My newest column (foreign policy)

[tRidiot]

I've been around the world and the United States is not despised as much as those pundits who argue the point would have you believe. It's very popular to televise American effigy and flag burning; much more so than the incredible amount of good things that we do, buildings we raise, lives we save, mouths we feed, medicines we distribute, etc...

I've been welcomed with open arms and bottles of champange (literally) by those who felt the good that American's do in both humanitarian aid and in combating those who kill and opress the weak. I'm a Marine who wears both a Humanitarian Service Medal AND a Combat Action Ribbon... I know first hand both sides of our efforts in this regard.

Certainly the force we have used and continue to use against the likes of the Taliban and others are not without equal and opposite reactions amongst those involved in or assocated with those enemies. I'm sure the brother of a Taliban fighter hates Americans because we killed his kin. I'm positive that Saddam and his army didn't care for us. Personally, I think having killers, dictators, terrorists, tyrants and their minions as enemies is the way it ought to be...

I'll concede that we spend a ton of money on defense to support all of these actions and more. I'd rather we didn't, but using the argument that we have to stop killing killers or they will hate us is just silly justification for it. More than anything, I'd like to see every single one of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines come home without a scratch, but their cause is just and their actions and intentions are true.

There are all kinds of reasons to argue against American foreign policy, but the trend to blame some imaginary worldwide hatred that we caused on it is IMHO, a non-starter.

Of course... that's just my opinion though. I could be wrong.

I spent 3 years living outside the US in the Caribbean and Europe. And I can say unequivocally that the disdain I was exposed to was much greater than the gratitude. By a very large margin. I experienced many many instances of out and out hatred, with even greater numbers of passive-aggressive irritability. I can't say even once I heard a good thing about American involvement in the rest of the world. Not once.

Of course, let us pull out of all those places and when they degenerate into chaos, that'll be our fault, too.

I agree that we should limit our involvement in the rest of the world's politics... but what do we do when Iran nukes one of our allies (Israel)? At that point, do we still sit back and say, "Hey, it's not our fight, man."

I don't know the answer. But while I don't think the entire world hates us rabidly, I can speak from personal experience about negative American sentiment abroad, and I can also say that a large amount of that came from poor experiences with American tourists who thought they should be treated better, just because they were American. Again, personal experience, here.

Keep in mind, when you travel abroad, EVERYONE is watching you, BECAUSE you're American... try to behave as you would if your grandmother were with you all the time.

 

[MaddSkillz]

It appears Russia is tired of our nation building as well.

Link Here

Russia has warned that a military attack on Iran risks triggering a "chain reaction" that would destabilise the whole world.

Foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow was "seriously worried" about the prospect of military action against Iran and was doing all it could to prevent it.

He said: "The consequences will be extremely grave. It's not going to be an easy walk. It will trigger a chain reaction and I don't know where it will stop."

********

So, yeah, I guess risking a possible catalyst event that could lead to another world war is okay because Iran could be a threat to someone someday if they obtain a nuke. Nevermind, North Korea, Pakistan and other crazy countries have them.

The arguments to pre-emptively attack someone because of something they are trying to obtain fall flat on their face when you realize just who else around the world already has the same technology. It also should cause just a tad of skepticism as to if this is really the reason the military industrial complex wants to invade Iran.

 

[HMFIC]

I don't know the answer. But while I don't think the entire world hates us rabidly, I can speak from personal experience about negative American sentiment abroad, and I can also say that a large amount of that came from poor experiences with American tourists who thought they should be treated better, just because they were American. Again, personal experience, here.

Well that's the answer we've all been looking for then... we should just ban foreign travel so the world won't hate us for not tipping good or demanding fresh sheets.

I grant that there are people who dislike us around the world, for whatever reason and I'm sure they all have theirs. My point was just that the media's hype is much more than reality. YMMV wherever you go and whatever the circumstances are.

Hell, people in southern California hate the "Zonies" that invade every summer too but there's no media whirlwind coverage or people in Arizona clamoring for a new vacation policy in order to be liked better.

 

[tRidiot]

Well that's the answer we've all been looking for then... we should just ban foreign travel so the world won't hate us for not tipping good or demanding fresh sheets.

Well, that's a bit glib for a relatively serious subject. Maybe I should keep my experiences to myself, since they tend to reinforce something you don't agree with?

 

[dlbleak]

No one is saying lay down and let yourself get kicked. You can lay down in your own house and let the robbers run around grabbing your stuff and molesting your daughters. That's how alot of neocons see Ron Paul's foreign policy.

You can also wait until they get in the door and blow them away with a sensible and appropriate amount of force. You won't need a big expensive bazooka when a Remington 870 will suffice. Just like, in order to defend ourselves, we don't need to spend billions of dollars on the nuclear triad or missile submarines, etc. All we need is a well-sized and technologically advanced military ready to blast anyone who comes in the door. This is what I see as the "Ron Paul approach".

Now the current foreign policy can be likened to the private citizen going out and hunting down criminals and shooting the criminals where they live with machine guns. This is justified by merely saying they are a threat. Technically they could be construed to pose a threat, but that sort of action is neither moral or legal for a private citizen (or a sovereign country). Only the police can do that in society.
This is how I see our foreign policy. I hope this analogy makes sense.

we don't even want them ringing the doorbell. ron paul would be trounced on by nations waiting for us to scale back

 

[HMFIC]

Well, that's a bit glib for a relatively serious subject. Maybe I should keep my experiences to myself, since they tend to reinforce something you don't agree with?

You're right, it was. My apologies.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Mind Your Own Business

 

[Glocktogo]

Back to the column, I agree with the general premise, but be careful on treading a line into hyperbole. I don't think hypocrisy defines US policy, but it undermines it. Likewise, avoid meiosis such as using quotation marks around "defense". An action by a nation in defense of it's interests may be a poor method to accomplish it's goals, but that doesn't mean it's not a defense action. With Edmund Burke firmly in mind, I'd prefer that we engage rogue nations with political dialogue more and fall back on military intervention less. Brinksmanship leads to armed conflict far more often than necessary.

I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" diplomacy to our current style. We no longer "Speak softly and carry a big stick". We speak harshly and brashly, while simultaneously swinging big sticks in multiple directions. This actually threatens U.S. hegemony far more than it reinforces it. They already know we have the biggest sticks on the planet. We shouldn't have to use them so frequently if our foreign policies are sound. Many people would point to Reagan as the last president with sound foreign policy, but that's just because he hastened the fall of the Russian empire on the global stage. In fact, it was rather myopic and contained several gaffes that would cause problems down the road.

Nixon is often regarded as one of the better foreign policy presidents. He ended US involvement in the Vietnam war (though many didn't like how it ended), significantly improved relations with China (though in hindsight, that might not have been a good thing for the U.S.), initiated nuclear arms reduction treaties under SALT I, etc. Nixon told the Soviets:

“Speaking for the United States, I can say this: We covet no one else’s territory; we seek no dominion over any other people; we seek the right to live in peace, not only for ourselves but for all the peoples of this earth. Our power will only be used to keep the peace, never to break it, only to defend freedom, never to destroy it.”

While he supported many of the ideals Kennedy held on the international front, I think he realized that we couldn't realistically afford to "“pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.”, at least not across the entire globe. We simply cannot control global economies or the humanity of all nations. We can't enforce liberty for the whole world. We'd be better off partnering with other nations on commonly held views and attempt to contain the regional influence of rogue nations, through diplomacy and strong partnerships.

As far as Iran and their nuclear ambitions, of course we don't want them to acquire that capability and we should do what we can to prevent it. The question begs "at what cost" though? We've been in sustained conflict with Iran since the Carter administration. Our positions are entrenched, fortified and heavily defended. Have they worked? Can we simply waltz in there with a military strike without destabilizing the entire region? Do we risk reigniting the Cold War with Russia over it? Or worse yet, a hot war?

People booing Ron Paul for saying we should look at things from Iran's side is short sighted. We don't have to agree with their views, but we damn sure better understand them! Engaging in diplomacy and conflict from a position of ignorance is a recipie for failure. I probably have a unique view on this topic among those on this board. You were looking for opinions from servicemen, well I'm one of the few that's been in combat action against Iran. I was on the USS Samuel B. Roberts two days before it hit the mine in the Persian Gulf and I was directly involved in Operation Praying Mantis.

I'm opposed to initiating attacks on other nations without provocation. I think actionable provocation should be determined on a case by case basis, but that it should involve direct harm to the United States or unprovoked direct harm to an ally. I am against preemptory strikes based on a perceived threat. I'd prefer that we speak softly to them, all the while holding the big stick at the ready, should it become necessary.

Back to your column again, I think it would benefit from some background, history and sourcing in order to prompt the reader to educate themselves. Your column in this case would tend to reinforce the opinion of someone already predisposed to agree with your position. I doubt it would help sway the unsure unless they have little control over their thoughts. Hope this helps.

 

[tRidiot]

People booing Ron Paul for saying we should look at things from Iran's side is short sighted. We don't have to agree with their views, but we damn sure better understand them! Engaging in diplomacy and conflict from a position of ignorance is a recipie for failure. I probably have a unique view on this topic among those on this board. You were looking for opinions from servicemen, well I'm one of the few that's been in combat action against Iran. I was on the USS Samuel B. Roberts two days before it hit the mine in the Persian Gulf and I was directly involved in Operation Praying Mantis.

I'm opposed to initiating attacks on other nations without provocation. I think actionable provocation should be determined on a case by case basis, but that it should involve direct harm to the United States or unprovoked direct harm to an ally. I am against preemptory strikes based on a perceived threat. I'd prefer that we speak softly to them, all the while holding the big stick at the ready, should it become necessary.

What about Iran closing the Straight of Hormuz? It's looking more and more like that might be the match that ignites this whole powderkeg.

 

[Glocktogo]

What about Iran closing the Straight of Hormuz? It's looking more and more like that might be the match that ignites this whole powderkeg.

So we should attack them now so they can't close it? We've proven that Iran can't effectively close the straight before, so I see no reason to do anything but tell them to jump if they feel froggy!