Opinion of US foreign policy?

[yogi]

This is regards to the US CIA/other orgs, sticking their noses everywhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4841170.stm

In the wild west country that is Somalia, the US back warlords have lost Mogadishu, to Isalmic Courts.

So Mogadishu is muslim, and the US govt is no doubt freaking out bout terrorism or whatever.

I'm starting to think the US through its foreign policy creates new enemies, trying to defend itself. Which of course requires more intervention. :bang:

So I'm curious do you think the current version of their foreign policy is good? If they withdrew all there intervention what would happen.. would the world implode? Or would the world just get back to business of trying to get by/better life?

I understand the US has many enemies, and wants to defend itself, which is difficult. But surely what they do just multiplies the their enemies.

?

[Kaji]

The US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't, so I'm personally all in favor of doing what's in our own best interests, end of story.

[Trump]

If the US went isolationist (politically, not economically) the bastards of the world would just target the US a little less and others a little more. The US would still be the target of hatred mostly because of jealousy instead of jealousy and anger over meddling.

Current foreign policy? I feel like the policy makers have decided they can do a better job of things than the UN (and other organizations) can. I wouldn't say any of them are doing a good job, so I'm fairly impartial.

[O-Matic]

Whenever americans leave amerika to "protect themselves" they come back with more enemys...so when the leader of a terrorist organization tries to convince someone that america is the true terrorist, he has a damn easy time! If you think about it, america's soldiers killed more people then all terrorists together...
Not to forget about a certain bomb that was dropped on a CIVIL target. "to scare off"

[Angelyne]

Current foreign policy? We have a long, storied history of meddling in foreign affairs that were none of us our business. And just to save us all from the inevitable flame war, multiple Presidents from both major political parties are to blame.

I agree with Kaji on this; damned if we do, damned if don't. If we leave Iraq now, we'll just get yelled at for not helping stabilize the country. If we stay there, we get yelled for being brutal warmongers. Same can be applied for any other foreign mess we've gotten ourselves into.

[Nebosuke]

We have a long, storied history of meddling in foreign affairs that were none of us our business.
And the times we didn't resulted in WWI, WWII, and over 60 million people dying during Mao's revolution and great leap forward, among others. Like Kaji said, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The US sphere of influence is simply too large for us to be able to simply butt out and keep to ourselves. Whenever any two states engage in a conflict, it's probable that there are US interests entangled in both sides, so the US might as well wade in and make sure it turns out favorably to itself.

[Mechs]

The US is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't, so I'm personally all in favor of doing what's in our own best interests, end of story.

x2

(10char)

[japanat]

Foreign policy which promotes your own country's interests is simply common sense. But cowboying over your allies buys hard feelings, and moving into areas w/o using available knowledge of culture and history of that conflict/problem, is simply idiotic.

Some of the problems are due to bad luck. Many due to bad planning (ignoring the military's estimates of needed ground troops after the invasion of Iraq is complete, leading to inability to prevent looting or maintain order is one example). Moving into VietNam, using the same methods as the French, even after they got slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu was dumb.... As the military continuously tries to tell the leaders, adjust/adapt to the enemy.

[Kaji]

The problem with Vietnam is that politicians brought us into it and insisted on their own rules for fighting it, instead of letting the generals and military experts do what they needed to do to actually win the objective, as they had done in WWII. It was also in that period that journalism started proving to be one of the greatest detriments to any sort of effective campaign. Misrepresentation (Tet being a "massive defeat"?), broadcasting tactical information ("US troops stationed at X, Y, and Z, in preparation for a strike on E...")...while journalism does have its place, and I'm not saying that it should be state-controlled, it's completely thrown discretion out the window ever since Watergate and Vietnam showed that anti-government sensationalism sells papers.

[Karthak]

Well, current american foreign policy(aka worldcop syndrome) is doing a wonderful job of making people lose respect for the US.

[Kaji]

And if we went isolationist again, like we were up until the first World War? Then we'd be losing people's respect for being uncaring.

[Mechs]

Well, current american foreign policy(aka worldcop syndrome) is doing a wonderful job of making people lose respect for the US.

It's a tough job, but someones got to do it :cop:.

[setrict]

I don't know enough about the details to have an informed opinion about US foreign policy. I'm not privy to 'intelligence' reports, and I don't necessarily trust the 'truth' past down through the political sieve or media interpretation. Information I find online ranges from reliable and informative to outright lies and propaganda.

I want to believe that the actions my government takes outside our borders atleast attempts to be reasonable, in the best interests of my country, and does not inflect undue harm to others.

Of course all three of my requirements are subjective.

About the only thing I'm sure of is that the US seems to be held to a slightly higher standard than many/all other countries. I guess that means we must either be doing something right, or pissing a lot of people off. Or both.

Did I mention I don't know. Thanks for letting me waste your time.

[Trump]

I have trouble justifying many of the actions the US has taken recently. They claim it is to protect our oil interests, fight the war on terror, or many other feel good stories, but it just doesn't add up.

Why protect our oil interests in the Middle East when we should really be focusing on developing alternative energy sources. To me, being self sufficient would be far better than relying on foreign oil, or any other foreign energy source. Of course that wouldn't suit big oil who I'm sure is lining some pockets.

Why go overseas to fight the war on terror when money can be better spent protecting our borders? Build a secret array of infrared satellites that can monitor our borders, or build better bomb detectors for cargo ships. Hell, we need that stuff anyway.

So I do question the goals of this administration.

[erbiumfiber]

I haven't seen any activity by this president consistent enough to be called "foreign policy." It's mainly reaction to world events (in the worst possible way, such as invading Iraq in response to 9/11).

[Ichisan]

And the times we didn't resulted in WWI, WWII, and over 60 million people dying during Mao's revolution and great leap forward, among others. Like Kaji said, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

What? Those things had nothing to do with you. And no-one anywhere blames you for them.

[Ichisan]

The problem with Vietnam is that politicians brought us into it and insisted on their own rules for fighting it, instead of letting the generals and military experts do what they needed to do to actually win the objective, as they had done in WWII. It was also in that period that journalism started proving to be one of the greatest detriments to any sort of effective campaign. Misrepresentation (Tet being a "massive defeat"?), broadcasting tactical information ("US troops stationed at X, Y, and Z, in preparation for a strike on E...")...while journalism does have its place, and I'm not saying that it should be state-controlled, it's completely thrown discretion out the window ever since Watergate and Vietnam showed that anti-government sensationalism sells papers.

Vietnam was the last conflict in which journalists were allowed a free hand. In subsequent conflicts, such as the Gulf War, they have been tightly controlled. If you see the danger as too much press freedom you are quite wrong and behind the times.

The politicians did indeed place limits on the generals' powers because they wanted to avoid Russian and/or Chinese involvement. You can argue about whether they were right or wrong to do so, but at least acknowledge that they had a reason for not letting the army go into North Vietnam, for instance. And we did in fact avoid a direct confrontation and nuclear holocaust.

[Ichisan]

And if we went isolationist again, like we were up until the first World War? Then we'd be losing people's respect for being uncaring.

Clinton was hardly isolationist but was much more respected than Bush.

It's not an either/or choice between Bushism and isolationism.

[Nebosuke]

What? Those things had nothing to do with you. And no-one anywhere blames you for them.
That's true, but the fact that we didn't do something to nip any of them in the bud ended up coming back to bite us in the ass in the form of hundreds of thousands of US lives lost later on in WWI, WWII, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and in some cases even to this day. Even in those cases where it wasn't necessarily our fault, we still payed a huge price. While preemptive intervention might not have changed that, the fact of the matter is that even if we do stay out of it, our sphere of influence is so large that we end up being dragged into practically every conflict between states with significant military power.

In short, it's not really even possible for us to butt out and leave well enough alone. Even if we take our ball and go home, trouble will come knocking on our doorstep.

[Kaji]

When did I ever say it was Bushism vs. isolation? You yourself said that Clinton was anything but isolationistic, getting us into Bosnia and Haiti among other things (I'd say Somalia, but I think that was Bush I). Point is, we haven't been isolationistic since we got involved in the first World War.

As to Nebosuke's point, World War I and World War II would have ended far sooner if the US hadn't waited until it had a vested interest in getting into the war (say, getting into the first in 1915 or so, or the second back in 1939 to 1940, instead of 1942). We butted out of China's affairs during the Cold War, and stood by idly as Mao murdered his people, as noted above. In order to prevent the spread of that and Stalinist communism (which took a similar toll), we interfered in Korea and Vietnam, putting the first at a stalemate and losing the second one because the politicians would not allow the military to seek victory on the field.

In the end, we've come to be expected to intervene in everyone's problems, because we're the big dog on the field. When we decide not to, we're accused of passively ignoring genocide and allowing it to continue. We step in, and we're overstretching our resources, make no mention of being unilateral (which really just means France isn't involved. We had a coalition going into Iraq both times, after all.).

[japanat]

[QUOTE=Kaji]
"As to Nebosuke's point, World War I and World War II would have ended far sooner if the US hadn't waited until it had a vested interest in getting into the war (say, getting into the first in 1915 or soWWI was considered a family fight by the US, and the average citizen had absolutely no interest until the Lusitania., or the second back in 1939 to 1940, instead of 1942WWII officially started 12/8/41, with the declaration of war after Pearl, with Roosevelt providing arms and convoy escort long before that.
). We butted out of China's affairs during the Cold War, and stood by idly as Mao murdered his people, as noted above. We stayed out of China, because Mao and Russia were allies at that point, and butting in would have probably gone nuclear.
In order to prevent the spread of that and Stalinist communism (which took a similar toll), we interfered in Korea and Vietnam, putting the first at a stalemate and losing the second one because the politicians would not allow the military to seek victory on the field. Very true, although it was MacArthurs' move upon the Yalu which brought the Chinese into the Korean conflict in the first place (they historically have always reacted paranoically/violently to any force nearing their own borders). If MacArthur had talked to the Chinese and stated his intent to stop at 'X' point, instead of mouthing off about driving for Peking, that conflict would have ended in about 3 weeks.

In the end, we've come to be expected to intervene in everyone's problems, because we're the big dog on the field. When we decide not to, we're accused of passively ignoring genocide and allowing it to continue. Right on the money! We step in, and we're overstretching our resources, make no mention of being unilateral (which really just means France isn't involved. We had a coalition going into Iraq both times, after all.)." The first Gulf War was a coalition, the 2nd was a coalition of 3 militarily superior nations.

Also, to return to your first sentence: "World War I and World War II would have ended far sooner if the US hadn't waited until it had a vested interest in getting into the war" Would you really want your country to go to war when it didn't have a vested interest in said war????

I agree that the US sphere of influence and effect is truly global. I don't advocate isolationism. I do think that politicians like Bush and Co., who truly believe they can do no wrong, are a danger. Clinton was not a militarily astute president, he had no experience, but he listened to the people he brought in, and they listened to their juniors. Listen to their advice, then make your own decision. This is taught in any command school. But ignoring information due to preconceived ideas of goals and possibilities is a sure recipe for disaster.

[Ichisan]

That's true, but the fact that we didn't do something to nip any of them in the bud ended up coming back to bite us in the ass in the form of hundreds of thousands of US lives lost later on in WWI, WWII, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and in some cases even to this day.

Appeasement certainly bit us in the ass on this side of the pond. But I wonder if Chamberlain had actually sent troops into Germany and removed Hitler in 1937 or even in 1938 if people now would be talking about those goddamn meddling imperialist Brits, and blaming us for messing up Germany and Europe. :-D

[Nebosuke]

Would you really want your country to go to war when it didn't have a vested interest in said war????
What we've learned since then is that we did, in fact, have a vested interest in the outcome of those wars from the very beginning. Even though the US (by US I mean US citizens) may not have realized it at the time, the point was brought home hard later that this was the case in every single instance I cited.

I think that US citizens today are largely more cognizant of this fact, and so it is almost taken for granted that we will be involved somehow in every major armed conflict that occurs, even if the average citizen does not necessarily understand why we are involved in any specific conflict. Whether or not our leaders conduct our intervention wisely is, of course, another matter entirely.