American Exceptionalism? Foreign Policy After Bush
By Cernig Monday Oct 06, 2008 4:30amInvestigative journalist Gareth Porter, a smart guy and a friend of mine, gave an interview to "The Real News" on Sunday on the topic of foreign policy directions under a McCain or Obama presidency. Gareth's opinion is that, contra McKinney and Nader, there is a qualitative difference between McCain, a died-in-the-wool neoconservative, and Obama's more pragmatic approach to American superpowerdom - but that even Obama wouldn't make a clear break with the past 50 years of American power projection, instead repurposing it away from the Bush Years with less violently militaristic expressions. So that although both would to a continuation of one or other of the Bush terms, just as Bush followed the last 50 years, McCain would hyper-extend the first term's Cheney-esque bellicosity while Obama would emphasise and amplify the pragmatic policies of the likes of Secretary of Defense Bob Gates.
One of the major points Gareth makes in his interview is that, from everything McCain has said about Iraq during his campaign, it isn't impossible to believe McCain would keep the occupation of Iraq going even over the wishes of the Iraqi people and government, perhaps even arranging a coup to unseat Prime Minister Maliki. I think it would certainly be interesting to see how he would respond if asked about this outright by the establishment press.
Obama however, while he'd be likely to hurry withdrawal even beyond the Maliki-approved timetable if he thought it could be done, is just as inextricably committed to staying in Afghanistan and to using military force as the main effort there as McCain is - perhaps even more so when you consider what he has said about the Pakistan border area. McCain, as a paid up neocon, would doubtless be saying "faster please" on war with Iran, which Obama seems to realize would be a disaster.
As to Russian relations, while Gareth doesn't address those in his interview, it seems unlikely that neither Obama nor McCain would depart greatly from the underlying concept of American foreign policy for five decades - that the US is allowed a sphere of influence, the whole world, but no-one else is and certainly not Russia. The question is, can the US maintain that position any longer?
Condi Rice, visiting America's "with us" autocrat ally in Kazakhstan, has said that the US has no intention of allowing Russia a "near foreign".
"This is not a zero-sum game," she told reporters flying with her to the Kazakh capital. U.S. gains need not mean Russian losses, she said.
"First of all, Kazakhstan is an independent country. It can have
friendships with whomever it wishes," she said. "That's perfectly acceptable in
the 21st century, so we don't see and don't accept any notion of a special
sphere of influence" for Russia in this region.
Kazakhstan is a bit of an odd one - the dictatorship in all but name (it has elections but no-one opposed to President Nazarbayev ever gets elected) does indeed have a successful multi-lateral foreign policy on trade and military co-operation. It has a military alliance with Russia and therefore is ineligible for NATO, but in February signed a deal with the US to procure equipment and training to bring it up to NATO standard and conducts regular joint exercises with the US. But one has to question whether, without the US presence in Afghanistan and Kazakh permission for supply flights there, America would be interested. Military aide has always seemed a sweetener for the supply flights.
So while it may be a good nation from which to make a speech about there being no special spheres of influence anymore, is that actually the truth?
Certainly, America's sphere of influence now matches its national security interests - global, and wherever the US decided those interests lie. Even if that means reneging on previous promises to not base US troops in or allow into NATO nations that were once Soviet dominions and that Russia considers its "near foreign". Even if it means invading other nations without a UN mandate or threatening to attack others. It's unclear, though, that anyone else gets to do the same thing - especially not Russia. Recent controversy and outrage over Russian deals with Venezuela and the resurrection of the South American fleet suggest that America still has a "near foreign" of its own. Worries about Russia expanding its basing agreements and military patrol flights again - both things the US does far more of - didn't bring knowing nods of acceptance for Russia's acknowledgment that anyone can have global national interests in the 21st Century, they brought rhetoric about a new Russian aggression and Imperial ambition.
At the end of the day, though, realpolitik says Condi is correct even if for the wrong reasons. No-one has the power now to consistently safeguard and hoard a sphere of influence - and not even America has the power to prevent any other nation having a global reach nowadays, after Bush's adventurism and a financial crisis have gutted America's superpowers like a Kryptonite enema. Other nations have no intention of allowing the US to keep a tight grip on its "near foreign" any longer either. Welcome to the multi-polar post-Bush world.
Rice's statement is better seen as a recognition of truth rather than a high-minded statement of policy. Although I doubt Rice or McCain see it that way I'm certain Obama does.
Login or Register to post comments.
Perhaps it is not possible for any president to change policy, being that they are not in control of it.
there really isn´t much difference between the two. they are both corporate militarists with an over the top support for isreali govt. attrocities on palistine, which btw, was not mentioned in either debate...
some interesting graphs here on isreali/palistinian conflict, which is the root of many problems in the mid-east...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
No, there's a difference even if both support Israel. The same way there was a difference between Clinton and Bush on Israel - the former at least made some attempts to persuade the Israelis to work for peace, the latter gave Ariel Sharon carte blanche to do whatever he wanted.
And yes. If Americans Knew, the US policy on Israel would be different and significantly more critical. (As it once was, the Six Day War was supposedly the big turning point) The rest of the world certainly has a more critical stance.
It's a vicious circle. Politicians frame the debate. The debate frames the media coverage. The media coverage frames American's mind. Americans choose the politicians that support their viewpoint.
Seriously, I think you'd get more balanced coverage of the Middle East from Haaretz than most US sources. The most balanced is NPR which has a policy of alloting equal time to both sides. But you could argue that even that is skewed coverage, considering that there are far more Palestinians being killed.
Look let's face it there are both no differences between parties and major differences between parties in the same way that there are both differences and no differences between the Phillies and the Dodgers. Using the 'no differences' canard in order to avoid addressing the substance of third party ideals is lazy, sad, and unpersuasive.
i didn´t say no difference, i said little difference... of course obama has an intelectual curiosity that we hope will lead to discussion at the very least. as far as third party candidates, which i didn´t mention, i belive nader, and the green and socialist parties have a much better idea of a way forward as they are not on aipac´s pay rolls...
Nitpick: it's 'dyed in the wool,' unless McCain dropped dead while wearing a sheepskin jacket ...
Knit-picker: someone who worries about minor mistakes in the weave instead of whether the cardigan fits. :-)
"McCain would keep the occupation of Iraq going even over the wishes of the Iraqi people and government"
You make it sound as if the US military forces, which have been bled dry, are actually fit to take on a massive revolution of Iraq's Shiites.
Your pov is so American and utterly fails to factor in the Iraqis 100%.
That is silly!!
FYI: Just a couple of reminders if I may ....
a) 23 October 2008 is the 25th Anniversary of Da'wa's killing of 241 US Marines
b) The Da'wa from back then is the very same Da'wa of today, i.e. PM Maliki's religio-political party
1) Large Turnout Reported For 1st Iraqi Vote Since '58 The Washington Post, June 21, 1980
In another development today, Al Dawa, a clandestine Iraqi fundamentalist Moslem organization, claimed responsibility for yesterday's grenade attack on the British Embassy here in which three gunmen reportedly were killed.
An Al Dawa spokesman told Agence France-Presse by phone that the attack was a "punitive operation against a center of British and American plotters."
2) Iraq Keeps a Tight Rein on Shiites While Bidding to Win Their Loyalty The Washington Post, November 30, 1982
Membership in Dawa, which means "the call," is punishable by execution. Dawa guerrillas were known for hurling grenades into crowds during religious ceremonies, and attacks claimed by the party were frequent until the middle of 1980.
3) U.S. HAS LIST OF BOMB SUSPECTS, LEBANESE SAYS Detroit Free Press, October 29, 1983
The source said the drivers of the two bomb-laden trucks were blessed before their mission by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Dawa Party, a Lebanese Shiite Muslim splinter group.
4) SHULTZ SEES LINK BETWEEN BEIRUT, KUWAIT ATTACKS OFFICIALS IDENTIFY MAN WHO DROVE TRUCK BOMB, The Miami Herald, December 14, 1983
Secretary of State George Shultz said Tuesday that there "quite likely" was a link between the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kuwait and attacks on American facilities in Lebanon. He warned of possible retaliation.
(snip)
The sources said the investigators matched the prints on the fingers with those on file with Kuwaiti authorities and
tentatively identified the assailant as Raed Mukbil, an Iraqi automobile mechanic who lived in Kuwait and was a member of Hezb Al Dawa, a fundamentalist Iraqi Shiite Moslem group based in Iran.
5) KUWAIT NABS 10 SHIITES IN BOMBINGS 7 IRAQIS, 3 LEBANESE 'ADMIT' TERROR ATTACKS
The Miami Herald, December 19, 1983
Kuwait Sunday announced the arrests of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in the terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last week at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.
(snip)
Hussein said fingerprints from the driver who died in the blast at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait identified him as Raad Akeel al Badran, an Iraqi mechanic who lived in Kuwait and belonged to the Dawa party.
6) 10 Pro-Iranian Shiites Held in Kuwait Bombings, The Washington Post December 19, 1983
Kuwait announced yesterday the arrest of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last Monday at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.
"All 10 have admitted involvement in the incidents as well as participating in planning the blasts," Abdul Aziz Hussein, minister of state for Cabinet affairs, told reporters after a Cabinet session, United Press International reported.
Hussein said the seven Iraqis and three Lebanese were members of the Al Dawa party, a radical Iraqi Shiite Moslem group with close ties to Iran.
7) Beirut Bombers Seen Front for Iranian-Supported Shiite Faction, The Washington Post, January 4, 1984
The terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing of the U.S. Marine compound and the French military headquarters here may be a front for an exiled Iraqi Shiite opposition party based in Iran, in the view of a number of Arab and western diplomatic sources.
Authorities in Kuwait say their questioning of suspects in the recent bombing there of the U.S. and French embassies indicates a clear link between Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group that says it carried out the Beirut attacks, and Al Dawa Islamiyah, the main source of resistance to the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Al Dawa (The Call) has been outlawed in Iraq, where it wants to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state to replace the secular Baath Socialist government of Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni Moslem.
It draws its strength from the large Shiite population in southern Iraq. Thousands of its most militant members were expelled to Iran in 1980 before the outbreak of the Iranian-Iraqi war and joined Al Dawa there. But it also has a large following in Lebanon among Iraqi exiles and sympathetic Lebanese Shiites.
While Al Dawa operates out of Tehran, it is not clear whether its activities abroad are under direct Iranian control or merely have Iran's tacit acceptance.
8)Baalbek Seen As Staging Area For Terrorism, The Washington Post, January 9, 1984
Al Dawa, according to Arab and western sources, is believed to have had a role in the Oct. 23 suicide bomb attacks on the U.S. Marine and French military compounds in Beirut.
9) Message From Iran Triggered Bombing Spree In Kuwait, The Washington Post, February 3, 1984
Al Dawa, for example, is no household name in the United States.
But it is a name important to this story.
It leads us back to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the ruling figure in Iran; to Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the militant Lebanese Shiite leader who has been implicated--despite his denials--in the Marine and French bombings in Beirut; to Hussein Musawi, Fadlallah's strong-arm lieutenant; to the Hakim brothers in Iran and their connections to the Middle East terrorism industry.
Hi Anamika,
You make it sound as if the US military forces, which have been bled dry, are actually fit to take on a massive revolution of Iraq's Shiites.
Your pov is so American and utterly fails to factor in the Iraqis 100%.
I think you're being unfair to me and maybe that's because i didn't explain my own thoughts on this (because the post would've been twice as long). I think McCain would like to do this but that it has zero chance of success no matter what he and his neocon advisers have convinced themselves.
And I'm very aware of Dawa's history, thanks. Likewise ISCI and Badr.
Regards, C
Hi!
Perhaps .... instead of "McCain would keep the occupation of Iraq going even over the wishes of the Iraqi people and government", one should read "McCain would like to keep the occupation of Iraq going even over the wishes of the Iraqi people and government"?
Good to know you are aware of Dawa.
If I may, since you are a featured writer, please consider pulling it out from obscurity.
Not one blog has done so.
Crazy, is it not, to mull over the indisputable fact that in a direct (but inadvertent) response to the horrific attacks of 9/11 the Bush admin empowered Dawa which is pro-extremist-Iranian, pro-Hizbollah, etc.?
Not true.
My pal Eric Martin, for one, has written about it several times on at least three different blogs I am aware of - Newshoggers, Obsidian Wings and American footprints. He's not the only one.
Regards, C
Links, by chance?
A quick perusal shows clearly that Martin's "A Fistful of Dinar" is not (!) historical and does not link what we see in Iraq back to 9/11 and
Martin's "Q and...Oh?" reiterates some history but does not link what we see in Iraq back to 9/11.
I just can't believe that that connection is not being made.
It is only by voting for a succession of lesser evils that we may someday find ourselves able to vote for good.
The Bush Administration has gutted our military, ripped apart our social safety net, looted our national coffers (gone to non-bid contracts), and misspent our international political capital. The STOOOOOPID DEMOCRATS thought that instead of doing the correct and ethical thing of impeaching a dangerous, corrupt and inept president if they just closed their eyes and held on until the next prez election it would all be okay. Instead, Bush has used his last WEEKS in office to "spook the herd" in order to loot main street to pay his cronies in wall street.
THIS is the main argument for DOING THE RIGHT THING instead of the POLITICAL thing.
Now the Democrats are not only left holding the Bush bag of dirty laundry, but the STINK of this administrations mistakes are now on them.
4
4
No mention of Iran...
In fairness, if you watch the interview Gareth wanted to talk about Iran, where I know he has views pretty close to my own, but the interviwer cut him off to move to another subject.
Regards, C
I think it would certainly be interesting to see how he would respond if asked about this outright by the establishment press.
Yes, but even if you could formulate it, you wouldn't get anything more than platitudes. Real foreign policy discussions never happen in public anymore. Think about what Bush said before he was elected, as opposed to what he has done. That's because the priority of fostering economic interests has become supreme, but the American people would bridle at the idea of sending our kids to war to expand market share. So it all has to be done with winks and nods in public, and your question would get no more than a general expression about the importance of territorial allies integrity borders balance democracy region yadda yadda yadda.
are you comparing bush to obama?
Funny how no one is discussing the Bush/McCain connection to the very lucrative "military war complex" and what this means for both crime families to be engaged in McCain's "100 year war in Iraq".
Here's more about McCain economic advisor and confidante Phil "Enron" Gramm.....the soup's thickening right now and it appears that the majority of McCain's "inner sanctum" have their fingers caught in the cookie jar of this economic meltdown.. Stay tuned - it's all coming out.
I expect the fur to fly and some of McCain's campaign jefe's will be soon jumping ship once they are outed on criminal charges in this financial meltdown.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/28/mccains-cro...
PHIL 'ENRON' GRAMM!
We can't really tell what Obama will be like as president as what he says and does now is an election year balancing act. Don't beleive he would be as expansionist as the Bush admin, and as McSame would be.
What we absolutely do know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Bush and McCain are joined at the hip - the war, the economy - and their personal criminal behavior which enabled this economic meltdown as "co-conspirators". Before all is said and done, there will be charges against both of them and McCain will again be embroiled in the "Wall Street Scandal".
Here's the new documentary which is chronologically making the case for McCain's having been at the bottom of precisely what's wrong with this bailout.....Charlie Black, Phil Gramm and a panoply of characters embedded intimately within the McCain camp right now.
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/?source=sem-ba
Say it ain't so Joe....but McCain's own words will be the albatross around his neck. He's boasted that "I've supported the policies of George W. Bush over 90% of the time"....ewwww.......
"They don't call me Mr. DeRegulator in the Senate for nothing!"....double ewww......
I'd say McGeriatric is in very deep, dark dookie right now. Betcha the ranch on it?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081020/ames_be...
Double ouch! "you betcha!".
McCain scares me so much and this post reinforces that fear. No, hell no, Obama is not perfect, but he sure as hell is not Bush III
Obama's "Not Exactly's": This person is more dangerous than any
candidate in recent years....
1.) Selma Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe
enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as
Selma was in 1965. (Google'Obama Selma' for his full March 4,
2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a
privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan
Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he
was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has
ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT
EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in
attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first
widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American
but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more. Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the
elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned
men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took
shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here
started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to
know
the truth.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is! not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family were mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....
http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.pht ... _-_Arab-Am
eric
an,_only_6.25%25_African
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office. 4-3-08 Article "Obama was! 'quite religious in
islam'"
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag...
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a
year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to
prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed
delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks),
Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as "one of the prettiest
sounds on Earth at sunset." This is just one example of what Pamela
is talking about when she says "Obama's narrative is being altered,
enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts."
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience
with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience
first.
16.) Voting "Present" is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which
David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens. You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel.
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC! Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
Today, Monday October 6th, is the LAST DAY to register to vote in the following states:
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Your registration form must be postmarked with today's date.
If you aren't registered, go to http//www.voteforchange.com and get your registration in the mail TODAY! :)
(For a full list of registration deadlines by state, visit: http://www.rockthevote.com/electioncenter/ )
I can't see much for debate here. Except for the fact that there are entirely different envelopes for the different types of spheres.It's still obvious to everyone in the World, I think, that the US remains the only superpower with regard to the projection of military power. That particular sphere of influence does cover the whole world. Russia is not really in the ball game yet although their new found oil wealth is certainly helping. As far as economic influence goes, the US has taken a big hit but still remains the biggest kid on the block. Diplomatic power and influence has taken the biggest hit of all. The US probably has less credibility now then it has had in a century. That is the most easily recoverable however. If you guys would just stop electing simple minded idiots a lot would be forgiven. It's probably just my interpretation of your style Cernig but surely you are not suggesting that the US did not recognize the existence of and respect a Soviet Sphere of influence for the last five decades. We can't entirely rewrite history here. The brush fire wars that occurred during the cold war were a direct consequence of the friction between their respective spheres of influence and neither side ever admitted, at least ideologically, that the world wasn't their oyster. It seems that Obama is a big fan of soft power, barring his stand on Afghanistan. Good for him. That type of power has always best served the needs of the US. If you use the big stick all the time no one really wants to talk to you at all.
Hi Peter,
No, I'm not suggesting that - but I am saying the US worked assiduously (as did the Soviets, although honestly to a lesser extent) to encircle their enemy and reduce their sphere of influence. With Russia's economic collapse in the 90s came a collapse of any infuence they had - and US foreign policy has been to help that along then prevent its regeneration wherever possible.
Then again, America has worked hard to limit everyone else's infuence too. Given the choice between being the parent of a balanced multipolar world with an ethical backbone or staying the biggest bully on the block, the US under Bush picked the latter. Walking away from the International Court, various arms control treaties and human rights accords and UN mandates for military intervention hasn't endeared the American Dream to many beyond its shores.
Regards, C
Let's face you couldn't call a policy that went by the name of containment one of friendly engagement. To the Soviets it no doubt looked like encirclement. Still, given the times, I think it was the best they could do. Kennan was no idiot and his assessment of Soviet intentions was spot on. It is true that the fall of the Soviet regime seems to have induced a bizarre megalomania in the Bushies. Now that the excess of power has been squandered the new president will have to adopt a much more circumspect, rational and multi-lateral policy. It's a shame that McCain hasn't realized that yet.
Although Ron Paul is a psycho-bigot, this is one of the issues I totally agree with him on: the US needs to STOP meddling in the world's affairs. The rest of the world can do fine without the US.
Oddly enough this is one of the reasons I think Ron Paul is an idiot. Unless the US decides turn itself into a closed system under the Laws of Thermodynamics and let nothing in or out then it must remain engaged with the rest of the world. Paul is proposing that the Republicans return to their roots of Isolationism. That would be a huge mistake. Can you imagine the power vacuum induced chaos that would result if the US just walked away from the middle east. Russia, getting rich off high oil prices, China paranoid about a lack of secure energy sources and all the local players with their local agendas waiting to sigh up as clients with Israel sitting in the middle as everybody's favorite bete noir and scapegoat. That would be tragic.
does Ron Paul really want to COMPLETELY evacuate the middle east, and stop talking to them?
I thought he's said he wanted to withdraw our military from iraq and discontinue military presence there (can't remember his stance on afghanistan), shutdown the CIA (PLEASE do so, this is possibly his best idea), but not totally abandon it.
and why is ron paul a psycho-bigot anyway?
For those who can never seem to recall the examples of America supporting dictators, open a history book. It didn't start with supporting Saddam, and it didn't end on 9/11.
America supports dictators when that supports its business interests.
America supports democracy and freedom when that supports its business interests.
America is in the business of business. Take that pixie-dust filled delusion from your eyes. America was never that shining beacon on the hill, exporter of freedom and democracy the world over.
McCain will loose... everyone knows this... he is however a distraction to the biggest crime of our century. 770 billion dollar bailout is a SHOCK to the senses that we would have NEVER forgot about if it were not for the almost comically under qualified candidate and vp that threatens to take the presidency... is is all a distraction and once again our eye was/is off the ball.
what about the fact that the last 40 years of presidency 7 out of 10 times was a republican? 70%. And 8 of those (20% of the time) were Clinton, who was a "new democrat".
So you say you can't really imagine US policy changing much from all these years, but no shit the same group has been controlling the white house for the OVERWHELMING majority of the time.
Hi thetruest,
Which leaves the rest of us with the inescapable conclusion that that is what the overwhelming majority of Americans want their country to be like.
I continue to be bewildered, for instance, by Bernie Sanders being about the furthest Left your higher house manages to elect. Bernie's a great guy and I wish he would run for the Oval Office in 2012, but by our European standards he's at best a slightly-left centrist.
Regards, C
Regards, C
yes that is true and it's something that i have been alluding to
Some people like to let Americans off the hook by saying the past 2 elections were "stolen", but the truth is the last 2 were too close to call which is why they were stolen. The last election shouldn't have been within a mile of reach.
And I'm also still not sure why that is either; if it's because of some kinda cultural response to the 60s, or the people have just been completely overtaken by the media (i mean something that runs much deeper than just believing cable news as a single source of news which a friend and i were just talking about recently), or they're just that selfish and stupid. Or all of the above. I am currently leaning toward selfish and (primarily) stupid/ignorant.
But i was addressing more the general tone of the thread. There is alot of talk out there that there isn't much difference between the 2 candidates (again.) by many people who are otherwise reasonably intelligent that say democrats and republicans aren't different, or that he won't even get out of iraq, etc. etc., but the math just doesn't add up. Republicans have been running the presidency for 70% of contemporary history and we just saw what happened when they run *every* single branch of government. So lets see til after Obama or someone like him wins. Then we can start saying that again.
Because no way in hell should we even consider electing another rich up the ass Republican, let alone McCain/Palin.
I'm not a fan of the United Nations but I like the idea of nations working together as a community and democratically. Hopefully a new international body can rise soon that treats every nation fairly and truly works for lasting peace in a newly interconnected world where all people can have a voice and participate directly with their government.
you mean a New World Order? lol. jk..
or am i...
Definitely not a NWO run by elites or anything near it. Power to the people!
Wedge issues exist for the sole and only reason of preserving the myth of 'difference,' for disguising the essential synonymy of interest (especially internationally) which marks the cordial relations between the two wings of the Party of Property. "Wedge" issues are ALWAYS and ONLY domestic social questions. There is NO essential difference between the international agendas of the two "parties," and precious little domestically, either.
Yes, John McCain and Barack Obama are very different people. But in the mantel of "Preznint," their policies will be virtually indistinguishable...
If you had said this in most election years I might have at least notionally agreed with you that there is little difference between parties as far as foreign policy goes. I don't think I've seen a greater difference between the two candidates since the '72 election.
see here we go again with the whole idea there's no difference. I mean cmon do you know history? Are you more than someone on the sidelines and just knows a couple of activist websites that thinks his opinion is such know-all? We've had 2, TWO,
2
TWO democrats as presidents in the past FORTY years. One of them was a new democrat who has a wife on the DLC that almost won nomination again...
Gareth Porter testified before Congress that Pol Pot was doing the right thing in Cambodia... not a hyperbolic statement either, but a fact.
NOT a fact. Gareth Porter stated at the time the stories were breaking that he didn't belive PolPot was actually engaged in atrocities to the scale he was accused of, he thought it was disinformation. But as evidence emerged he has long since recanted that position and admitted he was wrong (i.e. decades long since).
And BTW, good strawman attempt. Go collect your McPoints. Gareth has been on the money about a lot of stuff over the years, most recently on Iran and on Pakistan. But his opinions on Pol Pot decades ago have no bearing on the value of his opinions about the next president's foreign policy that I can see.
Regards, C
HIS words:
"A careful examination of the facts regarding the evacuation of Cambodia’s cities thus shows that the
description and interpretation of the move conveyed to the American public was an inexcusable distortion of
reality. What was portrayed as a destructive, backward-looking policy motivated by doctrinaire hatred was
actually a rationally conceived strategy for dealing with the urgent problems that faced postwar Cambodia."
Page 56 of HIS book. See taking all those people out to be butchered was really for their own good. Ieng Sary the humanitarian!
So you ARE right, he did accuse the US of disinformation. But then he also agreed with the Khmer Rouge's policy.
Is a matter of credibility not politics.
I'm not a Republican and certainly not voting for McCain. And I also think that certain views, certain opinions, and certain deeds simply can't be recanted. See I'm not for Christian forgiveness.
Would you look to David Duke for political commentary if he recanted his role in the KKK?
Doubtful, but only because it seems ideology is your only benchmark.
Could you please show me where Ralph Nader said that McCain and Obama have no qualitative differences during this presedential run? Assuming you can't find the quote, you could have made your point here without bashing the third parties.
If the recent economic and politcal ridiculous has any one solution it involves third parties. Stop playing shirts vs skins and give these third parties your attention and respect -- the two party system is dead. Liberal priciples will only become reality when the two parties die natural deaths as parties have before, and third parties gain even just a small portion of the attention alotted to the two parties.
The same people who whine about the lying, misleading and misdirecting of the major parties fail to recognize their role in supporting the two party duopoly is the primary cause of what they say they are feed up about. More viable parties would not make politics perfect, but it would certainly make it more honest. Could it be more dishonest?
Sincerely
Chris G
Extremely well said. It is simply baffling why a liberal blog would want to denigrate what third parties and independent candidates are attempting to do, especially in light of the fact that they are far more progressive and far more genuinely anti-war than that corporate, pro-militant Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
You both noticed the bit where I made clear that it was Gareth Porter who was talking about third party candidates claiming there was no qualitative difference between the mainstream candidates, not anyone at C&L? No? Ah well...
But you certainly did not say anything to counter that belief, now did you? One does not have to wonder too hard if there are more posts devoted to the less than progressive Barack Obama or to the genuine third party progressive and independent candidates, who receive, it appears, even less attention from the liberal blogs than they are accorded in the mainstream media.
Hi Errol,
You shouldn't assume unless you've done your research. I set out my views on US third party politics as far back as 2005 in a post "American Solidarity - Time To Stand Up". Unfortunately, getting US Lefties and independents to agree to do something together is like trying to herd cats, which means none of the Third party candidates have a chance in hell. But maybe it'll be time to have that conversation again when the US isn't facing an imminent election involving a Dem I wouldn't prefer to back running against a certain continuation of the Bush Years.
I realise you don't agree with that and if you've a good plan to deliver the Magical Third Party Unity Pony and the Magical Third Party Votes Pony, both in the next 30 days, then by all means email me (newshog AT gmail DOT com) and I'll be only too glad to read it.
Regards, C
Cernig
Your one link referring to an article written back in 2005 does not even remotely address what I had written which, again, is that neither you nor anyone else who have written posts on Crooks and Liars have even come close to writing topics which deal with third party and independent candidates since the overwhelming candidate that Crooks and Liars focuses on is Barack Obama. Great job of avoiding the topic that I had brought up. As for a third party or independent presidential candidate winning in November, the more that liberals and Americans state that one of those candidates does not have a "chance in hell" of winning, the more it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially with the paucity of posts that one sees devoted to these type of candidates on this blog.
Died-in-the-wool - A sheep shearing fatality.
Dyed-in-the-wool - fixed in place, and won't be removed easily.
Check out this Bill Moyers interview of Andrew Bacevich on the end of American Exceptionalism...
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/pr...
{choke....spit take....}
Someone mentioned Cynthia McKinney!??!!! Have you lost your mind? We can't go around discussing third parties...cats and dogs, living together! Mass hysteria!!!
Good God, Man! Think of the children!
Oh. The earth didn't open up and swallow us whole?
Whew.
No one said an Obama win would wipe out the symptoms of the problem overnight. We still have to be vigilant about changing the direction of this country. Look what happened when we looked the other way on Clinton.
Obama just has to ignore the false accusations now and ride this wave on in to the Whitehouse. He shouldn't give in to the "Swiftboat" politics of Mccain and Palin, and simply ignore the charges they are leveling against him, just like Palin is ignoring Troopergate. Obama wins by a landslide!
Login or Register to post comments.