Lion in Winter

School of the Americas, anyone?

FlaviusAetius

It would be interesting to learn from the solons on this thread just what the foreign policy of the United States should be.

We've heard what we shouldn't be doing. Is it even possible for a great power to conduct its foreign affairs without moral compromise or hypocrisy?

Would Switzerland be a good model for what our future policies should encompass. Obama tried national self-abasement and that hasn't worked.

lansbury

As long as foreign policy is decided by politicians who need to get reelected, it will be what those sections of the electorate with a loud voice want it to be. Hence the Irish and Jewish influence over the US Congress, and foriegn policy.

I doubt any country has a foreign policy which is without moral compromise. Except those that have no morals to start with.

RoadWarriorFromLP

The US has a history of supporting covert operations and selectively turning a blind eye to bad acts.

Other nations do the same. But the US probably indulges in a lot more of the former than most due to its proactive foreign policy, albeit the difference is largely a matter of scale.

Ignoring bad acts seems to be a more universal problem. The European failure to intervene in the Yugoslavian war is a good example of how sitting on ones hands at the wrong time just gets a lot of innocent people killed unnecessarily. (That we could have a Srebrenica on the European continent not long after WWII is not something to be proud of.)

That being said, the US sets itself up for a lot of criticism by claiming moral authority on the world stage. The Saudis do quite a bit of bad, for example, but unlike the US, they aren't as intent on telling the world how wonderful they are.

On the other hand, some realpolitik is necessary and it can get ugly. For example, it would have been nice had someone assassinated Hitler in the 30s, even though he was a duly elected leader in what had been a democratic country at the time that he took office and it would have been a violation of international law. Had someone taken out Milosevic in a similar fashion, you wouldn't have found me shedding too many tears over it.

scrubbedexpat099

Or Blair?

Always a tricky one. Be careful what you wish for.

amideislas

Wars always bring out the worst of human behaviour. Whatever side you're on.

I think you could add Mubarak to the list, and frankly, I seriously doubt the Kurds now funded and supplied by the US to carry out their resistance to ISIS conduct themselves like perfect gentlemen. No doubt history will prove yet another example of the US funding and harbouring "terrorists".

Nonetheless, in say, Mubarak's case, throughout the entire period of US funding, Egypt never engaged in any aggression against any of it's neighbours as it had previously. Previous "diplomatic" attempts produced no results. But funding them did indeed produce results.

Now, I think it's worth pointing out that even in 2015, there is no lack of those with wholly less-than-admirable intent, as demonstrated by the likes of ISIS, for example. Then there's Russia, which is an excellent example of demonstrably dubious intent, completely denies any of it, and routinely engages in "hypocrisy" - with complete impunity.

I suppose one could argue the sinister intent of any who would engage in any type of conflict for any reason, but frankly, that's an easy position to take when all is prosperous and peaceful for us at home. I have no doubt most would see it quite differently if we were subject to severe punishment simply for uttering a single word of dissent.

I for one, am delighted that there is still a deterrent to those who would otherwise aspire to rule us with an iron fist. It could be a lot worse. But we'll never know that, will we?

In the mean time, we're still free to debate all the "hypocrisy" we are so unfairly subjected to.

Hotscot

How much of that was sarcasm?
Hard to tell...

Sally Redux

It would be nice if people didn't fall for the same old demonisation routine every time as well.

RoadWarriorFromLP

There are a few of these figures who genuinely deserve to be demonized. But yes, it would be nice if the public could figure out the difference.

Sally Redux

Oh, agreed. But that's the point. These leaders enjoy popular support at least to begin with. I could see a proposal to exile or intern Muslims gaining popular support in the UK right now.

robin1234

Yes, look how many unjust wars have been started since 1945 by invoking the tried and true Chamberlain and Munich analogy. Suez in 1956 may have been the first. Colin Powell going to the UN with his blatant "dodgy dossier" lies may have been the single most disastrous.

FlaviusAetius

That's always the conundrum. Do you appease aggressors? Do you try to undermine them by engaging in aggressive but secret actions whose necessary feature is deniability?

Do you draw a red line in the sand? What happens if you draw a red line and then walk away from it (read Obama on Syria)?

Do you take what your intelligence agencies - as well as those of Britain, France, Germany and others tell you is an imminent danger and take preemptive measures? Colin Powell with his "dodgy" dossiers.

Do nothing?

Release enemy rock stars so they can return to the battle? Obama again.

Do nothing and claim a moral high ground until your enemies place you in an existential danger? Chamberlain, whose actions led to WWII, with 60 million dead, including a holocaust.

Do nothing and claim to be a model world citizen, with no criticism from the leftists on BE?

kimilseung

This caught my attention, yes he did start WW2 by declaring it, but what should he have done instead to avoid it? More Munichs?

Lion in Winter

Why is it impossible to have a discussion on political matters on BE without resorting to red baiting?

And why do none of those that do it supply any sort of definition of what they mean by "leftist"? It's meaningless as used and detracts from the discussion.

I mean, it is just possible that there are independent thinkers on here who do not find it necessary to adopt any official "stance" across all issues.

robin1234

Well, let me defend Chamberlain. The British were rearming in the face of the German threat from about 1936 on, just not single mindedly enough, because of opposition in parliament, conflicting budget priorities etc. But by 1939 the UK were on the way to having their fighter defenses in place, and their heavy bomber capability was being developed. The army was being beefed up by 1937. (My father joined up in 1937, presumably thousands of others did too.). Yes, Britain should have made Czechoslovakia the line in the sand, and Hitler would have backed down. However, the Second World War would still have happened, just that events would have unfolded in a slightly different order.

As for the dodgy dossier, I (an ordinary member of the public who read the news) knew that the dodgy dossier was complete lies, and there were no WMDs. So, the U.S. government knew that too. Their excuse for going to war was as flimsy as Germany's excuse for invading Poland in 1939.