Is the US's new Policy the right way?

[Jon Miller]

I would make this a poll

but I want thoughts

I really am not sure

Jon Miller

[SlowwHand]

In regard to what?

[Loif]

Could you be a tad more specific Jon? Or should I call you Joe Canadian?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Loif
Could you be a tad more specific Jon? Or should I call you Joe Canadian?

I think he means here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=US&cat=US_Armed_Forces

[Capt Dizle]

I think that the best way to look at what Bush is proposing is (1)that America police the world in regard to nations engaging in or harboring terrorists, (2) that America police the world in regard to regimes that are developing WOMD.

America has of course been engaged across the world but this is a potentially huge change. It could entail an almost continuous use of American troops and huge expenditures of public funds.

In order to be sucessful it seems to me that America will have to enlist other developed nations to participate in nation building.

I am very hestitant to support this policy in its broadest interpretation. I would rather see dollars spent at home than abroad wrecking and rebuilding countries like Iraq.

The key is the level of technology that is available to tyrants like Saddam and terrorists organizations, now and in the future. If a credible threat exists I think we should act.

But there are limits to what any nation, even the world's most powerful, can do. A badly implenmented policy could end up doing what poor American policy has done so often in the past, create a well of bitterness in minds of the people of those nations we have run our political experiments on.

I am a skeptic in the long run. But I support the president in his policy of regime change in Iraq.

[Velociryx]

I think that US foriegn policy should be limited to responding to direct threats, and helping WHEN ASKED.

IMO, we should begin acting almost exclusively through the UN, and provide them the backing they need to really put some teeth into them. If we want the world to take the UN seriously (which would be a good thing, cos if they were taken seriously then their various proclamations would be adhered to), then WE need to make the first move there and start taking them seriously.

Does this mean that we should roll over and let an international council tell us how to run our country? Of course not! But it does mean abiding by international law.....just like we expect everybody else to.

Do that, and I'll bet we make a lot more friends on the playground.

-=Vel=-

[Faeelin]

I actually think there's a case with Iraq.

First America's told bny the world it should respect what hte UN decides. Then when America decides to invade a nation for building weapons of mass destruciton in violating of an armastice with the UN, the world condemns it.

A bit oversimplified, but esentially what's happening.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I think that US foriegn policy should be limited to responding to direct threats, and helping WHEN ASKED.

IMO, we should begin acting almost exclusively through the UN, and provide them the backing they need to really put some teeth into them. If we want the world to take the UN seriously (which would be a good thing, cos if they were taken seriously then their various proclamations would be adhered to), then WE need to make the first move there and start taking them seriously.

Does this mean that we should roll over and let an international council tell us how to run our country? Of course not! But it does mean abiding by international law.....just like we expect everybody else to.

Do that, and I'll bet we make a lot more friends on the playground.

-=Vel=-

I fear that your thinking is behind the curve wherein Bush is thinking ahead. If indeed technological advancement is going to empower individual groups and unstable countries to posses WOMD then America risks much by taking the politically correct stance that you are advocating Vel. Heretofore, it has been a given that persons such as Bin Laden and Saddam have been only regional threats and even within their reach the damage they could inflict was limited. But are we not moving into a era where this will no longer be true?

For example, we have recently heard that a private company is going to go to the moon. They have been cleared by US government IIRC. If this is true then how difficult is it to believe that a worldwide terrorist group assisted by nations such as Iran can develop the capability to strike globally?

Certainly a powerful defense can be mounted that we have not yet reached that point. I have been extremely careful to listen to those who say that Iraq could not threaten the US with nuclear weapons even if he had them because he would lack the required delivery system.

However, I question any certainty that we might be able to know and act in advance of Saddam's acquistition of such capability. I question whether it is better wait than to act beforehand. In what way does no action enhance the security of anyone?

I place no credence in the ability of the UN to prevent terror or war or to provide security for America or for the world. I have never seen any compeling evidence to indicate that the UN can do any of these things.

Abiding by international law is a very high minded concept. But law is applied most often to bring the guilty to justice, not to prevent crime. Nor to prevent terrorist acts nor international aggression.

President Bush's intent is to develop a sort of preventitive deterent. By establishing the likelyhood that any attempt to acquire WOMD will result in a strong military response it is hoped that terrorists and tyrants will be denied the assistance they need from other sources. It will be necessary to establish that enitities, including soverign nations, will be held accountable if they harbor and aid terrorists. The UN will never be a vehicle for that and we all know it.

This issue may boil down to courage. Do we have the courage to do what we believe is right in the face of world condemnation? We might be right. Even if every country in the world opposes us, we might be right.

I do not know if the Bush doctrines will survive his presidency. I doubt it will. But I fear we may look back 20 or 30 years in the future and conclude that Bush was a man ahead of his time.

jt

[Velociryx]

Excellent post, JT! And it has caused me to expand the thinking of my earlier posting to include this:

I firmly believe in the things I mentioned above. America has really taken some blows on the chin where her credibility and intentions were concerned with past meddling.

In large part, this can be explained by saying that we were in the midst of the most dangerous war the world has ever known (Cold War) and we did what we had to do, for as long as we had to do it. In the end, it got us a checkmated Russia, whose economy finally caved in, and this led to such things as the Iron Curtain coming down, right along with the Berlin Wall.

It created additional problems, too, but on the whole, the West's (led by America) conduct during the cold war was as good as can be expected, given how high the stakes were.

Note here, I am NOT saying the US and the US alone was responsible for winning the cold war, or for the crumbling of the Iron Curtain, etc. We could not have done it without the help of our Nato allies and friends in the International community. It was truly a cooperative victory. Of all the nations that participated on "our side" of the Cold War tho, I think it's clear that America got her hands the dirtiest. That's okay, we were Russia's counterweight. It was our job to do the heavy lifting. Some of that heavy lifting included doing stuff we're not proud of.

Now we find ourselves in a world that's colored very differently than it was when the Cold War Mentality was looming over most everything we did.

Now requires a new kind of thinking.

Bush would have us believe that this new kind of thinking is best expressed by pre-emptive strikes on potential enemies. In that, I think he is incorrect.

More specifically, I think what is required is a heightened sense of diligence and preparedness, and an ever increasing level of cooperation with the international community. I say this for a number of reasons, but chief among them is the fact that our economy, in terms of global output, is shrinking. True, it's growing at a healthy clip, but the rest of the world (taken as a whole) is growing faster. Our portion of the world's total output has been chopped by more than half since its peak, and we can expect that trend to continue in the future. It's time, then, for those rising stars of the economy to help share the load.

America cannot afford, in the long term, to be the policeman of the planet. Nor should that be our primary objective.

Our future will be best served by conducting ourselves in such a way that we bind ourselves more closely with the world community, rather than pursuing policies that alienate and isolate us. Now is America's time (as the largest economic and military power in the world). We can choose to lead the world either by example (beginning with adherance with international laws, and active support of the UN), or as a bully (which will alienate us in the world community, lead to ever-increasing resentment, and ultimately, speed our economic decline, relative to the rest of the world).

If we pursue Bush's vision of global policy and begin pre-emptive strikes on potential threats (*potential* being the operative word), we must then ask the question "where does it end?" and that would be a fair question.

Preventing nations with proven belligerent track records from acquiring Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction....is this sufficient cause to go to war with that country to bring about a "regime change" (polite term for killing the current leader and installing some other form of government....presumedly one that's pro-USA).

And how long until that mindset comes back to haunt us on our own shores? How long until we begin arresting people who show an inclination toward violence, but who have committed no crime? Strike them pre-emptively before the do.....the very doctrine Bush would have us apply to the world at large.

Don't get me wrong....I think his goals are essentially good ones. Sadam is a bully and has a long track record of lying and gassing his own people, starving them to build up his military, etc, etc.

But what Bush is trying to implement amounts to thought control, with the USA in charge of determining what constitutes "proper thought." Anybody who falls out of line finds themselves under the gun.

We aren't wise enough. No nation on earth is wise enough to be in that position.

I'm no pacifist.....if somebody does wrong, I believe that punishment and reprisal should be swift and decisive. But just as we cannot arrest someone before they commit a crime, nor should we make pre-emptive attacks on other soveriegn nations before they have given just cause (this would include an attack on a third party who asks for our assistance).

What we should focus on instead, is aggressive intellegence gathering, non-military methodologies of preventing problems, and increased support of the UN. (Example: Have the UN put a global ban on the development of womd-cold war relics- anybody violating that ban would be in contempt of international law, and the GLOBAL community would be responsible for dealing with that nation).

Most importantly though, by shifting our focus from military to economic concerns, we can provide reasons for the terror attacks to end....the current trend of the world economy is one of coming together....the EU is but the first example of this. There will be others, and it is my hope we will join in that trend....and as the world's economies are bound more and more closely together, the benefits of that will spread to all participating corners of the world....it would be easy enough to make a pre-condition of joining one of the big, established economic blocks an absence of terrorist cells operating in a given nation's borders, regular policing of same, and pooling of intellegence regarding terrorist groups. That alone will create a huge incentive NOT to support terrorists....the economic gains would simply be too large to ignore.

-=Vel=-

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Velociryx If we want the world to take the UN seriously (which would be a good thing, cos if they were taken seriously then their various proclamations would be adhered to), then WE need to make the first move there and start taking them seriously.

/me gives a standing ovation.

[Urban Ranger]

So when will the US start invading Israel, a country that has:

1. developed weapons of mass destruction
2. violated UN resolutions
3. haboured terrorists

?

The answer is never, because Israel is an ally.

Again, the US doesn't care if a country does anything, as long as it is an ally. The aforementioned excuses are used to topple people whomever the Government of the Day doesn't like, for one reason or another.

[Capt Dizle]

Vel,

You make some good comments about the Cold War. Lets take a moment to give credit to the people of the former Soviet Union for the relatively peaceful transition in government. Note I said relatively.

I have a deep admiration for the Russian people who endured tremendous loss of life in war and the regime of Stalin. I offer my hopes and prayers for peace and prosperity for all the people of the former Soviet Union.

One of the consequences of the fall of the Soviet Union has been the power vacuum that was formed when the influence of Soviet Union waned. There is a strong likelihood that dangerous regimes will seek to take advantage of this vacuum in the future.

If history has taught us anything it is that we live in an ever-shrinking world where conflicts cannot be dismissed as regional and not worthy of global concern. And the world seems to be shrinking at an ever increasing and alarming pace as evidenced by the devastating attack on New York by Islamic terror.

History also seems to show that the global community is not sufficiently developed to deal with emerging threats. The UN has no power to provide leadership or direction in disputes between sovereign nations. Even in the clear crisis manifested in Iraq's aggression in the 1990s the UN could not act but only sanction the actions of its members as the US built a coalition and led a military effort to restore the peace.

The UN was unable to enforce post war sanctions against Iraq. This failure shows why it is not possible for the United States to effectively work within the UN framework and accomplish concrete results. The containment of aggressive regimes seeking to expand their influence militarily can only be accomplished in the world today by the United States. This is hardly debatable. What is open to debate, and is a fair question is whether the policy of containment should include pre-emptive strikes.

But lets make clear that a pre-emptive strike does not equate to aggression. When Saddam invaded Kuwait he occupied the country and declared it to be an Iraqi province. That’s aggression. America has no such intention. Idiotic assertions that America is the modern version of the Roman Empire or that Bush is a warmonger are not helpful. Wild speculation and ludicrous conspiracy theory contribute nothing of value to public debate.

Lets also deal frankly with the question of national sovereignty. Iraq has broken cease-fire agreements that it signed. Iraq is in violation of multiple UN resolutions. At what point does a nation forfeit its right of sovereignty?


But beyond that, is Iraq a nation in a true sense and does sovereignty even apply? I think not. Saddam is a ruthless dictator who maintains power by force. Only a tiny segment of the population supports him. He murders potential adversaries. He murders his people. He uses weapons of mass destruction against the Iraqi people. Restricted by UN trade sanctions he diverts oil profits from food purchases to fund many less critical needs. Such as "palaces" and weapons programs. And the children starve.

How can we allow such a man to hide behind the concept of national sovereignty? This is ludicrous. In my opinion it is a frank expression of moral and intellectual cowardice to do so.

When attacked in 1991 Saddam responded by launching missiles at Israel. Why? Why does Saddam provide financial rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers? It is because terrorism is just another political tool that he uses. He is in essence a terrorist himself, not the head of a sovereign government.

Terrorism is not a crime. Terrorism for political purpose is an act of war. Terror is the current weapon of choice for Islamic elements that seek to expel Israel from the Middle East. Failure by world governments to strike preemptively at terrorism is an abrogation of government's responsibility to protect their citizens. This is no more and no less than a complete failure of the collective government of the entire world.

But it is nothing new. The world and the UN and yes, even the US has stood by and done nothing while despots have committed horrible human rights violations up to and including genocide.

So why act now? Why should the US depart from its previous doctrine and embrace a policy of preemptive strike? It is because the rapid of technology that has lead to nuclear proliferation and will lead to the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons unless the growing culture of terrorism is destroyed. WOMD in the hands of terrorists and dictators will become a reality as will the use of these despicable horrors. The only thing that stands in the way of unimaginable suffering and death is courage. The world is in dire need of leaders with the courage to refute the failed thinking of our past and establish that terrorism cannot be used to achieve political goals.

Vel, I agree with you that economic engagement is crucial to achieving world stability. However, you must understand that the culture of terrorism arising in the Middle East cannot be solved by economic means. The hatred of Israel, and by extension the US, stems from a territorial dispute caused by UN action. It has become an element of fundamental religious belief. Creatures such as Saddam will continue to exploit this bitterness to their own ends. Order must be achieved by force of arms and the peace maintained by police presence. How can it be otherwise in a land where one generation teaches the next to hate as a show of devotion to God?

Only after peace is imposed can economic means be brought to bear in an attempt to give those caught in the cycle of violence other options to pursue.

As for your comments that Bush is trying to institute thought control, I cannot respond. It makes no sense. I cannot find any foundation for the comment.

Your assertion that the US should increase its intelligence capability is spot on. It can be an invaluable tool to fight terror in a manner that will minimize the loss of human life. I hope the US government is as intelligent as you are on this point.

The US is not able to police the world. It is indeed not "wise" enough to determine for all people everywhere what their lives should be about. And the US certainly can't afford the cost of righting all it perceives and wrong on the globe.

And if we take this road that Bush has mapped for us we surely cannot see the end. Should this deter us? I say not. We must embark with courage to do what we can. To establish a worldwide deterrence against those who seek to use terror and mass murder as tools to gain their political goals.

jt

[Velociryx]

Another outstanding post JT! You keep raising the bar like that and I'm not sure I'll be able to keep up!

In my mind, the BEST point you raised in your latest post was that terrorism is an act of war. It is, in fact, a *type* of warfare.

If we use this as a place of beginning, then we find ourselves in a much different, much clearer position (and in a position in which our views coincide!). In this case then, we are not actually striking pre-emptively at all. Acts of terror have been perpetrated on us, and other countries. You rightly point out that these are acts of war, and in that case, we should respond in kind. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Further, we should respond with overwhelming force, not only against the terrorist organizations, but against those who keep them funded, supplied, and hidden from our sight.

Where we may differ (and most definitely where I differ with President Bush) is that we *cannot* afford to go it alone. Going it alone only serves to alienate potential allies and makes us appear to be the bully. This will only serve to increase anti-american sentiment in other corners of the world, and lead to further terrorist-style attacks, which will cause the circle of aggression to spiral outward in ever-widening waves. It will never end in this manner.

Only by building cooperative relationships and getting the backing of our neighbors in the shrinking global community can we be truly effective. Certainly, going it alone will solve the short term problem. We could, all by ourselves, and without input from any other nation, take Iraq on 1:1 and blow them to smithereens. No question about that. The problem is that in doing so....in putting out one fire, we spark several others, *especially* if we strike on our own, or with only the most limited backing from the world community.

You rightly point out that the UN is currently in no shape to do anything about terrorism.

I think the first, best move we can make in that regard is to give the UN sufficient teeth so that it CAN respond to terrorism, and other threats to global security.

How can we do this?

Here's what I'd recommend as a beginning:
1) Catch up on past-due UN dues immediately. Keep them current.

2) Begin abiding by UN resoluations and mandates. We expect the rest of the world to do it, and we need to lead by example if we are going to lead at all.

3) Dramatically increase the amount of troops we supply to the UN for various missions

4) Push through a new UN resoltion that enables the UN to do more than simply "peace keeping" missions. Let the UN begin to operate counter-terrorism units (which we, and other member nations can supply).

5) offer MFN status to ALL members of the UN.

6) Give any member nation of the UN that is currently supporting known terrorist organizations six months to expel and or arrest all known members of those organizations. Give them 30 days to shut off ALL funds to those groups. Nations that do not comply are simply booted out of the club. End of story (this causes them to lose their economic advantage).

7) Require all members of the UN to pool their intelligences re: terrorist cells, groups, and activities.

8) All non-member states of the UN are to be watched closely. If they persist in funding/training terrorists, then they stand in a state of war with the UN, and therefore, with all member states OF the UN.

9) Begin working with all members of the UN to help in the formation of economic trading blocks, beginning regionally, and then combining those, with the eventual, stated goal being economic unification of all member states. (granted, this may take a couple hundred years, but hopefully not).

These things would set the stage for a newly reinvigorated UN....one with the teeth to go after what is a global, not an American, problem.

It's really rather akin to game theory. We can set up a punishment system for those who further their ends via terrorism (invasion, military attack), and/or, we can set up a reward system for those who refrain from those activities.

Bush wants to go a 100% punishment route, and says nothing about a reward system.

I think this is short-sighted. Yes, it will accomplish the immediate goal of putting out the current fire, but at the cost of sparking new ones.

Long term, that's not what we're looking for.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Sadly, I can't see those 9 things happening Vel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

6) Give any member nation of the UN that is currently supporting known terrorist organizations six months to expel and or arrest all known members of those organizations. Give them 30 days to shut off ALL funds to those groups. Nations that do not comply are simply booted out of the club. End of story (this causes them to lose their economic advantage).

Um... you really can't start kicking countries out of the UN. It is almost impossible to make happen.