the USA is booged down in the Middle East, with the intelligence effort joining in on this fool's errand, it doesn't seem to have the manpower to signifigantly influence even the nations in the Western Hemisphere as it used to. Hence, the increasing influence of Vanezuela's Chavez; the election of Morales in Bolivia; the return to office of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua (didn't think the Sandinistas had a chance, but hey, stranger things have happened), and other liberal politicians throughout Latin America who seem to capture the imagination of their people. All came into office on platforms that purportedly sought to improve the lives of their countrymen in so many ways. All wish to independently make decisions free of outside interference. And during the Cold War era, even up to and during the Reagan Administration, these people with what they seem to offer their people, would not be tolerated. Indeed, if the US weren't Stuck like Chuck in Iraq or Afghanistan, it stands to reason that there would be more of an effort in DC to depose them. The Monroe Doctrine seems to be losing its momentum, if only by default.  

You asked me what I meant by "colonies, vassal states and satellite nations." Let's examine the Western Hemisphere, specifically Latin America as a whole. It was, for all intents and purposes, our own backyard, our own socio-economic playground. Through the United Fruit company, we pretty much ruled Guatemala (for example), and primarily through organized crime, Cuba too. In Iran, the oil companies more or less called the tune. We made sure there was a brutal and dictatorial strongman in charge in each of these nations who'd keep the peasantry in line, and as long as they did what we and the corporations wanted them to do when we wanted them to do it, they could stay in power.

As long as they were anti-socialist or anything even remotely resembling socialism (I oppose it too, believe it or not, but that's a whole 'nother topic), any corruption or outrage or despotic tendency was fine. For instance, Cuba's Batista was owned by the Mafia and the US business interests, and had no intention of slowing down until we decided to stop sending him arms (by then it was too late for him); Panama's Noriega reputedly dabbled in drug trafficking, and was on the CIA payroll; Nicaragua's Somoza looted the treasury way before fleeing the country, as did Haiti's Duvalier and to some extent Marcos of the Philipines.

Every now and then in some of these nations, there would be an idealistic visionary or charismatic and messianic figure who'd try to make reforms (usually they were democratically-elected, or simply rose up from among the populace to make their voices heard), try to offer the people something a little better in terms of a better quality of life; in the end, they were either deposed or asassinated-sometimes both.

In Guatemala, for example it was a gent named Arbenz, or in Chile, it was a fellow named Allende; Haiti in relatively recent years had Aristide, and in the 1950's, the Shah of Iran was briefly deposed by his own Prime Minister Mossadegh. All were popularly elected or popularly recieved after coming into office by coup, with the goal of restructure the country in benefit to all the people, landowner and peasantry alike.

Unfortunately, due to outside intervention, the new status quo tended to run counter to our "interests" and these movements had to be snuffed out in favor of a more hardline method of governance. And whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, our government pretty much called the tune in these third world nations, fully aware of the human rights abuses occuring there and doing little to nothing about it, and instrumental in overturning or obstructing any government that didn't fully protect the corporate interests and the priveleges of a very select few.  

Now that Latin America is taking a more independent role in deciding what course it wants to take, let's see what they will choose to do with it.

[Hometown]

Cannon you completely ignore the big story of super trading blocks forming up worldwide.  These trading alliances are coalescing around geographic proximity rather than cultural ties.

[mr.jaynes]

And as for Iraq, Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz-one of the most premier military theorists and strategists of all time, and a Prussian no less- wrote, "No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it." Today's misadventures in Iraq seems a defiance of this ideal. Looking for the flimsiest reasons to invade, and no exit strategy. And if a military genius widely renowned and studied all these years after his demise can get it, why can't we?