Should America Do Less?

[Peter1469]

Should America Do Less? (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/american-foreign-policy-get-caught-trying/479376/)

In foreign policy, is trying and failing better than not trying at all? As an aside, my answer would be- it depends. Here is an article about Hillary's views on the matter.


Is trying and failing better than not trying at all? When it comes to America’s role in the world, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and current Democratic presidential frontrunner, would probably answer the former. She has told aides (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html), and written in her memoir, that she’d rather be “caught trying” in foreign policy than do nothing.

In short, and perhaps in contrast to her former boss President Barack Obama, when confronted with a foreign-policy crisis or challenge, Clinton was more inclined to act than not. The reflex to be “caught trying” is ennobling and very much part of the American can-do spirit—especially when set against Obama’s much-criticized “don’t do stupid stuff” mantra against taking action, which Clinton herself has derided (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/) as “not an organizing principle” worthy of a great nation. But is “get caught trying” any wiser a mantra for America’s approach to the world?


The idea is hardly an HRC original. I first heard a version from her husband, President Bill Clinton, during a briefing in preparation for the Camp David Middle East peace summit in the summer of 2000. Back then, I was an adviser for Arab-Israeli negotiations, and we were preparing for a summit we hoped could result in a peace agreement. Reflecting on the failure of those efforts later, Clinton echoed (http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-palestinians-were-offered-temple-mount-in-2000/) the view I’d heard him articulate at the briefing: “We always need to get caught trying—fewer people will die.” But since leaving government in 2003 and watching U.S. foreign policy under both Republicans and Democrats ever since, I’m no longer as convinced as I was that “doing something” is better than nothing, particularly if the “something” being done isn’t well thought through.

Read the rest at the link.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Should America Do Less? (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/american-foreign-policy-get-caught-trying/479376/)

In foreign policy, is trying and failing better than not trying at all? As an aside, my answer would be- it depends. Here is an article about Hillary's views on the matter.



Read the rest at the link. The entire Establishment, Dhimmicrat and GOPer, comprises ignorant and arrogant incompetents who don't understand the feral Third World. Allowing these Born to Rule snobs to direct our foreign policy wastes American money and lives, putting us in the greatest danger as the savages steadily close in on us.

[Bo-4]

Hillary has the heart of a neocon. Once a neocon, always a neocon even if a certain degree of evolution takes place.

Yes, America should do less. We simply can't afford to do as much or more, and have epically failed ever since Vietnam.

[Peter1469]

Hillary has the heart of a neocon. Once a neocon, always a neocon even if a certain degree of evolution takes place.

Yes, America should do less. We simply can't afford to do as much or more, and have epically failed ever since Vietnam.


She is a liberal war hawk. Very similar to a neocon. Not identical.

[Bo-4]

She is a liberal war hawk. Very similar to a neocon. Not identical.

Point conceded ;-)

[Peter1469]

Point conceded ;-)

The only substantive difference is the purpose for the use of military force.

Neocon is ostensibly for national security interests
liberal war hawk is for humanitarian concerns even in absence of national security interest

[Standing Wolf]

I'm largely in agreement with those who've posted in this thread up to now, but the question has to be asked: how much of the world should the U.S. be willing to sit back and watch be taken over by extremist nutcases and fanatics before acting - unilaterally, if necessary - to end it? Would it be wise to ignore an ISIS threat to Pakistan, for instance?

[Bo-4]

The only substantive difference is the purpose for the use of military force.

Neocon is ostensibly for national security interests
liberal war hawk is for humanitarian concerns even in absence of national security interest

Yeah, Iraq turned out so well for "humanitarians".. nice vote Hillary :rolleyes:

[Bo-4]

I'm largely in agreement with those who've posted in this thread up to now, but the question has to be asked: how much of the world should the U.S. be willing to sit back and watch be taken over by extremist nutcases and fanatics before acting - unilaterally, if necessary - to end it? Would it be wise to ignore an ISIS threat to Pakistan, for instance?

No, we can't sit back with ISIS. But we also can't fight them with a conventional military.

We need to forever forget the idea of sending hundreds of thousands of troops to solve problems which largely have no affect on the US.

[Peter1469]

I'm largely in agreement with those who've posted in this thread up to now, but the question has to be asked: how much of the world should the U.S. be willing to sit back and watch be taken over by extremist nutcases and fanatics before acting - unilaterally, if necessary - to end it? Would it be wise to ignore an ISIS threat to Pakistan, for instance?

There is a large range of options between isolationism and full blown neocon intervention.

In the OP I said my answer was that it depends.

Considering all global risks, where do our interests lie and in what order? What constraints affect each area? Where do we have advantages? We have to use our limited resources wisely. If we try to fix everything we risk over-reach, insolvency, or even defeat.

We have long had contingencies in place to deal with Paki nuclear sites should they be threatened.

[Peter1469]

This is a related article. More civilian, less military US policy needed in the Middle East (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/04/22/more_civilian_less_military_us_policy_needed_in_th e_middle_east_111819.html)

This article advocates ramping down military engagement in the ME and increasing the diplomatic and economic engagement. Clearly ISIL will have to be marginalized first. Can't have them running amok assassinating our ambassadors (again).

Oh the reason to ramp down military engagement: fracking. We not longer have a true vital national security interest in the Middle East, outside of general notions of regional stability. In other words their oil could disappear and it would not matter to the US.


America's allies in the Middle East -- the Sunni Arabs, as well as Israel -- are concerned that the United States is withdrawing and leaving a vacuum that will be filled by jihadi extremists or Shiite Iran. They are right to worry. U.S. interests in the region are declining from Washington's point of view, and so is the need for its military presence. It is not our military but our civilian capabilities that have the best chance of serving remaining American interests across the Middle East, and we need to wield them far more effectively than in the past.

The first priority for the U.S. military in the Middle East has been to keep oil flowing unimpeded to world markets from the Persian Gulf. The United States spends between 12 and 15 percent (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG838.pdf) of the Pentagon's budget on this goal, which former President Jimmy Carter enunciated 36 years ago in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union is gone. The United States, which never imported a big portion of its oil from the Gulf, nevertheless had reason to worry that a supply disruption there would bump up the world market price and cause significant economic damage.


Today, there is little chance of that: The U.S. economy is far less dependent on energy than it was four decades ago; we maintain ample oil stocks in a Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and unconventional production of oil and gas would return quickly at $70 or more per barrel, mitigating any economic impact of a disruption. If Washington is worried about a supply disruption, it would make sense to encourage Gulf countries to increase their pipeline capacity, which would mitigate price increases by ensuring that adequate supply reaches world markets. We should also be convincing India and China to hold larger stocks and to contribute naval forces to guarding the Strait of Hormuz, since they import the lion's share of Gulf oil. It makes no sense for Washington to be spending more than $80 billion per year to keep oil flowing from the Gulf so that Beijing and Delhi can import most of it. Diplomatic means trump military means when it comes to Gulf energy issues.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The only substantive difference is the purpose for the use of military force.

Neocon is ostensibly for national security interests
liberal war hawk is for humanitarian concerns even in absence of national security interest Muzzies aren't human; they're similar to the Neanderthal species. So there is nothing humanitarian about do-gooders treating them better than they deserve. Doing good for bad people is a contradiction. And it shows a snobbish contempt for decent people not in the Liberals' petting zoo.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm largely in agreement with those who've posted in this thread up to now, but the question has to be asked: how much of the world should the U.S. be willing to sit back and watch be taken over by extremist nutcases and fanatics before acting - unilaterally, if necessary - to end it? Would it be wise to ignore an ISIS threat to Pakistan, for instance? Pakistan is our enemy; protect India instead. Besides, Pakistan is Sunni just like ISIS and will join the terrorists in attacking Shiite Iran.

[The Sage of Main Street]

There is a large range of options between isolationism and full blown neocon intervention.

In the OP I said my answer was that it depends.

Considering all global risks, where do our interests lie and in what order? What constraints affect each area? Where do we have advantages? We have to use our limited resources wisely. If we try to fix everything we risk over-reach, insolvency, or even defeat.

We have long had contingencies in place to deal with Paki nuclear sites should they be threatened. We should be the ones threatening Paki nukes. That whole country is financed by terrorist Wahhabi oil. The ignorant weaklings who have run our State Department since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo are stuck on stupid if they continue to reject a coalition to partition Muslim oilfields, bankrupt Islam, and send the natives off to reservations where they can engage in intertribal genocide to satisfy their bloodlust.

[Peter1469]

Muzzies aren't human; they're similar to the Neanderthal species. So there is nothing humanitarian about do-gooders treating them better than they deserve. Doing good for bad people is a contradiction. And it shows a snobbish contempt for decent people not in the Liberals' petting zoo.

Oh

[donttread]

Should America Do Less? (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/american-foreign-policy-get-caught-trying/479376/)

In foreign policy, is trying and failing better than not trying at all? As an aside, my answer would be- it depends. Here is an article about Hillary's views on the matter.



Read the rest at the link.

It depends on what you are trying and failing at. In the case of foreign policy we absolutely need to do less and concentrate on our own problems

[The Sage of Main Street]

Oh ^Goose egg. You're being shut out.