Alternative US Foreign Policy

H

hypewaders

Save Changes
Registered Senior Member
Most of us who have voiced any criticism for US foreign policy under the Bush II Administration are regularly accused of perceiving no viable alternatives- or, we are told there are no alternatives, and therefore the alternative is inaction. Variously, we are also branded as sympathisers with various un-American, foreign, globalist, communist, liberal, etc. etc. agendas. Although such rebuttals are often just straw men, or smear tactics, some here who are trusting and comfortable with present US foreign policy are intelligent individuals engaged in sincere discussion and not just egoistic demagoguery.

So I'll put down a few thoughts on alternative US foreign policy as inspiration strikes, and of course would enjoy other and hopefully better ideas. I'm going to avoid past-tense hypotheticals, and try to stick to the present and future.

Maybe it would be helpful to start with the most general, before getting into specifics. A fundamental principle that must always be factored into formulating policy is scrupulously avoiding hubris. America is at great risk of becoming a victim of our own success, if we allow the satisfaction of having achieved so much to manifest itself outwardly in ways that could rapidly undermine our security and economy, which is increasingly and irreversably wrapped up with the rest of the world.

I understand that these generalities alone are much at odds with the presently prevailing current in the US political mainstream, and I'm going to pause here before going into specifics of policy, addressing first the Iraq debacle- Unless someone has the impression from the above that I am a (fill in the blank) _________-ist for the general premise so far.

Summing up the most simple basis for better policy to be elaborated on forthwith: The United States must now, in our self-interest, display in every significant new initiative in foreign policy noticeably greater respect for the outside world than is presently apparent.
 
Hype,

The flaw in your theory is simple: You assume that humans are nice/non-competative/unselfish etc..etc....
If they were then your policies of peace and kindness would work.
However, all you have to do is look at Human history for the past...well all of it...and you would see that we are violent species. We want what we cant have. We want to be the best. We want to survive! Humans have a "My family/house/car/religion/politics/hair/land/language/culture/people/race/music is better than yours and i'll prove it" mentality.
Maybe we should just start handing out free Heroin? That would chill everyone out....
 
The problem with current American policy is two fold:

- Exceptionalism
- Dogma.

Over the past 20 years the US has moved staunchly to the right. Clinton was the best Republican president the US ever had. The left has been marginalized by conservative pundits, and smear campaigns (the same that occur here as you alluded to). Of course that should be of note, and it should be understood that Americans believe what these pundits believe. Dogmatically I should say, there are forces at play in the US.Evangelicalism , Zionism, Anarcho-Capitalism, and neo-conservativism. All play a role to play in the new American reality, which is the PNAC doctrine. The US before WWII was truly seen as a state of values, and one that most nations seen as the shining example of independence against European imperialists. Post WWII the US was not seen in such a favorable light, and realistically so. The US did some bad shit, from Iran in 1953 to Allende in 1971, to Vietnam. But overall the US was still seen as a better state then most others, and especially the USSR. By the 90's as the new hyper power, the US got quite popular. With a well educated president, and well coordinated international policy the US went through a renaissance. But now with this disaster of a foreign policy, based on lies, based on almost stereotypical assumptions, and overtness. The US has lost many allies and the hearts and minds of the international community. Soft power has always been and always will be more important then hard militaristic power. Idea's are more dangerous then a nuclear weapon.

206-10.gif


If this doesn't scare you, I don't know what will. The rational that force will destroy terrorism is quite possibly the exact opposite of the reality. Terrorists, Muslim or not thrive on their dead comrades in arms. The US who has a very large and influential media corps, which flaunts the captures of Al Q operative and what not. This is not the way it should go; firstly invading nations is not a way to fight terrorism, secondly the US is compromising its position by promoting martyrdom. The US is worse off now then before 9.11, and the US has two collapsing states. Is this really good policy? I don't think any rational person looking at it will really say yes. The thing that makes many ppl angry at the US is the extreme (and undeserved) arrogance that the US extols on others. "We don't need the UN", yes you do. The US hasn't been able to wrestle this, and Americans at home don't want to shoulder the entire burden anymore. At least with an international (mostly Arab) effort in Iraq, the situation would be much better, and the costs would be shared. But most importantly the presence of troops would be legitimized. Mainstream Iraqi's would be much more responsive to an international effort then an American one. Perception is everything, and everything is perception.
 
151: As I already suggested, why don't we "avoid past-tense hypotheticals, and try to stick to the present and future." I would add that the discussion is not topical as review of the most fundamental basics psychology and anthropology.

If it is your honest understanding that all human motivation and productive interaction must revert to winner-loser competition for our needs, a quick review of fundamental psych, maybe Abraham Maslow or dig deeper into Darwin and even Nietsche to learn that the Nazis, for example, had to be selective and deceptive to concoct a modern machiavellian "scientific" pastiche to claim might-is-right as the driving and ultimate force of relations. As I'm sure you know, these subjects are often discussed in Human Science, Ethics, Morality, and Justice, and General Philosophy here at Sciforums. More simply, I can simply refer you to every empire that has collapsed due to failures military force could not correct. If this subject needs more attention before constructively moving on to any foreign policy involving conceptions and actions of respect, then we should find a fitting thread over there, or start one, and sort that out.

So without brushing you off, I'm going to proceed next time I sit down to post on the premise that there are more advantages to cooperation than confrontation in many situations, or conversely, using a sledgehammer when tweezers would do, can be counterproductive.

That's good topical grist there above, Undecided (just reading it now) thanks.
 
The future is going to look much like the present and a bit worse, why? World population is increasing that means the space available for everybody gets less. Territory becomes critical. Food supplies must increase to feed the growing hordes, energy creation and use must increase at the expense of the enviroment.

Any climate change could trigger massive famines and the likelyhood of conflict for survival.

I'm afraid that rational discussion of political solutions are just that, talk. When it comes down to the brass tacks every nation does "what's in it for me".
 
"What's in it for me", or acting in prudent self-interest, requires rational discussion of political solutions: It's not just talk.

While still dealing with the thick defensiveness about considering the alternatives, it's also important to grapple with the problem of accountability. Making the best of disaster in Iraq is inevitably going to require that Americans admit error.

Regardless of American distaste for self-criticism and accountability, events will inevitably force such a reckoning. It is already clear that the present US intervention is experiencing a pronounced failure of perceived legitimacy within Iraq and throughout the international community.

For this reason, any mitigation of the impending disaster in Iraq, and any effective policy for preventing a spillover into regional instability is going to require conspicuous de-Americanization of every significant initiative. This is not to say that the US can responsibly pull up stakes and disengage, even if the domestic learning curve and political inertia would allow it.

I'm going to begin with a radical alternative policy, because avoiding a cataclysm is going to require radical measures.
 
Without getting into the herculean diplomatic work that would necessarily come first, here's the rough outline:

It's a last-ditch partition plan.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/iraq_divisions.jpg

The UN sectors are Kurdistan and Baghdad (Roughly Ninewah, Salah Ed-Diin, Diyalla, Baghdad, and remaining Northeast). Throughout the other sectors of Iraq, the UN holds mandated administrative authority, but not the muscle:

Syria takes security responsibility for a sector roughly comprising Anbar Province.

The Saudi/Gulf States control An-Najaf, Karbala, Babil, Qadisiya, Muthanna.

Iran moves in to maintain order the remaining provinces including Basrah.

Is this utopian? Is it even good? Of course not. It is a last-ditch effort to avoid a catastrophic civil war in Iraq with likely spillover into Saudi Arabia's Shi@ Eastern Province and Quwait.

OK that's my first radical stab off the top of my head. Now, with some participation, I would like to look at any other conceivable alternatives or modifications to an American debacle followed immediately by civil war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tell that to the US soldiers that daily are risking their lives. Tell them that a couple thousand of them would have to die so we can be responsible about pulling up stakes. I was a soldier, I know about taking risks and Iraq to me is not worth the risk. Is's a no win situation, stay there and take casualties or pull up stakes and risk the condemnation of the world. I chose the latter.

I agree that US should admit error. It was a total intelligence disaster, Saddam was what he was because he had to be. Barbarism is alive and well in those parts of the world.

The US is trying their hardest to create a democratic goverment that would allow all Iraqis a fair representation but again that's a lost cause, Iraq or any other Islamic nation is incapable of democratic rule.

Best bet put somebody in power and leave as soon as possible. Ala Britain after WWI Let Allah sort it out.
 
US foreign policy is a product of its internal policy. Americans (and most westerners) are fat massive consumers. We love to have and scared to death of losing stuff like cheap oil and cheap foreign products. Fear drives the American economy.
A radical alternative policy would mean making some significant changes in the way every one of us lives:
1. Would we want to give up our SUVs or pay 10x more for gas?
2. Would we want to stop supressing ANY country that wants to defend itself?
3. Would we want to voluntarily significantly reduce our military power?
4. Stop supporting one side of the mideast conflict?
5. Value of 1 American Life = value of any life anywhere? "Since Sunday, 35 Americans, two other coalition soldiers and more than 230 Iraqis have been killed in fighting."
6. Turn the other cheek, and then again the other ..

I beleive we need to give up our way of life. Unfortunately, Americans aren't concerned about foreign policy as much as they're concerned about getting their rightful share
 
Good stuff, ds. I'm hoping there's still some high living left for Americans if we can find a way through this with a little more finesse than the neocons have managed so far. But if OPEC panics due to some greater crisis ahead, there are going to be some sweet deals in the US on big SUVs. No matter what we do in the US from here forward, by choice or by default, it is going to involve a major attitude adjustment. "Rightful Share"- How patriotic :rolleyes:

In these times, the US can't escalate this war so brutally as the British did last time- 20K-30K Brit casualties, chemical attacks on villages, etc. It's a very different world now, and the imperial jig is up. As a result, there won't be any means for leaving behind a viable government with US authorship or amicability. There's plenty that I guessed wrong before the invasion, but I'm more concerned now about the darker scenarios.

I'm pessimistic that the halting of civil war is possible from this point onward with UN peacekeepers, so there is going to be an implosion. It is critical right now to think about containing a Shia-Sunni, Kurd-Turk, and Persian-Arab conflicts from spilling over beyond Iraq. So, we need a new policy fast, because the alternative is many more casualties with an identical and unfavorable result (borrowing from my pre-invasion rant):
The question here is whether the operation is going to kill the patient. The Busheviks will attempt to forcibly implant an incompatibility. From the local perspective, the pompous visiting Doctor is a quack, and the whole ward is going to go berzerk on him.
Click to expand...

While considering many people's worst fears, here's

Nasty self-serving Alternative policy II: Suck them in unknowing, and then dump the entire mess entirely on the "Arab League": US withdrawal commencing July 1.

Or NSSAP III: Just haul ass and dump it all on the hapless Iraqi forces.

I'm not being entirely facetious, because it is likely that the longer we stay, the greater the casualties, and the more explosive the finale and civil war.

C'mon, someone come up with something brilliant, that will pull our American Asses out of this, and as a bonus not collapse our petro-dollar economy. Just for a thought experiment, the "warheads" around here may as well flesh out their nuke 'em fantasies, but I thik we all know where that would lead, and what a short time it would take to get there. This really is a good time for Americans and their sympathizers (are there some of you out there still?) to do some brainstorming, because events are speeding up, even while the clampdown has slowed news to a trickle from sunny Liberated Iraq.
 
"...post on the premise that there are more advantages to cooperation"

There are more advantages to cooperation, however, once again BOTH sides have to want to cooperate.

You cannot clap with only one hand.

Humans are just like Ants.
 
I think the US's best bet at this point would be isolationism. Return to our foreign policy circa pre-WWII days. We have tried in vain to force democracy onto all parts of the world and have, in many cases, only made things worse. We should concentrate on national security and stay out of foreign affairs until is is a direct threat to us. (No, Iraq was not a direct threat to the US)
 
crazy15drinker: "I guess my question for you Hype is what type of alternative is there when people refuse to cooperate?"

Primarily, workable alternatives include acceptance of the fact that everyone on the planet is not going to be cooperative, and that in the case of both militant Islamists and the moderate majority, massive military interventions are counterprocuctive because they radicalize "non-cooperative" states and movements.

US foreign policy is increasingly perceived as being prone to a premature and unwarranted default to warfare when met with non-cooperation. Such warfare, and commitments to administer hostile populations will continue to be encouraged by our enemies, because it is clear that the US is prone to over-reaching both our authority and capabilities when it comes to interventionism.

I disagree with FadingCaptain that isolationism would be beneficial. International security and enforcement are in critical need of intensive cooperative enhancement, and the US economy is increasingly dependent on our leadership and participation in the global arena.

The US can not retire from the world and maintain present or past prosperity; neither can we provocatively lash out at the world, and maintain our status. Because we are under irresponsible and willfully deceptive leadership, it is a difficult time for Americans, who out of pride are averse to criticism of federal government- The will, not only technical ability, to voice criticism is the fundamental test of a democracy, regarding whether it is responsive enough to a changing world to prosper. The larger democratic government becomes, the greater its inertia, so informed participation by the public becomes increasingly vital.
 
I would like to present a map that shows who is where in Iraq:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_ethnoreligious_1992.jpg

That is what Iraq's borders should look like roughly. The problem comes with the grey areas where there are regions with a Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurdish minority/majority problem (i.e. Baghdad, and Mosul). The British made this mess back in the 1923. The region as that we now know as Iraq was formally (and rightfully) three Ottoman provinces, that were separated almost into this enthoreligious map indicates. In the north was Mosul province, the centre was Baghdad Province, and in the South Basra Province. What should be done is to review the former Ottoman maps and see how they can effectively put into effect today.

The UN sectors are Kurdistan and Baghdad

This does nothing to help the situation, what will happen (imo) is that the Kurds will feel shortchanged, they are left with nothing but a UN force. The attacks against the US in the South will happen in the North if the Kurds aren't pacified. But I am also in full accordance that Iran, Turkey will most likely invade Kurdistan should she declare independence. That region is going to be the hot spot if the situation in the South is relatively pacified.

Syria takes security responsibility for a sector roughly comprising Anbar Province.

Hype, you don't actually believe that do you?

The Saudi/Gulf States control An-Najaf, Karbala, Babil, Qadisiya, Muthanna.

Sunni states, the defender of Sunni Islam taking over the Shi’a South? This is not feasible. Sadly all I can see is Iran as being the only state that has enough influence, and most importantly ideological momentum to pacify the south.

Iran moves in to maintain order the remaining provinces including Basrah.

If so then the former cannot happen.

OK that's my first radical stab off the top of my head. Now, with some participation, I would like to look at any other conceivable alternatives or modifications to an American debacle followed immediately by civil war

Sadly I think it's inevitable, we can play games all we want. Change borders, and pretend we all live in some peace. But as Bosnia/Kosovo has shown a very long and very expensive effort has to be put in. The US has screwed up the ME very, very, very badly.
 
That's a much more useful map, Undecided- thanks.

Syria: Yes, I can tell you (I was there) most everyone was relieved when Syrian forces moved in and curtailed the Lebanese civil war. A Syrian departure is much overdue leaving Lebanon now, but nevertheless the compromise was worth it considering the carnage that kept flaring up.

All alternatives are going to have negative consequences from here forward. Syrian forces would have the best chances, IMO, in Sunni-dominated areas. I think an exclusively Saudi force would be more risk than benefit, because I don't think Saudi is stable: Hence some kind of Gulf Arab coalition. I left out Jordan for the same reason, also because of too much baggage- potential implications of simultaneous negative developments/new refugees from/concerning Palestine, monarchy crisis, etc. I like King Abdullah, so much so that I doubt he's capable of another Black September if events call for it.

"The US has screwed up the ME very, very, very badly."
-So true. I was remarking recently to a friend about roller-coasters: The feeling, observing these events is now like the last clickity-clack cresting of the first high peak in the track: No stopping now... Here we go!
 
All alternatives are going to have negative consequences from here forward. Syrian forces would have the best chances, IMO, in Sunni-dominated areas.

Most likely, but Syria will not be allowed to take over these areas. Especially as long as the US stays in the region, and has a vested interest in the region. You know the way it is, just because it’s the best option doesn't mean it's the right option. Syria is on the verge of being on the "Axis of Evil" list, and the neo-cons want to get rid of Syria ASAP. To strengthen Syria in the heart of the region would be political suicide for the neo-cons. The Arab League has to get a back bone and go in. They won't go in unless the US gives up total control and possibly without a UN reso. Syria alone can barely afford the adventure in Lebanon, Iraq would be unsustainable.

I think an exclusively Saudi force would be more risk than benefit, because I don't think Saudi is stable: Hence some kind of Gulf Arab coalition.

The GCC? They are politically weak; the only state there that has only semblance of relevance is S.A. Although I agree that S.A is not the most popular player in the region, and it is undoubtedly seen as a US puppet. But to the Saudi's credit they have the $$$, as does the GCC. In theory the GCC should fund the Syrians, but it must not be loans.

-So true. I was remarking recently to a friend about roller-coasters: The feeling, observing these events is now like the last clickity-clack cresting of the first high peak in the track: No stopping now... Here we go

Then the real policy crisis is how to mitigate the damage that has already been caused. Who has the political legitimacy, and will to do what is necessary. Can a war be avoided? Or can we just try to keep the war civil? Who are we? All these problems end up in the morass that we know as Iraq today.
 
here what I got:

- Developer and implement alternative to oil and tell middle-eastern countries to fuck off, also when oil prices go up from increase demand/reducing production we won’t give a dam.
- Reduce money given to Israel, Jesus is not going to come back because a Jewish state exist live with it you stupid ultra right-wing conservatives.
- - with nothing to blame or hold us with the middle-eastern countries are no long our problem.

- Focus on keeping jobs here in the state by implementing terrifies and even sanctions on countries that can't make cheaper products by pay employees less and/or sweat shop labor. Force them to increase the standards of employment, once they do that their product will no longer be cheaper then ours and we can compete again, not only that but their employees will have better standards of living.
 
Undecided
The thing that makes many ppl angry at the US is the extreme (and undeserved) arrogance that the US extols on others.

I totally agree with this. What truly scares me about the recent events is not the current Iraqi situation. That can be resolved one way or another, but it is the snobby attitude of the average American. At least we have seen casualties in Iraq. Oh no did I just say that! Our attitude was much worse going into this because there were not really any American casualties in Afghanistan. We felt invincible. We could not, no we would not be stopped on this holy crusade to make the world safer. I worry that we will not learn our lesson and move to a new target. War is not pretty and picking fights with every country that we deem questionable will only lead to our demise. We are not invincible and should the world want they could kick our ass for thinking so.

Greco
Saddam was what he was because he had to be. Barbarism is alive and well in those parts of the world.

I don't belive this and you cant seriously thing that his torturing of his own people was required. I cant argue that taking him out of power was not a good thing. The problem was not that. The problem is that we had no real reason for doing so and in our arrogance we thought it would easy.

Every one is complaining about dead Americans because of this war. All I have to say about that is: WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT!! People die in wars. When we got into this we knew what it would take and yet people are still wondering why it is not over yet. Lets get real. Building nations is not an easy task. No overnight miracles. Any hostile takeover is also going to have its resistance. This was obvious.

There is no turning back now. We should not have gotten into this mess but we did. We have to finish this off and that will take time, men and money. Pulling out will only put another Saddam into power with one exception, he got there by fighting the American occupation. His entire power base will be forged with hatred of Americans. If we didn't have to worry about terrorism before then we will now. The only solution I can see is actually doing what we came there to do and if I remember correctly, that was turning the country back over to its people. That is weather they choose another king or go towards democracy. We need to at least see that the nation is capable of taking care of itself and its leader is somewhat reasonable aka: American Friendly.

Greco
Iraq or any other Islamic nation is incapable of democratic rule

I don't belive that. That is a stupid statement. Any nation of people that want a democratic government can have one. The problem is they have to want one and in lands of turmoil a secure warlord is often more real and easier to support. Democracy is very slow and the benefits are long term.

WellCookedFetus
Developer and implement alternative to oil

It is more likely that all the Iraqi people will join hands and sing Koom By Ya (that cant be the right spelling) Americans love their cheap source of energy and in a consuming nation like ours they will not take any second rate alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top