Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Thoughts on the Aftermath

An interesting editorial today in the Chicago Sun-Times (for those of you not familiar, Chicago's more "liberal" newspaper). Not a byline editorial, mind you, an official position editorial.

Comments, rebuttals welcome.

Many predicate their entire opposition to this war on the foundation of Bush-hate, or America-hate.

Deep down, they do not wish to see this President succeed, nor do they wish for the country to succeed.

An old phrase, "the nattering nabobs of negativity", certainly applies to a certain segment of American society today.

I agree with the article, whole-heartedly.

Or maybe there are those(myself included)who see real perils and pitfalls in an administration governed by a unilaterist, "Cowboy" style and vision perhaps having short term successes but fraught with long term dangers.

Mark Mandell

American foreign policy is not built for most long term goals, except for when those goals are almost universally agreed upon as assuring the country's survival.

Presidents serve 8 years at most, and then another team takes over. Very hard to have long term continuity using that process.

That's why you try to win what you can short-term, and try your best to shape the country's perception of the long term.

One of Reagan's greatest strengths was not-overcomplicating his foreign policy. Pick a few battles, and try to win them. If you win, then perhaps you shape the battle for years to come.

Faint heart never won fair maiden. Faint foreign policy is no protection against future danger.

Or as one person said of pacifists, "They think that if one fed enough human flesh to Jeffery Dahlmer, he would have become a vegetarian."

No, sometimes proactive is the best route, even if only short-term.

Since when is an effort supported by 36+ nations, unilaterist?

Derick

Since the extreme Left told them it was unilateralist, that's when!!! And by gum, facts be damned, that's just the way it is!!

When the very country leading the effort is directed by someone who expresses, then takes it upon himself to lead such a unilaterist vision.

Mark@pianosource.com

"American foreign policy is not built for most long term goals, except for when those goals are almost universally agreed upon as assuring the country's survival."

In your own words. Does this imply that there is neither concern for, nor understanding of the long term goals of American foreign policy? Or that American foreign policy is only concerned with the well being of the United States? I'm certain I've missunderstood what you've said. Perhaps you can help me understand.

I disagree with your analysis, Jolly.

Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was based almost solely on long term foreign policy goals which had been developed over close to 40 years before he became President -- opposition to communism and the Soviet Union in particular.

Indeed, virutally all of America's foreign policy is based on long-term goals. It is, for the most part, amazingly consistent from one Administration to the next.

The difference each President makes is not the development of short term goals that replace the goals of a previous Administration, but rather a reshaping of how these on-going long terms goals will be pursued under his tenure.

What Mr. Bush's Administration is doing, however, is a major change in our foreign policy goals. Never in our history have we sought to dominate the world, to act unilaterally without support from our allies, to force an aggressive and expansionist policy on the world whether it wants it or not.

And yet, these are the tenets enunciated by the Bush Administration officials in their Project for a New American Century and we can see them unfolding in our foreign policy, our military invasions, the weapons systems they are funding, the size and nature of the defense budget, the manner in which they deal with foreign nations.

America has led the world since WWII because of the basic goals of our foreign policy. Now the Bush Administration seeks to dominate it. Some of us are more conservative than others, I guess -- and like the old way better.

In defense of my position:

The long term goal of the United States, in regards to survival of the nation against the old U.S.S.R., was fighting, and winning the Cold War.

But it was the direct foreign policy shift by Ronald Reagan, that caused the Soviet system's demise.

Can anyone remember the absolute shock that enveloped the media when Mr. Reagan called the Soviet Union, "an evil empire"?

President Reagan, instead of trying to appease the Soviets, threw down the gauntlet in terms of military spending, proactive military actions, and the much erroneously maligned "Star Wars" missle shield.

"Foggy Bottom" does not define U.S. foreign policy, just ask Colin Powell. Only POTUS does that, and the maximum amount of time one can serve is 8 years. Cannot you see the differences in Reagan's or Clinton's foreign policies? Or any other two presidents, from any era you'd care to mention?

I can see a difference in how the two presidents carried out American foreign policy -- but not in the basic goals themselves.

I can however, see a major difference between the basic goals of American foreign policy since WWII and the foreign policy of this President. Up until this President, we never sought to dominate the world, we never sought to go it alone and we never chose to preemptively attack a nation for something it "might" do "sometime" in the future which "might" effect our security.

And we still have not.

Can you offer even one shred of evidence that the United States is out to "dominate the world"?

I think what's more important is the definition of "dominate" being used. Domination takes many forms. If we can agree upon which form is being argued, that would help.

I think the modernization of the Middle East is inevitable. Once the information age reaches our arabic brothers through exposure to cyberspace, and the free market they will want what the free world has. The U.S. will be merely a facilitator in that process which has begun. It's naive to think our intentions in the current war are self serving from a bi-partisan perspective. Wait and see what other Arab nations will want when the wheels of progress turn in Israel and Iraq.

And,, I for one think the current administration's goals are long term. Think century.

The US goals are long term. France's, Russia's, and Germany's appear to be short term. Even CNN is reporting disatisfaction with them is emerging. One thing they noted was that Italy's La Repubblica criticized the anti-war grouping, saying in an editorial: "The battle lines are drawn and this time the countries that opposed the coalition war are ready to muscle in and demand a piece of the Iraqi pie."

I think that's a very good point. How do each of us define "dominate?"

I would start by saying it's more like "dominating" a smoldering forest fire before it flashes, while others might say it's establishing the next best thing to a colony: a puppet regime (we've certainly done that enough!). Others might mean economic domination, i.e., we always end up on top with the biggest cut of the pie.

Personally, I don't see that we are trying to dominate Iraq. It's in our best interest to make this country a success, as viewed by the world.

To some, domination involves leather and chains.

[not me, of course]

Let me see if I have this right...

Bush II, for God only knows what reason, wants the original, Gulf war, resolution, enforced, the same resolution that the entire UN agreed to. Is this what you are calling unilateralistic?

Or did you think it was unilateralistic when Bush II approached the UN which resulted in the passage of resolution 1441?

Or perhaps you believe it's unilateralistic when 36+ countries support Bush and the war?

According to my dictionary, the definition of unilateralism is:

A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.

It seems to me that your only quibble with Bush is that he the courage to lead a coalition of nations to enforce the multilateral resolution the UN arrived at, but never bothered to enforce, in 12 years.

Derick

Although I would agree that the Foreign policy of the Reagan Administration played a major role in influencing the younger generation of Soviet technocrats under Gorbachev, it was not solely responsible for the demise of the USSR. The Soviets themselves brought about that on their own.

The USSR was unsustainable in a world dependent on global trade and the advent of unrestricted mass communications. The totalitarian nature of Soviet communism could not cope with the flow of information that occurred during the 1980's with advent of the modem and PC technology. The population was too well educated for the system to continue its practise of restricting information. Also, the Soviet economic system could not continue to provide resources at below cost to either its own population or export markets dependent on its resources in exchange for inferior barter goods. The high oil prices of the 1970's followed by the collapse of world oil prices in the early eighties devastated the USSR'S balance of payments. It simply did not have the hard currency earnings from exports that would allow it to import goods from abroad. That is why one of Gorbachev's first priorities under Glasnost and perestroika was to initiate economic reforms in the sphere of foreign trade and attract foreign investments in the form of limited joint ventures in the energy and mining sectors. This proved too little too late and the system essentially imploded on itself.

I do not wish to belittle the effects of the US policy in this. Clearly the USSR could not compete in an arms race on the scale that the Reagan administration could. Had the Stalinist generation of Soviet leaders not died off with Chernenko in 1984, then the prospects for the Reagan Gorbachev summit and an arms agreement would have been pretty slim. Until Gorbachev and his generation came along, we lived under a grave danger that the Soviet gerontocracy could have taken the decision to challenge the US militarily in Europe for no reason other than they knew that US would gain an absolute technical military advantage by the early 1990's tha USSR would have no chance of stalemating through traditional deterrence.

US policy therefore may have only brought to an earlier than expected end to what was already falling apart owing to global economics and a technological revolution which no one could control. Adam Smith and Marshall McLuhan have more to do with demise of the USSR than the foreign policy of any one government.

Forgive any typos and spelling errors- I can't seem to figure how to spell and gramm check when writing these replies.