US Foreign Policy

Well, I think this thread is already pretty well loaded because the premise is the we're making apologies to terrorists. I take exception to that framing.


What do you think Americans and their government should do when confronting their past (and present, really) foreign policy?

We don't do nearly enough of it. I have yet to hear of a single apology made over all the fascists and dictators we foisted on the Near East, Central and South America. In b4 "but it was the Cold War, so everything is justified."

Do you think we are justified in our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan?

We were justified in some forceful action to correct the regimes that were there, but military force was not the way to go about that. Arming local rebels would have been better in my opinion as long as we picked the ones that would actually liberate the people (as opposed to picking the ultra-conservative ones that disrespect human rights like we've done historically)

How do you feel about Guatanamo Bay still being open? (i can't tell you how pissed i am about this, personally)

I have always felt that the suspension of due process that torture that we engaged in there to be evil and intellectually lazy. We need to move all the inmates to maximum security prisons or convert Guantanamo into one, and we need to reinstitute due process and get trials for these people to either get them convicted or belatedly releated.

Any other comments, issues that concern you?

Yes. I am extremely concerned that we use military force too often when it's not approriate, and never often enough when it is. So for example, we should have been arming rebels in Iraq, but instead we bombed the country into the stone age. On the other hand, when Myanmar was hit with a tsunami and the military junta refused international support, we sat and wrang our hands while people died of starvation, thirst, disease or exposure.

 

i'm annoyed about guantanamo.

i am extremely worried about comments and sentiments with regard to iran. Leave them to sort their shit out, they have a young, liberally minded population and an old, out of touch and non-representative government (with a delusional leader). Don't poke the ######'s nest FFS.

 

Relax. I think the last thing the US wants to do is get involved with Iran. I think the only thing that could provoke any action is if they are actually crazy enough to attack Israel.

When it comes to US foreign policy, it's a situation of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." I'm not saying the US does everything right, but no matter what it does, someone (particularly smug First World nations) gets pissed off.

Afghanistan is justified. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with that, though I'd be very interested in hearing someone's opinion if they do. As far as Iraq goes, I didn't get it. Those who say it was over oil just seem completely out of it, but those who believe that there were WMD's are also out of it. I'm inclined to believe that Bush influenced by his father's actions in Iraq, but I also believe that there's a TON of confidential information about what was going on then that the public isn't aware of. The US (especially during the Cold War) had a bad habit of taking police action in other nations, but full-scale invasion is very extreme and out of character, so it seems clear to me it there's much more to the story.

 

I'd like us to return to a policy of pre-WW1 isolationism. Worked out best for us..


Commerce and trade with all, entangling alliances with none.

 

So, what do you think Americans and their government should do when confronting their past (and present, really) foreign policy?

Americans and the American government should be more open to confronting past (and present) foreign policy mistakes. There's a tendency for the American government to be highly paranoid about other countries in the world, and I think this leads them to send in troops to a country that they should really keep out of, or they put into place a string of foreign policies which they wouldn't normally do had they kept a level head.

In a time where the Middle East generally hates the West (but America) in particular, the foreign policies that are put into place seem to show a lack of foresight or acknowledgement of this anti-Western feeling. It's not necessarily helping matters, and it needs to be addressed. - It brings to my mind the tensions pre-Iraq, with the UN and various other Western countries being staunchly against an entry into Iraq (France in particular) and it seemed a little too eager before all the facts about Iraq could be established.


Do you think we are justified in our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan?

I think if the West (mainly America) wants democracy to be installed in many countries in the world (though most notably, the Middle East - M.E.) there are other ways (and in my opinion, far better ways) of going about it, than by sending in the military to do it. There are plenty of people in the M.E. who want democracy, as the Arab Spring of last year showed, and Syria is showing now. Sending in the military arms the right people, but in the wrong way. It's not going to make anything better, it just paints a much larger target on pro-democracy heads. The governments of these countries trying to suppress pro-democracy feelings suddenly have a very large target to hit - American army bases. If the American military simply armed rebels but kept out of the general fight, and kept to supporting them, many lives could possibly be spared, American as well as Middle Eastern.

I don't think Iraq was justified, it felt so rushed, like Bush just wanted to be seen to do something in the wake of 9/11, but there was really no need to go in the manner that they did. I also disliked how Tony Blair got involved and sent forces in along with America, I felt he was just following Bush's lead.

I'm not sure about Afghanistan, but I think there are alternatives to military intervention which should have been looked at more closely perhaps.

How do you feel about Guatanamo Bay still being open?

I do not like Guantanamo Bay in the slightest. It's such a dangerous thing to have in your possession, an area outside of US jurisdiction, yet controlled by the US.

The torture is also something I feel strongly about, for obvious reasons. It's all too suspicious, everyone knows about the torture that has been going on. Some people seem to think that those detained there are exempt from protections granted to them by the Geneva convention, it's all too ridiculous and it's not at all how a democratic nation, wishing to uphold democracy in the world, should behave. It can't be had both ways; America cannot go into other countries to install democratic governments, yet hold people in Guantanamo Bay without trial, for years and treat them like the government was actually an authoritarian regime. It just can't be done without damaging America's place in the world.

... I'll stop there while I'm still fairly succinct. I could talk about this for a very long time.

Any other comments, issues that concern you?

I'm a little concerned about the way many see America, and the American military, as a byword for "World Police". It's places America on a pedestal above the rest of the world, and it seems to be forgotten that America is a country just like other Western nations, just with a large military (as well as a large ego). I think the American military (or at least the department in charge) comes across as too eager to get involved, and that might not be what is needed.

 

they have been directly threatened several times, most recently by Romney.

 

Republican war mongers =/= Pentagon officials

I think it's very ironic that it's been said more than once to arm the rebels. In the post-WWII world, that's never worked out. Does the Taliban ring a bell? Latin America? How about every regime in existence in Africa?

Basically the US is in a Catch-22. If it stays out of other nations' instability, it's viewed as heartless since it's expected to be the world's peacekeeping force. (My interactions with plenty of internationals confirms that.) If it uses any sort of force, it's viewed as a self-serving war monger.

 

Thank you for saying this. Arming rebels is not a great solution, as evidenced by your examples and a host of others as well.

 

As I understand it (and maybe I have to go back and look at my Chomsky), we have a history of arming counterrevolutionaries who the media have labeled as rebels, which is different than actually arming rebels. For example, I wouldn't have considered the Contras rebels even though they were basically spun that way.

 

What do you think Americans and their government should do when confronting their past (and present, really) foreign policy?


The past is our history. We can't totally apologize for all of it, we also can't whitewash it. We simply have to live with the decisions.

I support the president on most current policy. Ending the Iraq War was huge. Afghanistan is sloppy. Generally speaking, I think his rhetoric has been a little too weak on some of the ongoing issues in Syria and the new rebel attacks on U.S. Embassies. Simply put, if those countries want to continue being America's friend (a relative term obviously in that part of the world), they need to do everything in their power to keep these kind of attacks from happening.

Do you think we are justified in our actions in Iraq/Afghanistan?


Afghanistan was actively supporting a fringe group who declared war on America. Absolutely. I'd even support having a small military present (less than 5,000 troops) there beyond 2014, when the president has set us up to leave.

Iraq is a different story. While I agree it's good we got Hussein out, the way that war was sold to the world was really, really shitty.

How do you feel about Guatanamo Bay still being open? (i can't tell you how pissed i am about this, personally)


I used to feel really strongly about closing it. Now, I don't know. I trust the president's judgement on this. He felt very strongly while he was in the Senate about closing it but changed his tune when he got to the Oval Office. He probably knows something that's encouraging him to keep it open, and so be it.

Any other comments, issues that concern you?


We're in a weird spot. Europe and China are rising superpowers and we will be competing with economically throughout the century.

Europe doesn't have the political capital to use military power to further economic interests the way America does, and China's interests are often different than the West's. Throw Russia's interests in and the UN Security Council is a pretty useless organization to further Western causes.

If freedom and democracy are going to spread across the Islamic world, NATO really can help that happen, through sanctions, peacekeeping troops and, yes, at times, military might. But the British, French, and especially the Germans need to do more.

We now live in a global world where the international interests of policy makers in DC, Ottawa, London, Paris and Berlin have never been closer. They need to find a way to work as one.

/rant

 

Perhaps the word "rebels" isn't accurate in every situation, but I think the idea remains the same. Simply arming rebels, counterrevolutionaries, factions, or whatever you want to call them, who's interests happen to align with ours at the time just isn't a great idea and I don't think has been a very successful strategy for us. But that's just my two cents!

 

The US is the major stabilizing force of the world. Personally, I like this status quo (no world wars, no nuclear exchanges, open trade markets). I think the US is doing a good job overall. Of course the Iraq War was a blunder (Afghanistan much less so, certainly some action there was necessary to prevent it from becoming the terrorist playground of the world).

I don't think apologies benefit the US right now. As much as people like to deny it, the world (especially the governments of the world, ie. the people whose decisions matter) wants the US to maintain its dominant position and constant apologies for foreign policy failures that are bound to happen when a country is involved with every part of the world only weaken that position.

 

I can't speak for africa, but at least in the case of afghanistan, it was a step forward and then a step backward. The rebels were armed to defeat the soviets, which they did, but when that was over the country was entirely abandoned to its own devices, with a newly armed mujihadeen group which eventually became the taliban. Charlie Wilson himself describes it as "We got the job done, but we fucked up the end game" (i'm paraphrasing, i don't remember the exact quote)

And yeah, republican warmongers may not be setting foreign policy, but Iranians only hear what people like Romney say in public, not what a bunch of no-name pentagon cubicle workers write to each other in memos. Ahmedinajad has no choice but to publically respond. Public belligerance is my issue.

 

The Mideast is actually one of my main interests in life, something I have studied for years. Most interesting studies for me has been the persecution of minorities in the Mideast and Islamic extremism.

To talk of Guantanamo, you must first look at why it was created before talking of Obama. On 9/11, 15 Saudi Arabian terrorists (not Iraqis or even Afghans) flew 3 commercial passenger planes into civilian targets - killing over 3,000 people including themselves. The reaction of the Bush regime was to ferry out Saudi government officials immediately afterwards, then shortly invading Iraq not so long later.

Iraq, a perfectly fine secular dictatorship. Saddam, certainly a mass murdering tyrant - but of his own people, mainly Shiites and Kurdish separatists. He was certainly not an international terrorist, nor did he kill westerners, Christians, or plant bombs aboard buses.
He had no ties to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaida, and was a staunch enemy of all Islamic extremism. He was hated by Saudi Arabia (coincidentally the perpetrators of 9/11) as well as Iran.

So no, I certainly do not think invading Iraq was a proper decision. It was a lie. On the fruitful side of the Iraqi invasion, the US has successfully started a war between Islamic fundamentalists; mainly the Shiite and Sunni war (Saudi Arabia v. Iran). Iraq is now greatly controlled by "America's newest enemy" in Iran, as it has a Shiite majority.

I support the Afghan mission because it was truly a war on an evil ideology. The Afghan people had nothing to do with 9/11, but the Taliban were sheerly evil and deserved to be toppled. In 2012, I have to unfortunately ask, aside from officially putting them out of power, has the Taliban been truly defeated? Has anything productive come out of the Afghan mission? It was only two days ago that an Afghan suicide bomber blew himself up, intentionally, to kill 12 other infidels (all South Africans) to avenge the Muhammad film in California! Women can return to school (they were previously banned by Taliban) but there continue to be acid attacks.

It is a tough position. It is my position until the ideology that is taught and exported in Saudi Arabia - Wahabism - is defeated by Muslims themselves, terrorism and extremism will never be successfully destroyed. The Saudis have spent over 80-billion dollars exporting Wahabi ideology around the world; funding mosques, schools, Islamic community centers. Essentially brainwashing Muslims and new converts (such as Richard Reid the shoe bomber) into their evil religion.

Obama' admin has certainly done a great favor to the Ummah by helping democracy spread. Bush however, greatly started this by spreading democracy in Iraq. At the end of the day, I believe things will play out and the Islamists - such as Erdogan in Turkey, Khamenei in Iran, etc, will all weaken each other to the brink.

Guantanamo should be closed, but I don't blame Obama for that.

I haven't decided who I will support for the 2013 US elections. As a Liberal Canadian I generally prefer the Democrats, but their FOREIGN policy does have me a bit weary.

---------- Post added 20th Sep 2012 at 10:53 PM ----------

They are now using the same guys (mujahideen types) to fight against the Shiite Iranians. These people, known as Takifris (Muslims who consider other Muslims who reject their interruption of Islam) are the prime culprits behind most of the worlds beheadings, suicide bombings, hijackings, etc.

Will the US make the very same mistake they did in Afghanistan?

Supporting Islamic radicals to further their private interests?

I hope not. What happened in Libya was a rude wake up call.

Hopefully the death of poor Christopher Stevens will be a valuable lesson.