"Improving America’s Standing In the World"

[Royd 0]

Quote

If we do want to get involved in other countries, do it via the UN. They are better equipped to do so than we are, as has been shown in the past (and, sadly, today.)

As my dad would put it, " They couldn't whip their way out of a wet paper bag."

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Or if the former -- improving America's standing in the world -- enables, is perhaps even *critical* to accomplishing the latter –

Tell me your vision of how that's accomplished. Short of Bill's idea of placing a big bubble over the US and telling everyone else to get f&%ked, I don't think it's possible. There will always be some person or country wanting to improve it's position at the expense of some other persons or countries. Any time that occurs there will be conflict. Somebody's not going to like what someone else is doing.

You partially answered your question yourself two posts above the reply:

Quote

Today there are some 200 [194, if you count Taiwan – nerdgirl] sovereign nations in the world. Of these, 120 are multi-party democracies. Compare this with 1970 when there were fewer than 35 nations that were not outright dictatorships or operating under the iron fist of the single party rule of Communism. [ link to Alan Caruba’s Op-Ed as it’s not a novel observation.] That didn't happen by accident. I still believe that there are people in this world who want democracy and need our help to attain it. Who better than us? We have the money and the might.

The problem is that the referenced incidents occurred *before* the fall of the Soviet Union, which is when the balance of power shifted from a bi-polar world to the US as sole dominant superpower – or ‘hyperpower.' That was when America's role in the world changed.

The more recent the invasion of Iraq (OIF), Abu Ghraib torture scandal, ‘extraordinary rendition,’ and Guantanamo has negatively impacted America’s standing & credibility.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had a more profound impact on the US then the attacks of September 11th… & that’s not a novel assertion on my part: the attacks of September 11th did not alter the balance of power; instead, they aggravated differences in the imbalance that already existed. E.g., in 1995, in a survey conducted for USAID, majorities around the world said that the United States was intent on dominating them. Even during President Clinton’s tenure, America was considered a bully by 83% of people polled in Israel (remember who gets most U.S. foreign aid), 77% in Morocco, 71% in Colombia (again large recipient of foreign aid), and 61% in Britain. To quote you: “If they really don't like us they should decline our aid. I don't see any of them saying ‘no, we don't like you. Take your financial aid and stick it up your ass.’” It’s not a ‘blame President Bush’s administration’ issue (maybe it is for you but not for me).

There have been other lesser contributors to the decline in America’s international standing:
-- abrupt withdrawl from Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) additional protocol in July 2001 (something else which America initially led following the revelations of the former Soviet Union’s offense biological weapons program in the early 1990s) – Trust & Verify,
-- failure to ratify the nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT),
-- failure to join the International Criminal Court – rule of law must apply to *us* too.

Many, including myself, had hoped that Europe would emerge as a balancing power to create a multi-polar world. That hasn’t happened. China may emerge. Until then America is the world’s lone hyper-power.

Now back to “My vision,” since you asked. My vision is for America to be that “shining city on the hill.”

Vision without strategy and executables is recyclable electrons travelling between neurons.

To start, since I haven’t gotten that Undersecretary Position yet , I’d recommend:

(1) Pursue solutions through hard *&* soft power.

America’s public diplomacy faces “a fundamental problem of credibility."

(2) Restore international legitimacy.

Return to active, productive role in the multilateral international community.
Traditional arms control are a foundational tool in the tool box; grow PSI; get Russia actively involved in executing & paying for CTR (e.g., say in Pakistan); push for the Gulf states to take more active role w/r/t Iran.

Close Guantanamo, end extraordinary rendition, and put Senator McCain in charge of bi-partisan investigation of inappropriate use of “enhance interrogation,” “exceptionally harsh questioning,” or whatever euphemism one wants to use for torture. Give it teeth and the power to impact appropriations, i.e., budgets.

(3) Security, stabilization, transition, and *reconstruction* (SSTR). That last part is the hardest.

If you read the DoD’s 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), there are >3 dozen references to SSTR.

Get the Active Response Corps (ARC), Stand-By Response Corps (SRC), & Civilian Reserve Corps (CRC) activated, except put it DoD not State, a recommendation w/which I realize some of our former military folks here disagree *vehemently* … well, that’s a whole ‘nother thread. Those are the kind of folks (guys *&* girls) who expertise and recommendations I would solicit on foreign policy, not Michael Ledeen.

[whisper] “Pentagon’s Marshall Plan” … more here (Defense News requires subscription, however) [/whisper]

(4) Expand the integrated core & decrease the non-integrating gap.

That *is* recognition of the ‘guns, germs, & steel’ of the 21st Century: Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts (sponsored by the National Intelligence Council) – ignoring the Global South and the non-integrating gap will non be good for America.

(5) Eliminate missile defense. It’s a cold war era relic – I have very little patience for those stuck in Fulda Gap mentality – and the de facto budgetary prioritization is counter to the President's Strategy for Combating WMD, the National Security Strategy, and the national military strategies.

(6) Increase funding to DoD between 50% & 150%, which is even larger than the Heritage Foundation has called for.

(7) All those things I posted at the very start of this thread: from Rep Gingrich's to Archbishop Tutu's recommendations.

(8) Watch this site: 9/11+6 Initiative: Foreign Policy Priorities for a Secure America for more … prolly late Jan/early Feb.

Set the bar high; don't lower it.
Don't apologize for having high standards.
(Which is not the same as isolationism, cowboy-diplomacy, elitism, arrogance, unilateralism or any other pejorative descriptors.)

I’ve put out my vision and plan, what’s yours?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,434]

>As my dad would put it, " They couldn't whip their way out of a wet paper bag."

And that's just fine. If they talk everything to death instead of killing ten thousand people a year - we all come out ahead.

[billvon 2,434]

Update on foreign fighters -

As of Nov 2007, the breakdown was like this:

Total foreign fighters in the insurgents we capture: 1.2 percent. Top two were Saudi Arabia (.49%) and Libya (.21%.) Looks like our ally Saudi Arabia is the worst offender.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Total foreign fighters in the insurgents we capture: 1.2 percent. Top two were Saudi Arabia (.49%) and Libya (.21%.) Looks like our ally Saudi Arabia is the worst offender.

Why not.. most of the 911 hijackers were Saudi as well...

At some point the USA will have to realize where most of this Wahhabist bullshit is coming from.. and deal with it accordingly.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>As my dad would put it, " They couldn't whip their way out of a wet paper bag."

And that's just fine. If they talk everything to death instead of killing ten thousand people a year - we all come out ahead.

Your normal third world tyrant does just that. He keeps talking and delaying any action while he kills ten thousand.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 2,434]

>He keeps talking and delaying any action while he kills ten thousand.

Note the critical difference between your model and mine.

BVN: ". . . instead of killing ten thousand people a year."

RJ: ". . . while he kills ten thousand."

Subtle but important distinction.

[rickjump1 0]

How about ten thousand people in a week vs ten thousand people a year. Killing is killing. If he manages to kill one person using delaying tactics to buy time, the paper bag theory is accurate. "Instead of killing"? He does kill. He successfully uses the system to his advantage. Does this make sense?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 2,434]

> How about ten thousand people in a week vs ten thousand people a year. Killing is killing.

Correct. Less killing is better. Organizations/countries/groups that kill fewer people are, in my book, choosing the right path.

>"Instead of killing"? He does kill. . . . Does this make sense?

Who is "he?" Is he "your normal third world tyrant?" I sure hope we keep delaying on people like that. There are a heck of a lot of them, and we're not the police.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Correct. Less killing is better. Organizations/countries/groups that kill fewer people are, in my book, choosing the right path.

Well, I guess we are on the right track, then. We got rid of a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands, and would have continued to do so.

How would the UN have stopped him? Dazzling him with soldiers in baby blue helmets?

[shropshire 0]

>

It always make me laugh when Americans take the pissout of the UN.... You ARE the UN as much as many of the rest of us

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[pirana 0]

Quote

Let's assume we needed to "work" on our standing in the world (I don't)

What would be different?

Why should I be concerned about it?

When did our "standing" change?

When we traded our principles of freedom, liberty, and justice for the exploitation of other countries resources via economic and military bullying.

If you like our current standing, then your desire would be for the status quo in foreign policy. If you would like our standing to change, than your desire would be for a change in foreign policy. Either way, you probably have an interest, and thereforea concern with whether there is going to be change or not.

Work towards a longer vision. Looking over even the last century, you should be able to recognize fundamental changes in our role, and therefore our standing, on the world stage. Extrapolated out over a few more decades; where do you think the current path is most likely to lead.

There has only been one other superpower on the level of the current USA in all the annals of recorded human history - the Romans. You should read a good history of them. The paralles with our behavior are amazing. They traded living by strict principles of liberty and freedom for empire building and access to cheap goods.

It may also be no mere coincidence that one of the cornerstones of their undoing was getting mired down in the politics of the Mideast.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>

It always make me laugh when Americans take the pissout of the UN.... You ARE the UN as much as many of the rest of us

Yes, but wouldn't that nice building look better in London?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[shropshire 0]

No room mate

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

energy policy, support for Israel, and the 50-year record of U.S. support and protection for Arab tyrannies.

Bingo! We have a winner.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

>

It always make me laugh when Americans take the pissout of the UN.... You ARE the UN as much as many of the rest of us

Proof that Americans can laugh at themselves!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,434]

>How would the UN have stopped him?

They already had. Google how many people Saddam killed between 1999 and 2003. Now google how many people we've killed between 2003 and 2007.