Can America ever escape its failing foreign policy?

[Peter1469]

Can America ever escape its failing foreign policy? (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-america-ever-escape-its-failing-foreign-policy-16263)

National Review's realists are attacking the Neocons again. Same line of attack as before: our foreign policy was high jacked by Neocons and things would be much better for the US and the world if realists were in charge.

Liberal interventionism v. offshore balancing.


America’s current foreign-policy framework has produced a string of failures. Iraq and Afghanistan were expensive messes; Libya and the Balkan interventions, destabilizing wars of choice; we’re plainly overextended in Europe and can never seem to realize our long-promised pivot to Asia. Many of our allies carp about the need for U.S. “leadership” and growing threats in their neighborhoods while spending pittances on their own defense; at the same time, the publics in the same countries appear to resent our efforts to defend them. We have amassed all the downsides of empire, while seeing few (https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/12/16/worst-empire-ever/)of its benefits. And within many Washington foreign-policy circles, the solution to the problems our approach has created is to double down. Indeed, while most public discussion has focused on the shortcomings of one major party’s candidate (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/trump-the-loss-public-spirit-16075) for the presidency, few seem concerned that the other major party is poised to nominate a candidate (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/why-hillary-clinton-will-be-foreign-policy-nightmare-16233) who was an enthusiastic cheerleader for all of the serious foreign-policy blunders I listed above. Perhaps the United States simply has no alternative to its current strategy.

Not so, argues Stephen Walt. In a keynote address to the Charles Koch Institute (https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/)’s Advancing American Security conference today in Washington, D.C., the Harvard professor made a bracing case for a different direction, a U.S. foreign policy far more restrained than today’s adventurism yet far more engaged than the isolationism of, say, Sakoku-era Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku). By remaining aloof from many of the world’s friction points, the United States would be able to invest more in its own affairs, building a firmer foundation of national power.


In Walt’s view, the United States enjoys advantages that almost no other great power in history has had. We are separated from all other major states by two vast oceans, and enjoy unquestioned supremacy in our entire hemisphere. We have the world’s largest and most dynamic economy, which underwrites the world’s strongest military. We can resort to nuclear weapons in the event that all these fail to protect us. We face few serious existential threats from other states.


It is precisely this tremendous advantage, says Walt, that has enabled us to sustain our current approach in spite of its many failures. Under this approach, which he brands “liberal hegemony (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/does-america-need-allies-15802?page=show),” America seeks to dominate every region of the globe while advancing liberal goals: open markets, democratic governance, international rule of law. The push for global dominance has enabled allies to cut back on military spending and free ride on our commitments to their defense. The desire to advance democracy, sometimes at the point of a gun, has had particularly damaging effects—the regimes we wish to change feel threatened and do unpleasant things likepursue nuclear weapons (http://www.gettyimages.com/pictures/irans-foreign-minister-mohammad-javad-zarif-and-turkish-news-photo-452055193), while the regimes we do change require replacement, which often means occupation, which stirs resentment and violence. It’s a foreign policy with few successes and serious costs.


The alternative to liberal hegemony, Walt says, is a strategy of “offshore balancing.” Under this approach, the United States seeks to prevent the emergence of a rival hegemonic power in three key regions of the globe: Europe, Northeast Asia and the Persian Gulf. (In a clever touch, the menu at the lunch included foods from each of those regions, plus some all-American cheeseburger sliders.) Washington preserves dominance in its own hemisphere, and leans on local states first to check the rise of potential hegemons, since they have an even deeper interest in blocking their ascent. It continues active trade and diplomacy around the world, and prepares a military centered on air and sea power, with modest, more scalable ground forces. For today’s policymakers, that means drawing down from Europe (where the locals already spend four times more on defense than Russia) and pushing for a limited rapprochement with Iran, which is a mere potential hegemon.

[texan]

Don;t pay attention to the NR anymore they are dead to me.

[Peter1469]

Don;t pay attention to the NR anymore they are dead to me.

Neocons hate The New Republic.

[Ethereal]

As long as there are Americans and globalist interlopers who treat the interests of America as being the same as the interests of Europe, then there is no way we can solve our massive foreign policy problems.

The entire point of the American revolution was to become independent of Europe.

The establishment of an independent America was intended to separate our interests from their interests.

Unfortunately, the patriots who fought and died for this, and the founding fathers who imparted this wisdom upon us, have been betrayed and back-stabbed, largely as a result of WWI and WWII.

Ever since then, Americans have come to see the interests and the destinies of America and Europe as being the same, even though that is the exact opposite of what our country was founded on.

And that is why the US government is risking another world war with Russia over Ukraine and Poland.

I say, if any American is that concerned about the territorial integrity of Ukraine or Poland, let them go live in Ukraine or Poland.

Because it has nothing to do with America.

[Peter1469]

Here is an acceptable description of realism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-arrow-of-history/2016/05/26/ff384f7c-2369-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html)from the Neocon Krauthammer.


How do you distinguish a foreign policy “idealist” from a “realist,” an optimist from a pessimist? Ask one question: Do you believe in the arrow of history? Or to put it another way, do you think history is cyclical or directional? Are we condemned to do the same damn thing over and over, generation after generation — or is there hope for some enduring progress in the world order?

For realists, generally conservative, history is an endless cycle of clashing power politics. The same patterns repeat. Only the names and places change. The best we can do in our own time is to defend ourselves, managing instability and avoiding catastrophe. But expect nothing permanent, no essential alteration in the course of human affairs.


The idealists believe otherwise. They believe that the international system can eventually evolve out of its Hobbesian state of nature into something more humane and hopeful. What is usually overlooked is that this hopefulness for achieving a higher plane of global comity comes in two flavors — one liberal, one conservative.


The liberal variety (as practiced, for example, by the Bill Clinton administration) believes that the creation of a dense web of treaties, agreements, transnational institutions and international organizations (such as the U.N., NGOs, the World Trade Organization) can give substance to a cohesive community of nations that would, in time, ensure order and stability.


The conservative view (often called neoconservative and dominant in the George W. Bush years) is that the better way to ensure order and stability is not through international institutions, which are flimsy and generally powerless, but through the spread of democracy. Because, in the end, democracies are inherently more inclined (http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0014.xml) to live in peace.

[donttread]

Can America ever escape its failing foreign policy? (http://nationalinterest.org/feature/can-america-ever-escape-its-failing-foreign-policy-16263)

National Review's realists are attacking the Neocons again. Same line of attack as before: our foreign policy was high jacked by Neocons and things would be much better for the US and the world if realists were in charge.

Liberal interventionism v. offshore balancing.

Yes we can Peter but you won't like the how of it. Isolationism, nothing else is working or has worked in a long time, so why not try it?

[iolo]

Yes we can Peter but you won't like the how of it. Isolationism, nothing else is working or has worked in a long time, so why not try it? The whole world will be backing it, except the arse-lickers!

[Peter1469]

Yes we can Peter but you won't like the how of it. Isolationism, nothing else is working or has worked in a long time, so why not try it?

What is your plan B. Isolation isn't in the cards.

Can you come up with something intelligent?

[MMC]

Democracy overseas copied is not Democracy. Its Mob rules. That's not counting Constitutional Monarchies.

Which other country that is Democratic holds primaries before their elections?

[donttread]

What is your plan B. Isolation isn't in the cards.

Can you come up with something intelligent?

Iolationism with a strict warning and a big stick.

[donttread]

What is your plan B. Isolation isn't in the cards.

Can you come up with something intelligent?

Why should I come up with something intelligent? None of the interventionist ever do.

[Common]

Im not very good at this stuff, Peter, ethereal, Dr Who others are much more tuned then my dull brain is. I do have some thoughts.

There are those that want us to Pull out of everywhere and let the chips fall where they fall. There are those thant want to give billions to other countries for a variety of reasons.

Why do we have troops in Germany, why ? clinton reduced bases all over american against the wishs of other democrats and left troops in germany, why ?

Why isnt south korean building a military to defend itself against the North, why do we have troops in Korea still guarding their border. WHILE OURS IS WIDE OPEN.

I would like to see us get the hell out of everywhere except what we need for our peoples security.

We need to stop china from being able to build a massive offensive military. We do that buy putting such high tariffs on chinese made goods manufacturers come back HOME. Stop the horrific trade deficit with them, tariffs start that.

We need to stop giving money to every country in the world and we MUST stop the rape of our border.

The foriegn policy of giving away billions has not worked, putting troops everywhere hasnt worked.

Obama has governed like hes ashamed america is powerful. We need to stop being ashamed of what weve accomplished and stop kissing everyones ass. Stop giving govts money that never benefits their people and pull our troops back home.

[donttread]

What is your plan B. Isolation isn't in the cards.

Can you come up with something intelligent?

Same question back at you. You are constantly stating that "Isolationism won't happen."
But yet at the same time do see how unlikely a return to policing the world without boots constantly on the ground , and constant war is?
All the evidence points to the opposite, our interventionism is increasing , we are constantly at war and we are beginning to practice imperialism ."Your "way" is every bit as unlikely as mine .Why do you think as our interest in the ME (oil) decreases we are reviving the cold war and set China up for future boggiemen?

[Peter1469]

Iolationism with a strict warning and a big stick.

I said a plan B.

Your idea is a non-starter.

[Peter1469]

Im not very good at this stuff, Peter, ethereal, Dr Who others are much more tuned then my dull brain is. I do have some thoughts.

There are those that want us to Pull out of everywhere and let the chips fall where they fall. There are those thant want to give billions to other countries for a variety of reasons.

Why do we have troops in Germany, why ? clinton reduced bases all over american against the wishs of other democrats and left troops in germany, why ?

Why isnt south korean building a military to defend itself against the North, why do we have troops in Korea still guarding their border. WHILE OURS IS WIDE OPEN.

I would like to see us get the hell out of everywhere except what we need for our peoples security.

We need to stop china from being able to build a massive offensive military. We do that buy putting such high tariffs on chinese made goods manufacturers come back HOME. Stop the horrific trade deficit with them, tariffs start that.

We need to stop giving money to every country in the world and we MUST stop the rape of our border.

The foriegn policy of giving away billions has not worked, putting troops everywhere hasnt worked.

Obama has governed like hes ashamed america is powerful. We need to stop being ashamed of what weve accomplished and stop kissing everyones ass. Stop giving govts money that never benefits their people and pull our troops back home.

Having troops in Germany and South Korea allow us to have forward deployed forces. They are not in either countries as occupiers.

Also the South Korean military could beat the north if invaded.

[Peter1469]

Same question back at you. You are constantly stating that "Isolationism won't happen."
But yet at the same time do see how unlikely a return to policing the world without boots constantly on the ground , and constant war is?
All the evidence points to the opposite, our interventionism is increasing , we are constantly at war and we are beginning to practice imperialism ."Your "way" is every bit as unlikely as mine .Why do you think as our interest in the ME (oil) decreases we are reviving the cold war and set China up for future boggiemen?

I advocate for realism in foreign policy. I have several threads on it.

[Common]

Having troops in Germany and South Korea allow us to have forward deployed forces. They are not in either countries as occupiers.

Also the South Korean military could beat the north if invaded.

I understand that and they havent been necessary for 20 yrs. That was necessary back in the day where we didnt have the capability get troops around the world in hours instead of weeks. We no longer need to ship troops and equipt.

[MMC]

Having troops in Germany and South Korea allow us to have forward deployed forces. They are not in either countries as occupiers.

Also the South Korean military could beat the north if invaded.

But they know Seoul will be destroyed. Along with most on the DMZ.

[Peter1469]

I understand that and they havent been necessary for 20 yrs. That was necessary back in the day where we didnt have the capability get troops around the world in hours instead of weeks. We no longer need to ship troops and equipt.

It takes a long time to move heavy armor and artillery.

That is why we have brigade size pods of stuff stored in various spots.

[donttread]

Im not very good at this stuff, Peter, ethereal, Dr Who others are much more tuned then my dull brain is. I do have some thoughts.

There are those that want us to Pull out of everywhere and let the chips fall where they fall. There are those thant want to give billions to other countries for a variety of reasons.

Why do we have troops in Germany, why ? clinton reduced bases all over american against the wishs of other democrats and left troops in germany, why ?

Why isnt south korean building a military to defend itself against the North, why do we have troops in Korea still guarding their border. WHILE OURS IS WIDE OPEN.

I would like to see us get the hell out of everywhere except what we need for our peoples security.

We need to stop china from being able to build a massive offensive military. We do that buy putting such high tariffs on chinese made goods manufacturers come back HOME. Stop the horrific trade deficit with them, tariffs start that.

We need to stop giving money to every country in the world and we MUST stop the rape of our border.

The foriegn policy of giving away billions has not worked, putting troops everywhere hasnt worked.

Obama has governed like hes ashamed america is powerful. We need to stop being ashamed of what weve accomplished and stop kissing everyones ass. Stop giving govts money that never benefits their people and pull our troops back home.


The military industrial complex will simply demand more and more blood. We either pull out of become a hated empire everyone will be looking to take down

[donttread]

I advocate for realism in foreign policy. I have several threads on it.


I know what you advocate. Does in look to you like realism has had much to do with our foreign policy over the past few years?

[Peter1469]

I know what you advocate. Does in look to you like realism has had much to do with our foreign policy over the past few years?

Of course not. That is the theme of those threads.

[iolo]

American foreign policy is designed to benefit your very rich, and has been so for many, many years. Their pensioners in other counties are all for intervention, but everyone else would love you to withdraw. See if you can persuade the rich: I do not think you will.

[Peter1469]

American foreign policy is designed to benefit your very rich, and has been so for many, many years. Their pensioners in other counties are all for intervention, but everyone else would love you to withdraw. See if you can persuade the rich: I do not think you will.

Who is for intervention?

[iolo]

Who is for intervention? The oil companies were the big movers before you started destroying your foundations, obviously, and the arms companies are also big deal in that line. But, manifestly, all American business benefits by reducing other countries to colonial status, as did European business before World War 1.

[Peter1469]

The oil companies were the big movers before you started destroying your foundations, obviously, and the arms companies are also big deal in that line. But, manifestly, all American business benefits by reducing other countries to colonial status, as did European business before World War 1.

I can generally agree to that.

[donttread]

I said a plan B.

Your idea is a non-starter.

So's yours. If we continue to practice interventionism it be of the unproductive, constant war variety that we have seen over the past decade and a half.
Essentially we can be imperialist ( which we suck at according to our nation debt) or quasi isolationist. The middle ground has been rejected by the donkephant

[donttread]

The oil companies were the big movers before you started destroying your foundations, obviously, and the arms companies are also big deal in that line. But, manifestly, all American business benefits by reducing other countries to colonial status, as did European business before World War 1.

Not to mention building 3/4 of a billion dollar club med embassy as a fuck you to Saddam. Some American company made some bucks there

[Peter1469]

So's yours. If we continue to practice interventionism it be of the unproductive, constant war variety that we have seen over the past decade and a half.
Essentially we can be imperialist ( which we suck at according to our nation debt) or quasi isolationist. The middle ground has been rejected by the donkephant

Lumping anything not isolationist together is not an argument.

[donttread]

As long as there are Americans and globalist interlopers who treat the interests of America as being the same as the interests of Europe, then there is no way we can solve our massive foreign policy problems.

The entire point of the American revolution was to become independent of Europe.

The establishment of an independent America was intended to separate our interests from their interests.

Unfortunately, the patriots who fought and died for this, and the founding fathers who imparted this wisdom upon us, have been betrayed and back-stabbed, largely as a result of WWI and WWII.

Ever since then, Americans have come to see the interests and the destinies of America and Europe as being the same, even though that is the exact opposite of what our country was founded on.

And that is why the US government is risking another world war with Russia over Ukraine and Poland.

I say, if any American is that concerned about the territorial integrity of Ukraine or Poland, let them go live in Ukraine or Poland.

Because it has nothing to do with America.


Yes but keeps unskilled laborers employed, presents an great distraction and keeps the war hake PAC's happy