Okay, I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately. I spent some time in Ireland and the UK this summer, and I’m going to live in France for about six months come February. So, I’ve had a little insight on American foreign policy form the outside, and I’m about to have a lot more.
My question has do with what anyone thinks about our approach to world issues since 9-11. I know that most of the world hates the US, and it scares the crap out of me. On top of that, when I got to talk to people about the US, which was inevitable once they knew I was American, I generally agreed with most of the things they said, while it did seem that they’re views of America were too general.
What I’m getting at is do you think, after 9-11, we should have analyzed the sentiment towards us, and tried to figure out how we could change it? I mean, doesn’t it seem that that’s the only way to fight a battle without borders? Should there not be a movement to change the world’s feelings towards, ostensibly to show more concern for the general balance in world politics rather than just simply seeking retribution. I believe every bomb that explodes only perpetuates the hatred towards us, while it only kills a few that fight against us. We think we’re so powerful, but with the rest of the world uniting against us, our braggadoccio is going to blow up in our face (which perhaps it already has).
I’m not suggesting we cater to every other nation, but perhaps we could show our greatness in other ways than our fire power. Kill our enemies with kindness, which, when put simply, seems childish to think a nation could employ a doctrine that would in a sense do that, but I simply feel that we’re in for a big wake up call and 9-11 was only the beginning, and that if we don’t listen to the rest of the world, there will be no stopping the aggression.
Also, I understand that there are so many factors that go into this, so I’m asking that we sort of have discussion on the direction US foreign policy is moving the world, and possibly how it could be changed. Milton said that “opinion among good men is but knowledge in the making.” So let’s share our opinions.
I wouldn’t say MOST of ‘the world’ HATES us. This is a gross simplification and mischaracterization IMO. I also have friends in many other countries and travel quite a bit. I think that a not insignificant percentage of PEOPLE outside of the US currently are unhappy with the US. That many FEAR the US…and many RESENT the US. And sure, there are some folks out there that HATE the US as well. But that percentage I believe is relatively small.
What you have to understand is, if the US sat back and did nothing external at all, except trading, there would STILL be a not insignificant percentage of folks that fell into all those catagories anyway. It comes with the territory of being the worlds only real superpower, of having the strongest (by FAR) military, of having such a strong economy (even when its currently just bumping along in low gear), of having your culture (such as it is…movies and fast food, etc :)) spewed forth to ever other country in the world.
Of course people in other countries views of the US are general…and generally wrong to boot. They don’t live here. Many of them have never even BEEN here, or if they have, it was for brief visits. Its just like our views of other countries. I get into long discussions with my friends in the UK for instance, telling them this or that. Generally they either laugh at me or throw things at me. The same is true when they talk about the US. (I have to admit they are right about the beer though…America beer is vile compared to beer in the UK…IMO)
From gitfiddle
Analyze what? lol, afaik, America wasn’t doing ANYTHING to warrent such an attack. When someone attacks you and kills several thousand INNOCENT CIVILIANS in one of your major cities, whats to analyze? Its basically a declaration of war. Thats how AQ intended it.
As to changing ‘the worlds’ attitude towards us…huh? Why do you feel this is necessary in this instance? I’ll conceed that the Bush administration didn’t do things as I would have, and I was disappointed in many of the things they DID do. Certainly I would have played the NATO defense card when going into Afghanistan after the Taliban. I would NOT have messed with Iraq, as I see no point in that. But I fail to see how, once we were directly attacked, we should have to worry about ‘the worlds’ opinion of evil America, or bothered trying to change the more radical elements perceptions of us. To me, thats pointless. Maybe you can go into some detail on what exactly you feel that would accomplish.
From gitfiddle
Sometimes showing your ‘firepower’ is the BEST thing you can do. It might actually save lives in the long run by giving some folks a reality check. Had SH known how things would go for him prior to his invasion of Kuait, I’m sure it would have given him pause, no? Had Hitler known what awaited his forces in Russia, he might have thought twice about invasion.
However, who exactly SHOULD the US ‘cater’ to? Every country has its own goals and interests. Should we cater to France? Germany? The UK? Russia? Maybe the entire EU (lol, IF they had a coherent and unified stance)? The old Easter block nations? Maybe China? South Korea? Japan? South East Asia? The Middle East? On and on. Do you think that these individual countries have some common complaint as ‘the world’ against the US? They each have their own interests and complaints individually or in small groups. So…who would you suggest we listen to and cater too exactly? Should we take a poll every time we want to do something? If so, who exactly SHOULD we poll, and how should we read the numbers?
Look, soveriegn countries have to work in the world, no doubt. They have to get along with other countries, and they have to at least make an effort to work and play nice together. However, sometimes soveriegn countries have to do whats best for themselves, and disreguard what is popular in other countries. Sometimes they are wrong to do so, and they have to pay the consequences if thats so. But if you sit around and wait for ‘the worlds’ opinion on ANYTHING to show you the way via some sort of majority…well, you will NEVER get anything done.
Where is American policy going? Well, atm its not going in a very good direction IMO. As I said, sometimes a soveriegn nation must do what it must do on its own, and damn the consequences. However, sometimes this is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Personally, I think that America is currently setting a course that is unilateral (or maybe limitedly or quasi-multilaterally, with a few close allies with similar interests and America in the lead), and courting resistance from nations opposed to our current policies.
I think its a reaction to what the current administration sees as years of doing just what you are suggesting…not making a move unless we have ‘approval’ from ‘the world’. Personally I think they (the administration) are wrong, but I certainly understand where they are coming from.
Okay, I see what you’re saying, but I think you took what I’m suggesting the wrong way. That’s my fault because I wasn’t clear enough.
I wouldn’t suggest that we “take a poll” of the rest of the world before we take any action, but does it not worry you that it seems that we, even as a people, have the general idea that we will do what we want and the rest of the world will have to deal with it.
I agree with what you’re saying, that when something like 9-11 happens, there needs to be decisive action, but I do not agree with your “sometimes a soveriegn nation must do what it must do on its own” statement. To me, that seems to be too passive a stance. To just say that our government has lisence to do what it feels is best to protect us is wrong (as we’ve seen, what’s best doesn’t seem to be helping much right now, maybe I’m mistaken).
Honestly, I think going into the Middle East with an itchy trigger finger was a mistake. I think that protecting our country should start within. When religion is invovled in a battle, it’s only fed with killing. And again, no, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have gone out and attempted to track down the people responsible for the attacks, but Iraq? “THere are weapons of mass destruction! We have pictures. Look!..Okay, maybe we knew there weren’t any.”
My argument isn’t, as I think you may have seen it, that we should have stood back for fear of the opinion of the rest of the world, it’s the action did take/are taking.
More opinion please.
Hope I was clear enough, like I said, I haven’t thought this through completely, I just curious.
As XT points out, Western Europe is not “the world,” even though TV news wants you to think so. When’s the last time you heard CNN talk about India’s opinion on anything? Or any African nation?
Mind you, I’m not saying that in this case Africans may not agree with the French or whoever, just that 95% of news coverage in this country about “world opinon” is like a Gallup poll that always asks the same three guys.
My own experience living abroad (Korea and Taiwan) was that America was generally seen as a force for good and the defender of freedom. I’m sure in France I’d have heard differently; and I don’t think GWB has changed anyone’s mind, though he may well have hardened what opinions people already held.
Look, the Iraq war may well turn out in in the end to have been a huge blunder. But it was not rushed into. There is no “itchy triger finger.” There were months of buildup, several UN resolutions, endless negotions… and it came down to the United States administration still being convinced – perhaps wrongly, but sincerely – that this was something that had to be done. And many other nations made it clear that they felt it shouldn’t be done. France explicitly said that they would veto any UN approval under any circumstances.
Once you reach that point, what more is there to do? You are at an impasse. either you back down and put “world opinion” above what you think is important for national security, or else you do what you want and tell everyone else to deal with it.
It is exactly what every other country does when they feel they need to. The UK want to war over the Falklands even though the US wanted them to talk it over instead. France has no problem getting involved militarily in Africa, and doesn’t even make a nod towards the UN. Welcome to the real world.
I think that after 9/11 the ‘world’ had an immense amount of sympathy for the US, I know I did, and if used correctly, that could have been forged into a stronger international community and some REAL and PERMANENT co-operations against terrorism EVERYWHERE.
I don’t understand those who claim that the current approach is the right one. Do you seriously believe that by waging war against Arab nations you will stop terrorism? That’s only fueling it. The way to beat this sort of fanaticism isn’t by giving them more reasons to do it and more poeple to recruit, it’s by solving the problems and giving the people reasons NOT to go sign up for a suicide bombing. Terrorists thrive on the sort of conditions that are being created in Afghanistan and Iraq at the moment. Another child gets killed by American soldiers, that’s a whle family that starts hating the US. Doesn’t even have to be Americans doing it, they’re a foreign force occupying a proud peoples land, of course the people are going to react. Hell, if I lived in Iraq or Afghanistan I’d probably be looking for an Al-Q operative to get recruited by.
The way Bush used the feelings about 9/11 to start unilateral wars turned that sympathy into antipathy. Sure, there are people who have always hated/resented/disliked the US, but after this, many who used to support the US stopped doing so. Many that resented the US started hating it. Nations that were willing to co-operate with the US became unwilling, and public opinion changed.
I used to be slightly positive towards the US, now I would say I fall somewhere between disliking and resenting. Of course I seperate between US policy and the US people. I have no beef with Americans, it’s the foreign policy of their government that doesn’t sit right with me.
More specifically, what should they have done?
They should have reached out to the moderates in the Arab nations. Made a serious attempt at creating peace in the Israel/Palestine conflict. And the IRA, and the ETA. Hell, with the amount of international support the US could have gotten, anything would have been possible. I honestly believe that if nurtured the right way, the disaster that was 9/11 could have been the beginning of the end of terrorism, instead it became terrors greatest victory so far. OBL achieved everything he could have dreamed of and then some.
Instead, I feel, and many agree, the Gvt used this emotional weapon to further their own, not the countrys agenda. They used it to try to realise some neo-con strategic visions that were thought up by “The crazies” (I think that is what Bush Sr used to call them). They used it in both foreign matters and domestic. Still, this is something that most people (at least that I know) blame the Government for, not the people.
As I recall the last election Bush was presented as a rather moderate Republican, middle of the road. He turned out to be a neo-con and a fanatic. Now if the People decide to vote for him again, after he has shown his true colors, then yes, at least I will transfer my resentment to the US as a whole, not just the Government. I doubt that will happen though, actually, I can’t even imagine that it will because I guess my opinion of the American people is too high for me to actually believe that would happen. I’m sure there are some people here that still support Bush and think that everything he has done has been the right thing, I won’t argue with you, there is no point, I will never be able to understand how you can reason like that. Hopefully you aren’t that many.
Pretty much agreed on everything said up to this point. A BBC poll not too long ago overwhelmingly found that respondents felt the US was the greatest threat to world security in the new world order. Not that the poll was very statistically sound or politically accurate, but it surely says something.
To a certain extent, it is in the US’s interest to play well with others. Terrorism is a hydra… you cut off one head, another grows in its place. In Iraq, we bombed the hell out of the local populace, so insurgents stream in from neighboring countries. The longer we’re there, the bigger that mess will get. I’m convinced that America still doesn’t really understand the Middle East on a fundamental level and we should be treading much more carefully whenever we venture there. But you know, we rush in there, guns blazing, and then get real pissed off when things don’t sort themselves out.
Like Hercules was with that hydra, we’ve got to be more creative when it comes to fighting terrorism. Brute force alone will be insufficient.
“swayin’ to the rhythm of the new world order and / head down, go to sleep to the rhythm of the war drones…”
Right now it’s looking like Bush will be re-elected. Granted, a lot can change between now and Voting Day. Just don’t get your hopes up. I hate him too, but sometimes that’s just not enough.
Well, for the most part, Stoneburg, you pretty much summed up my feelings.
To me, that opportunity that you mention for us to end terrorism was shattered by our actions after 9-11. That’s my point to begin with (I apologize for not making it clear enough). It seems that xtisme and furt agree that taking this sort of military action, even if it rash (and I still believe it was), is excusable because a nation does what it has to do.
I understand that France and Germany are not “the world.” I also understand that France, Germany, and Russia had assets in Iraq that they weren’t going to risk for this war. No gov’t is selfless.
I truly believe that there was a diplomatic opportunity that we missed. That’s what kills me.
The more I learn about history, the more I feel that we’re building up to something, and it’s the fact that (as I see it) we could have allayed it that really gets to me.
I’m young (I was nineteen when we were attacked), and this has confused me to know end, because I want to see the whole world; I want to travel for the rest of my life, but I’ve gotten to the point where whenever I think about leaving I worry that we’re going to be attacked again and something will happen to my family. That would have seen far fetched two years ago, maybe, but I don’t think anyone would deny that now. I don’t carry duct tape in my pocket, but it’s on my mind a lot.
I don’t understand how anyone can refute the opportunities we had to overcome terrism, rather than fan the flame.
I don’t think George Bush has a lock on re-election. Actually, I think he will not be re-elected, and that is not wishful thinking.
But to the topic.
After 9/11 the US had the best chance in history to really unite the world in a common goal. Hell, even Gaddafi sent his sympathies!
But unfortunately, the goodwill and chance for worldwide cooperation went flying out the window with our government flailing at windmills…after failing to find Osama in Afghanistan the war machinery was still in third gear, and the cowboy saw no reason to stop. Riding his high horse, he told the UN to fuck off and off he went…without a plan, without thinking about anything but kicking some ass.
The whole basis of American foreign policy since the end of our interest in Osama and Afghanistan has been based on lies and mis-information. The White House has made it clear to the world, “It’s our way, or you are the enemy.”
This is a shameful period in American history. To foreign Dopers, I can only say that the MAJORITY of American voters (who did NOT vote for Bush in the last election) still feel the same way, but are more pissed off than ever.
9/11 would have been a disaster for Al Gore as well…but I think there would be a much higher level of world cooperation in fighting terrorism.
No matter how many times a false statement is repeated it will remain just that, a false statement – 'cept in the minds of those that need or want to believe it. That one in particular, has already been throughly refuted right here on the SDMB.
Scroll down to clairobscur’s post for possibly the clearest explanation of the real French position, not the numerous misrepresentations made at the time by the US and the UK spin machines.
**To just say that our government has lisence to do what it feels is best to protect us is wrong (as we’ve seen, what’s best doesn’t seem to be helping much right now, maybe I’m mistaken).
**
That’s what we elect them for, to make those decisions. We don’t elect the UN or the Parliaments of foreign nations. Although we would like to get their approval, the final arbiter of what is the right thing for the US is our own elected government. No foreign government or organization has veto power on US foreign policy.
**I don’t understand those who claim that the current approach is the right one. Do you seriously believe that by waging war against Arab nations you will stop terrorism? That’s only fueling it. The way to beat this sort of fanaticism isn’t by giving them more reasons to do it and more poeple to recruit, it’s by solving the problems and giving the people reasons NOT to go sign up for a suicide bombing. **
That’s what we are trying to do. Tyranny breeds this sort of stuff, so we are trying to end that. All of the other problems are related to this one thing: tyranny. There is no way to fight terrorism without fighting tyranny. It would be like trying to fight Nazism without fighting Hitler.
No, but our elected leaders signed treaties with those guys, so they must have decided it was in our best interests to do so.
Geez, and here I remember the pro-war hawks were saying we needed to invade Iraq because they were the ones ignorning the will of the international community. Or are you saying it’s okay for us to ignore international will, but not for anyone else?
As xtisme said, this is a gross simplification. Allow me a personal view.
I live in the UK, and have visited the US once (a glorious trip to the World Roleplaying Championships in Wisconsin!).
I like the fact that Americans speak the same language, eat similar food, produce masses of films and TV and have a glorious commitment to freedom of speech and human rights.
I am grateful for the support from the US in two World Wars, and think their Revolution was entirely justified. (No taxation without representation!)
I was shocked by 9/11, and supported military action in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda.
Sadly I don’t think President Bush is up to the job of coping with the awesome responsibility of being the most powerful man in the World.
It is laughable to announce a ‘War on Terror’, as if a simple military conflict will solve terrorism.
It is depressing that many US citizens think the war in Iraq was because Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush bears responsibility for this.
It is appalling that the abuse of human rights in Guantanamo Bay continues. The lessons of the failure by the UK using internment in Northern Ireland against terrorists have clearly not been learnt.
Indeed.
And when is Bush going to tear up his agreements with military dictatorships and invade other countries where there is terrible suffering?
Does Bush know the lessons of history? The overthrow of democracy in Chile; the installing of Saddam in Iraq; supporting the feudal Monarchy in Saudi Arabia - does Bush know about these effect of these US policies?
Soveriegn nations somethings have to do things that are unpopular. Excusable? Who is excusing them? If soveriegn nations do something, they have to pay the consequences of their actions…like Germany did in WWII, and like the US is currently doing for Iraq (the current bill is several hundred of our citizens dead and 80 some odd billion down the drain with no end in sight, ill will with other countries, etc). Its not good, its not bad…its REALITY.
Look, I know my posts are long winded, but if you are gona drag me in, please at least read what I said. I’m CERTAINLY not excusing the US for Iraq, which I personally think was a mistake. Not because it was ‘wrong’ to go there, but because we didnt’ NEED to go there. We didn’t NEED to expend the resources we have, to tie up our military the way we have. Afghanistan is another kettle of fish, but I have yet to see a good rational for us going into Iraq as we did. IMO Saddam would have taken care of himself, he would have imploded eventually, died of various causes (including lead poisoning to the brain eventually if someone with a gun got lucky), or he would have stepped across the line sometime and been squashed. I would have felt bad for the Iraqi people continueing under such a system, but then I feel bad for the folks in North Korea too, and any number of other shit hole countries out there under the boot of a dictator. Its not up to America to solve all of the worlds problems alone.
However, at its root, soveriegn nations DO have to do what they think is best for them. Yes, as I said (over and over again) they have to work and play well together. We are not only nation states, but we are business partners to a certain extent…the world floats on a sea of trade, and its in EVERYONES best interests to keep things amicable. However, sometimes a nation has to do what it thinks is best. ALL nations do this. Sometimes, like (IMO) the US was about Iraq, they are simply wrong. Unfortunately even the most powerful nation CAN be wrong about things, they CAN fuck up spectacularly, etc.
As to the hijack…I say that Bush has about an even chance atm, though we are a long way from the election and several factors could move that one way or the other depending on events. Myself, I won’t be voting for him for a variety of reasons…I’ll most likely vote Liberatarian or None Of The Above, unless the Democrats run someone more palatable to me than Dean.
Now, if you disagree with what I actually said, gitfiddle, have at me.
Even if you think the bullying approach is justifiable, it’s still only effective if the countries you’re bullying actually do fear you. But the rest of the world knows that most of the US’s ground combat capability is now tied up, for years to come, in a single flea-infested shithole of a country. It won’t be possible to do anything serious short of nukes to anybody else for a long time. Other countries on any list that Bush might have, including the Axis of Evil or not, obviously know that, and so they have less reason to fear the US than before, and more reason to distrust us. Although intended to make the world a safer place, this approach has made it more dangerous, and many of us knew that it would beforehand, too.
furt, that was an interesting post even despite its disconnection with the world of fact that others have already explained. But even if that were true, at no time do you address the main thing that a country’s leadership must consider when almost everyone else in the world, and a large portion of its own populace, is saying “You’re wrong” - and that is the possibility that they really are wrong. Bush didn’t do that, and you don’t even consider it. Why?
I hear a lot of American dopers state that the world hates the US because of how strong it is regardless of how it uses its force. I simply think this is wrong. Any Gallup pole will show a great variance in the world opinion very much in tune with how the media reports Americas actions. Anything else is just pure paranoia.
I think ElvisLives nailed it. The two wars the US is fighting now has diminished Americas readyness greatly. Already the US is trying to get the Taliban to settle with the current regime. As a hotbed for terrorism it is probably as active as ever. Iraq is a black hole that swallows money. Money that could have been used for actual anti terrorism such as forcing secular changes, free markets and democracy on many ME countries.
Tackling the PR problem that Israel is for the US would be a prime anti terrorist project in my mind. Ppl may respond that the AQ is only paying lip service to the plight of the Palestinians but they know as do everyone that it works. The whole muslim world is furious over Israel as are a lot of other countries. Throwing money at that problem and actually forcing the two sides to see sense would have been a lot smarter. Stopping new settlements should be easy with the leverage that the US has over Israel. Instead Isreal keeps getting worse and the Americans are getting killed because of it.
That’s an interesting analysis, but what about the ‘road map’ which was a Bush idea that has been sabotaged (mostly on the Palestinian side because their doddering ‘leader’ has no authority with the more bloodthirsty factions IMO)? Bush and Powell were trying very hard to get it to work, for months and months.
And how exactly do we ‘force’ Israel to stop new settlements? They and Egypt already receive the most foreign aid, so there’s been lots of money involved. Israel is a friend and a fellow democracy, not our puppets. If the tough tactics we adopted with certified bastards like Saddam come under so much criticism, imagine what we’d get if we tried to ‘force’, as you so easily put it, civilian settlers from hauling trailers up to the Heights of Whatever.
Believe me, all these issues are discussed quite extensively here; just because we don’t want Israel destroyed doesn’t mean it’s not criticized here, although we have enough Holocaust survivors left that the need for its existence is also always with us. And how exactly would America ‘force to the two sides to see sense?’ Why don’t the all-wise Europeans–they seem to have all the answers.
I believe the neocons thought that the US was ripe for all out worldwide domination and went for it. No excuses needed.
Maybe they jumped a little too soon. Time will tell.
The same is true when they talk about the US. (I have to admit they are right about the beer though…America beer is vile compared to beer in the UK…IMO)