My USA foreign policy for the 21st century

Great Debates
1

The problem in short
The USA has overextended itself and is in serious danger of going the way of Rome, Byzantium, and the British Empire.

GWII is a repeat of Vietnam: a war in which America plays World Policeman, losing blood and treasure without fulfilling any significant national goal. The ostensible reason for the war, now that WMDs have not been found, is to bring democracy to the Middle East.

If we keep pursuing such projects, we will bankrupt the country and weaken it militarily while China and other potential (but not yet actual) rivals gain in strength.

The origin of the problem
The involvement of the USA in WWI was a humanitarian success and truly made America known as a great power. Whether it was “our fight” or not is debatable. America’s participation in WWII was most likely unavoidable and reinforced the concept of America as leader of the free world. Then came the Cold War.

In the Cold War the USA found both the height of its power and perhaps its shark-jumping moment as an imperial power: Vietnam. In Vietnam the USA squandered the lives of 50,000 troops; the lives of hundreds of thousands of military and civilian lives in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; and billions of dollars. Most importantly, the USA lost the moral high ground.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, America was similarly schizoid: it fought the good fight (more or less) in the Cold War against a clearly despotic enemy (the Soviet Bloc) while engaging in pleny of dirty tricks in South America and elsewhere via the CIA.

In the 1990s, the USA seemed to recoup some of its glimmer. The Soviet Bloc crumbled. GHW Bush led a unified West in GWI, a miliary and PR success; he knew how to build a coilition and play the diplomatic game. Bill Clinton kept a firm hand on the rudder for the rest of the decade.

Then… utter disaster under GW Bush. His failing, however, was born long ago: he merely put into practice the memes that we had long recited as mantras: The world needs democracy; democracy will cure all ills; and America is good no matter what.

How to fix it
Part One: Retreat and regroup
The first thing we need to do is retreat and regroup. We are not the policeman of the world; we are not the dominant power of the world. Rather, we are the dominant power of the Western Hemisphere. Hint hint: it’s called the Monroe Doctrine.

We need to protect our own territory and most likely expand it in this hemisphere. In any case, we need be here, focus on what is going on here, and focus less on what is going on out there.

Contrariwise, we do not need even to think about what is going on the Middle East. Let Israel hand its own affairs, let Iraq implode if it wants to, and let that whole cesspool stink and rot for the next several hundred years–because that’s what it’s going to do, whether we commit “suicide by Middle East” on it or not (which is what we’re doing now).

Part Two: Recognize Europe, China, and India as coequal powers
We can make China an enemy now if we want to, or we can put some of the burden of ruling the world on them. It’s our choice. The astute president, looking at world history, will realize that China doesn’t want to rule the world; it just wants to rule its (or what it considers its) own territory.

It’s basic Dale Carnegie: Project responsibility and friendliness onto China, and that’s what we’ll get back. Project hostility and rivalry, and that’s what we’ll get.

Taiwan? That’s your issue, China. North Korea? Same deal. That’s your sphere of control, whereas North and South America are ours. You deal with your area, and we’ll deal with ours.

We also stop pretending to boss around Europe like a parent. Step up to the plate. India, too. You’re a big boy now. You’ve got your areas of control, we’ve got ours. We don’t stick our nose into yours, you don’t stick your nose into ours.

As far as the shitholes of the world are concerned–the Middle East and Africa–we do what we can through the United Nations, etc. Now and then we’ll put a coilition together with Europe, China, and India to bop heads, as necessary.

In the meanwhile, we exert true imperial control over North and South America. We don’t take shit from the Chavez’s and whoevers, and we move to bring the whole region into one great, unified, organized, and democratic empire: step by careful step.

In conclusion
There is no more need for world wars or overextending our reach. We are nearing the era in which–if we choose–we can bring true and permanent order to the globe. The solution, at the end of the day, is for four great powers–the US, Europe, China, and India–to establish and mutually respect their spheres of control.

2

I think your disengagement strategy is a good idea. But why are you making an exception for Latin America?

In the immediate future, relations with them are going to go downhill as we secure our border with Mexico, and remittances start to slow down.

More importantly, not all of the great powers you mentioned in addition to the USA - Europe, India, and China - are going to neccesarily be happy with us colonizing South America. China is already friends with Chavez in Venezuela, so anything we do there is going to piss them off.

Major portions of our military can make it anywhere in the globe in 24 hours. There’s no reason to think that, if we’re going to be colonizing someplace, it has to be within spitting distance.

3

Several reasons. One, history is on our side: The Monroe Doctrine has received a measure of respect from the world in the past; further, continuing to implement it does not earn the enmity of the the other great powers (Europe, China, and India).

Two, it’s in our national interest to secure the hemisphere and preserve Western culture here in a way that benefits us and our neighbors.

We won’t have to secure the border if there is no border.

Mexico right now is a disease on the US. They can’t get their act together, so their people creep into our country. Since they’re coming anyway, let them come. But fair is fair: let our people go south and work and invest there. Mexico is already the 9th biggest economy in the world. We need to combine it with the 1st so that both can benefit.

It’s not colonization; it’s management. If such management eventually leads to a unified government, then so be it.

Yes, this is a key example of how we’re spreading ourselves too thin. We’re not controlling our backyard, so nutters like Chavez gain in influence. We’re trying to rule the entire globe, which pisses China off, who only wants respect in and control of its own sphere.

I’ll tell you what: We say to China, “You handle Taiwan however you like, but please try to keep it orderly and non-bloody,” and they will not be playing footsie with Chavez.

It’s not colonization we need. We need to manage our own empire while letting others manage theirs. These empires should have (and most already have) borders that appeal to human cognition: That is, geographically and culturally connected.

4

Can you enlighten us about the difference?

What kind of non-imperialistic “control” do you have in mind?

How do you prevent a freely-elected president from running his country, exactly? The US get a veto power about who is authorized to run for presidency? The Venezuelian president isn’t elected but chosen by the USA? What?

How do you get an “empire” without being a colonial power?

I assume the countries that are part of each power’s “empire” don’t have a say in the matter?

Methink you’ve played “Risk” too often…

5

Paul Kennedy was saying this in the 1980s and basically his ideas were eventually shown to be false and he was denounced.

I’m not sure you actually know what happened in Vietnam. But it was not at all similar to GWII. It was actually a situation quite similar to the North/South Korea split but it ended up different because there was a fairly significant number of South Vietnamese that actually were fighting for the North. Vietnam is a war where we basically took sides in a civil war. And then we took the stance of “permanent defense” in that we’d never try to defeat the other side, but just keep them from conquering our ally. Not only is that a conflict where a win is impossible, it’s a conflict based on intentionally avoiding a win.

I’ll also argue that bringing democracy to the Middle East was always a goal, not one that emerged just because WMDs have not been found.

Yes, if we engage in multiple wars at once we will bankrupt the country. But we’re not in any serious danger of that at the moment.

Well, democracy does stop wars (so does free trade.) It’s almost unheard of in human history for two democracies to war with one another.

This is where things start to fall apart.

Yes, we are the policeman of the world. The UN was formed on the basis of collective security, the UN and especially the 5 permanent security council members grew out of FDRs idea of “four policemen” four very powerful states that would make sure other smaller states don’t get out of line.

And we are the dominant power of the world. But that’s just a factually quibbling.

The Monroe doctrine states that European powers aren’t permitted to settle new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, and the idea basicaly extended to the concept of the Western Hemisphere being “ours.” This isn’t something we need to return to, through our sheer economic and military might we already have immense power in the Western Hemisphere, and honestly it probably won’t change to us having more power anytime soon.

Our territory is protected.

You’ve now basically argued isolationism, except in the Western Hemisphere where we step back a hundred years and pursue active imperialism. That would make the U.S. much more of a pariah than anything Bush has done.

I disagree with your opinions about what is going to happen in Iraq.

And again, isolationism/retreating from the world is a failed idea. One that has been held by many shortsighted people in the past in this country, and an idea that has held both this country and the world back several times.

Anyways, due to interdependency, globalization, the shrinking of the world, et al. a policy of retreat and isolationism just isn’t meaningfully possible.

They aren’t equal powers, and thee is no reason to recognize them as so until they are. Europe is our economic equal but they have nothing near the force projection ability of the United States military, until they have that independent of the United States, they won’t be an equal power.

China doesn’t have the force projection or the economy (as of now, they will have an economy to rival ours eventually, this is decades off, though.) Their military still needs to modernize and actually become a military with force projection ability, and they need a much stronger navy to even begin to be considered the equals of the United States.

India basically faces all the same problems when it comes to being our equals.

China and the United States does way too much trade for any meaningful conflict to ever come up with China in my opinion. The looming threat of a U.S.-China clash is a paper tiger in my opinion.

Again, isolationsim = no.

We don’t boss Europe around like a parent. We do disregard European objections to United States military action because we’re a sovereign state and can take whatever military actions we see fit.

Should regional hegemons have a heavy hand in dealing with that region’s problems? Yes, certainly. But there are many issues that come up that are both global problems that need global solutions. Because of the previously state globalization and intedependence of the world.

Stuff doesn’t happen in Europe that doesn’t affect the United States, stuff doesn’t happen in Southeast Asia that doesn’t affect the United States.

The only way we can stop that from being the case is to sever all forms of transport/communication with the rest of the world. We’d have to find a way to go back in time to the 18th century to get even close to what you’re wanting.

Your theory is basically flawed throughout. It’s a theory that would be impossible to implement and would destroy countless international regimes. It also would require us living in a world that’s regressed backwards technologically.

On top of that you’ve slammed together multilateralism and blatant aggressive imperialism which I don’t see being two parts of the same coherent theory.

6

That’ll likely happen someday no matter what is done.

Please explain why a war in Iraq will bankrupt us when several much larger wars have not.

I take it you think this is untrue?

How to fix it
Part One: Retreat and regroup
The first thing we need to do is retreat and regroup. We are not the policeman of the world; we are not the dominant power of the world. Rather, we are the dominant power of the Western Hemisphere. Hint hint: it’s called the Monroe Doctrine.

We are economically dead in a year without Oil. Deal in reality.

Secretary Kissinger, I presume?

If you want to climb back into the 19th century, knock yourself out, but the rest of us are trying to move forward. Most of the human race has come to realize that human beings are not chess pieces to be moved around at whim. The people in Taiwan, for example, are real actual people, with hopes and dreams of their own that do not include being subjugated to what they consider a foreign power. You might also be surprised to find out that the people of Central and South America tend to think of themselves as actual independant nations with their own goals, desires and ambitions.

I suppose you’re thinking in terms of realpolitik, though, so my pointing out the utter moral foulness of this scheme is a moot point.

Of course, it’s completely unworkable, too, so you’re batting a thousand. I will congratulate you, though, for combining some of the more odious excesses of both the right and the left into one package.

7

We’re not going to go in and take over countries. We’re going to use our economic and political might to get them to do what we want. This is pretty much what we’re doing now. If you want to interpret that as “imperialist,” then that’s your call, but I am not suggesting we do anything new.

I think we should eventually bring North America under one polity, but that’s a separate issue. I think we should do so under entirely peaceful and democratic means.

No. We should use diplomatic tools well so that the Chavezes don’t come to power in the first place. If they do, we use our tools well to contain them. If they go too far even then, then the use of harsher tools is perhaps in order.

Look at what the US did. The US is a continental empire. We need to understand that and accept it in order to face the future with skill. The same is true of Europe, China, and India. All of these entities were, at one point in time, not politically integrated as they are now.

There are many ways to do it. Consider the case of Tibet. Consider the case of Hawaii. Consider the case of Ohio. Etc. I’m not saying that these are good or bad, but being a part of an empire does not always mean unpleasant subjugation.

Not to the point at all. I’m saying the US should be less dominant and “risky” in the world. Isn’t that what most of you French want, anyway?

8

My first impression is that this is way too isolationist. A “sphere of Influence” idea in which the world was carved up among several great powers based on geography may have worked in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it was obsolete in the 20th, let alone the 21st. (Come to think of it it really didn’t work all that well earlier.) Great powers cannot exert their influence as colonizing hegemons anymore. Power must be applied with subtelty. Furthermore, economic, environmental, and natural resource factors have made the world interconnected in a way that makes an isolationist policy impracticable. Even smaller countries are affected by policies made in distant lands. Policies made in Oslo may well affect the citizens of Taipei.

And I’m not really sure where you’re getting the idea that the middle east is a “shithole.” Most Middle Eastern countries are fairly industrialized. In any case, we can’t possibly ignore the region, for reasons that only begin with oil.

9

Among other flaws in the OP’s argument is the outdated concept of “here” (the Western hemisphere) and “there” (everywhere else). With jet travel, a person could be just about anywhere in less than a day (well, maybe three days), and with large-scale shipping, millions of tons of goods routinely and daily arrive at the world’s seaports. I suppose it’s just okey-dokey if China overruns Taiwan or North Korea invades southward. That won’t affect the American economy one teensy little bit.

This foreign policy proposal will, I believe, address a possible erosion of American economic prominence by making sure it happens - and quick. May as well take the uncertainty out, I guess.

10

“Denounced,” eh? Glad that the matter was so neatly settled! :rolleyes:

How is that not parallel to the Sunni insurgency? If it were not for our doing in the Baathist regime and our “force projection” right now, the country would split into three parts in no time flat (Sunni, Shia, Kurd); and there is no guarantee that that won’t happen without a significant and continuing investment in blood and treasure on our part.

Right, whereas GWII is a war where we basically caused a civil war. Is that an upgrade?

I agree: Vietnam was worse than GWII. But they’re both examples of stupid foreign policy in which we not only accomplish our goals but waste a lot of money and lives in the process.

Maybe, but it’s a stupid goal anyway and done in the most incompetent way possible.

My foreign policy is designed for long-term success. Bush’s foreign policy, regardless of whether it will destroy the country eventually, will certainly weaken it.

Yes, I’ve heard this meme before. I think the jury is still out, since there have not been enough democracies in history existing long enough to make the point one worth making.

That system isn’t working anymore. You know the saying, “Divide and conquer,” right? Our potential rivals are more than happy to see the US piss away its strength in Iraq, if that will eventually help us become less of a problem for them.

Mmm, so what’s the quibble?

I disagree. It is not economically protected from Mexico. 9/11 showed that it is not protected from terrorists. I’m not saying we should give into the terrorists, but right now we are seen as their main enemy. They need to see that the rest of the world–the four powers–are unified against them.

It’s not even remotely similar to isolationism. I’m saying that the US should participate in world affairs in cooperation with the other three powers, and that it should focus its resources on managing our own hemisphere. This is of benefit both to ourselves and the other three powers. China manages itself and its area and makes sure that terrorists don’t get started there. We do the same in our own area. We then mind our own business, trade, enjoy life, and keep the planet stable.

You don’t know, I don’t know, and Bush didn’t know, as events have demonstrated. That’s the problem with such adventures.

Europe, China, and India, if nourished now with respect as world powers are very likely to grow into those roles with grace. This is Dale Carnegie: Project the best onto the person you are dealing with, and quite often they will live up to those expectations. Culturally, China is a country that demands respect. Planning for the future means starting to treat them as a moral, responsible equal now.

The problem is that a state like China can make itself a real pain in the ass if it so chooses: Sponsor terrorism or even lob an ICBM our way. One way or another, they will eventually become as powerful militarily as we–unless we subjugate them now, while they are still weak. We don’t have the power to do so, and it wouldn’t be moral anyway.

Look to WWI for an example of advanced, “rational” states with lots to lose nevertheless choosing to lose it. Look all around the world for various irrational states who don’t care if they lose to begin with. China will be a power no matter what; what kind of power it becomes is for the most part in the hands of the US and Europe.

And that isn’t going well.

[quote]
Should regional hegemons have a heavy hand in dealing with that region’s problems? Yes, certainly. But there are many issues that come up that are both global problems that need global solutions. Because of the previously state globalization and intedependence of the world.

The rest of your post deals with isolationism, etc., about which I seem to agree with you for the most part.

11

Cite?

Very well . . . do so. Argue.

12

Are you aware, Aeschines, that the leaders of practically all South American states (and not just Chavez) have very different ideas about what their future should be vis-a-vis the U.S.? Just last year, they merged Mercosur and the Andean Community to form the South American Community of Nations – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_Community. It includes every South American state except for French Guiana (which is a department of mainland France, therefore part of the EU). They hope to have full integration on the European Union model by 2019. And near as I can tell, the whole point of this organization is that South America can have a customs union of its own without belonging to NAFTA or CAFTA or a Free Trade Area of the Americas – in other words, without belonging to an association that includes and is perforce dominated by the U.S.

IOW, any attempt to turn Latin America into a U.S.-dominated “democratic empire” would run up right against a recently emergent, but very powerful, countercurrent of South American collective self-determinism.

13

Is that we’re governed by a handful of loons who don’t live in the same reality as the rest of us, who incidentally seem to view foreign policy almost exclusively as a political prop to maintain and enhance domestic political power.

The solution: Impeachment.

The actual grounds for impeachment would be lying us into this war in the first place, and setting up a gulag where captives could be and were tortured in various ways. But it would also suffice as a solution to the Bush foreign policy.

The question is what to put in its place.

What I’d propose is something I’ve loosely referred to as "liberal realpolitik’ in the past, particularly during the run-up to the Iraq debacle.

Its goals would be things like freedom, democracy, human rights, disease prevention, and economic self-sufficiency - the sort of thing that the Bushies claim as their goals, though their track record doesn’t exactly support their claims.

But it would recognize that the U.S. isn’t going to pay any price, carry any burden, etc. It would actually try to find out what the reality of a situation is, as best as possible, before intervening. It would try to determine ahead of time whether its chosen course would be more likely to make things better or worse. It would use ‘soft power’ - our alliances, economic carrots and sticks, etc. - before resorting to military force, unless quick intervention was necessary to save large numbers of lives. When intervening with force, it would consider in advance who it would hand power over to once the intervention was militarily successful, and whether they would be likely to govern successfully. And it would look for “low-hanging fruit” - cases where a lot of good could be done at with the lowest degree of involvement and cost.

I’m thinking of cases like the Sudan, where as many lives could be saved in a year or two of military intervention as Saddam is believed to have killed in his decades of rule. Or Burma, where an elected leader and legislature are ready to take the reins of government as soon as the ruling junta is removed; no extended occupation required.

And after the Dems retake Congress next November and simulpeach Bush and Cheney, I wouldn’t be surprised if President Pelosi institutes a foreign policy more or less along those lines. :smiley:

14

What is a country, then? It is a geographic “sphere of influence” if nothing else. I am saying that we should focus on our own empire and our immediate geographic area 1) more than we have been 2) but certainly not exclusively. All your points about isolationism and the subtle use of power I agree with.

No, we don’t ignore it. We should jointly influence/control it with Europe, China, and India.

The region has its nice people, nice places, and better countries, but it is at base a backward political, economic, and cultural shithole. It’s producing some of the most unhappy and dangerous people in the world right now, and our strategy in dealing with it currently is not looking so good.

15

All of which have different goals for the region… now what? Flip a coin?

16

Europe definitely is not.

Hereabouts, the Monroe doctrine is usually ‘quoted’ as being “the american continent for the gringos… and the rest, too”. I think that must be the version that made its way into GWB’s mind, but he doesn’t understand irony.

17

But what if people in our “immediate geographic area” (by which you mean, apparently, the whole Western Hemisphere) do not think of themselves as being part of, or do not want to part of, our “empire”? (See post #12.) What can/should we do about that?

18

Your administration has already said that Taiwan is a Chinese question and that US will not interfere.

Henry

19

Cite?

20

Actually, the American policy is deliberately vague. Though there’s no official recognition of Taiwan’s independence, the U.S. can and has moved carrier groups in the area when China appears to be building toward a invasion of their breakaway province.