Huh?

Do you feel that US forign policy over the last 5 years have made the world a more stable place? Regardless of the long term aims no-one flew planes into building before 2001 as a result of US forign policy.

Half the people in the survey probably don't know who Kim is or why North Korea may be a threat. Bush bashing is the new black. Don't forget that there are a lot of ignorant and stupid people in Britain.

 

To be honest, those poll results aren't really that shocking to me. :|

 

I agree Rumstove. BuSh's war against evil is undefined in it's scope and how to achieve victory. Idiot's rule!

 

I'm sorry... but I ALSO dont get why you dont get it.

There's a disconnect in what the guy on the street see happening and comment on, and what their official OPINION is..

So what's new? If we use a limited scope of vision, only acting on what is shoved in our faces, and we see someone hates us.. and we know it's hard to affect their view, 'over there'.. so we focus on what we think we can change, or what's closest to us; which allows us to adopt the view:

Bush did this, Blair must be Bush's poodle because he agreed, so all we have to do is get rid of Blair.. and we might get out of this alright... all we have to do is leave Iraq.
Never mind if you read closely the incidental comments on the offal and elsewhere on the average bloke chafing at the tyranny of the muslim minority in Britain... it IS recognized but the blame is still displaced.

GBFC - On Sept 11 2001, the US foreign policy was still Clinton's, and Bush 41's, foreign policy... in FACT the State Dept is STILL largely Clintonesque... and that point doesnt answer questions on Al-Quaeda bombing US embassies or the USS Cole... it MIGHT answer the motive for the FIRST WTC bombing... but we essentially left Saddam in power so there's the question of motivation.. was it that we showed too much compassion in Gulf War I?

 

Pettyfog, I did not say Bush forign policy. Saddam Hussain is not linked to Al-Quaeda. I am not even arguing that the US is to blame for anything. I am saying that US forign policy over the last 5 years has not added to the stability of the world.

 

You dont get it... it really HASNT ADDED TO INSTABILITY, either! It might look like it.. because it shoved the problem up-front and people can no longer ignore Islamo-Fascism as 'over there'!

While the UN and various foreign ministries have done business as usual, the opposition states have continued steady on... the excuse that Iraq 'aided' recruitment' might be factually correct, but in reality, it ESCALATED the recruitment and events.

Note here, all in the west {except Chirac and Putin who had money to think about} were in -de facto- agreement that Saddam needed to be deposed, the disagreement wa sover HOW.
If you read between the lines, of those advocating 'Another Way', this had to do with him being overthrown by Republican Guards with help of ex-pats.

The result of that 'other way' would have been.. I think INARGUABLY.. the same jockeying for power that we are seeing now. And it is not at ALL clear that the results would be any different with the exception as to which came first.
I believe the result would have been INSTANT CIVIL WAR, far more bloody than it is now... and in fact destabilizing the region to far greater extent... example:
- The Kurds and Turkey and Iran.
- Iran taking over Southern Iraq on the excuse of 'protective custody'
- Al Sadr taking over Baghdad as his Caliphate.

But..This would have been going on, without the average Iraqi EVER having seen any hope that their lot would be better on the outcome..becuase they would never have had a chance to vote on anything. If we think the Iraqi's were timid and stupid because they 'made do' with Saddam. I suggest the opposite, they preferred the hope that none of their own would be 'found or singled out' and they knew, full well, what happened in the Balkans, post-Tito.

Where Bush failed: We had a chance to MANAGE the Civil War and keep it low level... {need to clarify, that IS being done at this time, I think rationality will win out and it will continue} but it doesnt help at all that the propaganda arms which the 'insurgents' use to full advantage are in the western media.
Where Rummy failed... The blogs were full of letters and diaries of US unit commanders who were treated by local tribal leaders as 'arbiters' in civil case and security forces to keep them from being attacked by nearby elements.
That we didnt have more 'civil service/ pacification' oriented units and officers available to cover Iraq National Security is the REAL failure. The reason for this is that most of the ExPats consulted were Urban, Urbane and sophisticated to the point that they downplayed the truth in their culture.

Now consider whether it is better to 'put off the inevitable'.

 

Again, I point out that I rephased the question, I am deliberatyly trying to avoid blame. US Forgin policy has not made the world more stable. I do not know if they could do something different that would. The US and China are the only super powers left in the world. The US accepts this responsibility, while China shirk it.

The middle east has been an issue ever since oil became important. Iraq is an artificial country and was always going to disinegrate. It has the same instabilities as the Balkans. Yugoslavia was always destined to fail and when it did it ended up in genocide. Iraq will end up as a series of states. I completely agree that the exit stragegy is poor and a failure.

 

YOU STILL DONT GET IT, Gary... the situation in the region was becoming increasingly INSTABLE!!! WHETHER OR NOT... EVEN whether or not we even went into Afghanistan.

Israel/Palestinians have affected events much more than Iraq... like it or not.
Iran did not 'start their belligerence and nuke program BECAUSE of 9/11 or Iraq, they started all that long before.
- Ask an expat Saudi or Persian what he thinks about Iran and the stability of the regoion.. oh, better make that several...

And, think about this... Libya is, for now, totally out of the picture. That was NOT true, before.

And it is still not at all clear that Iraq WILL {sorry, i meant they WOULD have, without US intervention} have gone down the same path... there is MUCH evidence that most of the power base, EVEN KURDS, think that keeping the Republic intact is better than the alternative.
- Here's why: If the Kurds are forced to cut off ties to the National Assembly government or that government denies them, the Kurd area will immediately be invaded by Turkey, on the North and Iran to the East.

However, though it's pretty clear that Sistani would not have been able to manage his people as well as he does now.

No... there, even now is GOOD NEWS that Sunni's are starting to control the terrorists in the outliers. The DEMON in the attic is Mookie Al Sadr... would that he had been killed two years agao and Sistani taken over his faction by fatwa.

 

I think we are talking at cross purposes. Iraq was a bomb waiting to go off. I know that. Iraq does not even figure in what I am trying to say. I have pointed that out with the comparison to the balkans (incidently I do not blame Bush or any republican for this either).

The original question asked if US policy has made the world a more dangerous place, which is the same as saying that the US is responsible, at least in part, for the decline of stability throughtout the world.

I am saying, that inspite of US policy, the situation has become worse. It is not the same thing, efectivly I am agreeing with what you are saying. The forign policy that has been in place over the last 5 years has not made the world more stable. They have not positivly contributed to stability. This is very different from saying they have activly removed stability.

Incidently, I do not think bush is responsible for N.Korea, however China has a lot to answer for there.

 

We are talking at cross purposes, as you say..my point is that, if anything, the US simply speeded up the focus.

It is totally ridiculous to think that ... other than Afghanistan, perhaps, anything happened differently than it would have within 2 years at the most.

On Iraq, after 12 resolutions and multiple start-stops on the UNSCUM inspectiosn, the options were to give up and drop sanctions.. wherein Saddam would actually have been cemented further into power and he would again have the run of the country... exception of possibly Kurds...or to give a new bunch of crooks some access to Saddam's skim-off of humanitarian Oil funds.

Oh there were plenty of mistakes made.. but i submit the biggest was Bush assuming that the media and some Dems actually wanted us to win.

 

Ponder this, did the United States speed up our current attention to the situation or did the terrorists? And, in part, wasn't that their purpose?

Let's raise the level of discussion beyond: good guys v. bad guys; evil v. blessed; win v. lose. Let's start talking about the REAL problems that necessitate attention to the "new" old threat to modern civilization.

And as far as the idea of "win" that Petty refers to in the last word of the last sentence of his last post, that is still a term neither he nor the Republicans have defined yet.

 

That 'Win state' HAS indeed been defined.. I understand why you might not know it.

A win is the point where terror attacks become, not rare, but the exception and noteworty in themselves and the local forces have the trust of the people, and competence to meet the challenges of providing security for them.

Indeed, once the 'insurgents' found out they got big US press rather than just personal thug satisfaction that ratcheted things up.
And I see the watershed event being the killing/ burning of the Fallujah Four.

BTW
I thought this indeed WAS elevated compared to most contemporary discussions. But if not, then lets do.

 

I honestly do not recall ever hearing that definition. And that certainly was not the initial definition prior to the war or even the first year or two of it. So essentially, it appears the definition of victory or a win, based on what has occured over the past 4 years, would be whatever this administration defines it as at that moment. How convenient.

From my perspective, there is almost no chance that violence in Iraq will subside anytime soon, and especially as long as the muslim world continues to see us as occupiers of their land. Which they willl continue to do. If the goal is what Petty defines, we will need at least another 4-5 years, and more likely 10 - 15 years. Thank you BuSh for defining all over again the term "quagmire".

And even if we manage to assist in stabilizing Iraq and get to the point Petty defines, more to the original point, have we helped lessen the muslim view that we are occupiers attempting to force our western culture and thinking on the middle east or do we continue being looked at as a threat and the modern interpretation of the crusaders? Will we have made the world a safer place or assisted in creating a whole new generation of jihad fighters?

 

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

Stepping back from the particulars, failures, successes who''s to blame.. etc.

That article by a very good SF writer {ever think about how they have to understand sociology and civilizations?} and Democrat, addresses some of the irritating talking points and asks all the right questions.

the MOST important being:

'Where are all the Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrats?"

the second most important being:
"Are we going to abandon these people, again?"
- - - -- - - - - - - -- - -- -
In fact, read EVERYTHING in his archives.... well thought out and written to be easily read. Just like his books.

I really like his books, particularly the series: Ender's Game and sequel Speaker for the Dead... and the follow on series.

Yep... he is also Controversial

But do your OWN views precisely match the rest of your peers?