America's Neo-conservative foreign policy

[Doug1943]

Foreign policy is, or used to be, one of those boring topics one shied away from studying in depth. Like international trade, it was clearly important, but not very interesting. At least, that was the case fifty years ago. But now ...

When the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Europe was set free, it looked like, as a famous book put it, "the end of history". There just was no reasonable alternative to free-market liberal democracy. At the time, I naively predicted we'd see liberal democracies from Copenhagen out to Vladivostock, and then it would only be a matter of time before China followed Russia. (I had a number of Russian friends, having lived there for a few months in 1985 (my wife at that time was a Fulbright Exchange Scholar), and visited Russia several times after that year, before the system collapsed. They were all lovely people: ideal citizens for a democratic republic. {(This even included the KGB man who was in charge of foreigners in the city where my then-wife and I stayed.)) )

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Events, historic accidents, determine everything.

We were the sole superpower for ten years, after the USSR dissolved. Everyone thought China could be brought onto the democratic path via international trade. We blatantly interfered in Russian elections, and encouraged them to pursue 'shock therapy' in transitioning from socialism to capitalism: ie, to go from a situation where rents had not been raised since 1928, basic foodstuffs were subsidized, and everyone was guaranteed an apartment and job ... to red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism, overnight.The Russian people saw a sharp fall in their living standards, and Russian assets quickly grabbed by ex-Communist bureaucrats who became capitalist oligarchs. But what could the Russian people do?

We saw what they did: they turned to a strongman, who slapped a few oligarchs around, and promised to make Russia great again. And he did: living standards increased dramatically under his rule.

And ... then came 9/11. We turned our attention to the Muslim world, and decided to bring democracy to them, at the point of a bayonet.

Our previous foreign policy, to the dismay of liberals, had been one of 'realism'. What this meant was that we supported (and on occasion helped install) governments that took our side in the Cold War, even if they were mass murderers. But now we were going to promote democracy everywhere.

This didn't turn out well.

Now a substantial section of the conservative base -- the people whose children did the democracy-promoting abroad and all too often came home to their parents in body bags -- is against more foreign wars of choice.

But ... are these wars still, perhaps, in the American interest?

There's a good discussion about this issue, with both sides represented, at Foreign Affairs magazine:
[ Should America Still Promote Democracy? ]

 

[Grumblenuts]

Can you name your "both sides" and identify which you're on?
The article's message appears quite opposed such simplistic treatment.

 

[ESay]

The main mistake of Western politicians and people was thinking in the matrix of the Cold War. As if there were only the US and Soviet Union and nothing before.

Reality and history shows that liberalisation and 'westernization' in China and Russia are possible only in the scope it doesn't endanger the ruling elite and 'traditional values'.

China has for centuries viewed itself as the Middle empire surrounded by inferior vassals. Russia has for centuries viewed itself as the Third Rome with expansionist policy of gathering 'Russian lands'. Naturally, nothing changed overnight.

 

[Doug1943]

Can you name your "both sides" and identify which you're on?
The article's message appears quite opposed such simplistic treatment.

When, just after 9/11, Mr Bush began proposing invading Iraq, I was skeptical. In discussions with friends, I quoted Robespierre's observation that people do not like missionaries with bayonets. But, after the invasion, I got won over to the idea of democracy promotion, ie the neo-con position. (I was already sympathetic to neo-con domestic policy, but that's another argument.) And, I have to confess, I probably succumbed to public pressure: after I made a rather cynical comment about the invasion's prospects -- before it happened -- to a class I was teaching, a young Iraqi woman came up to me after the lecture, and tore a strip off me: "You're our only hope! You don't realize how bad it is! " etc. It didn't help that she was beautiful.

Well, as Ben Franklin said, experience keeps a dear school but a fool will learn in no other. I think I've learned from the terrible school of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What have I learned, exactly? I'm not an "isolationist" in the strict sense. I believe the democracies need to ally with each other militarily. I believe that liberal democracy, if we don't destroy ourselves in a big stupid war, is the future of mankind. But these transformations have to come from within, as countries are drawn into modernity, illiterate superstitious peasants, or their offspring, become urban, educated people, aware of the world. This is a work of generations.

We can help, a little bit, in various not-very-exciting ways.

So, as against the neo-conservative democracy-via-the-82nd Airborne-promoters, I'm a foreign policy realist, with the Long View.

An easy, concrete example: we should drop the embargo of Cuba, and flood the place with Yankee tourists. And offer the Cubans fifty thousand scholarships for their young people to come to the US to learn English, etc. (We could do it without any cost.) We should turn Guantanamo into a Medical School to train doctors and nurses for all of Latin America, with the Cubans supplying most of the teachers and us supplying most of the money & equipment.

The Cuban government is aching to follow the Chinese path to capitalism and we should help them do so. More would then follow. Everyone in Cuba knows that socialism doesn't work. And if we dropped our hostility to Cuba, then the pro-democracy forces there would be harder to portray as pro-Yanqui traitors. We would work out a deal to compensate those Cubans who lost their property -- increased trade would pay for bonds for them -- and Cuba could become a normal Latin American country. (Or, looking at many Latin American countries, maybe an abnormal one -- they don't wan't to become another base for the cartels trying to satisfy America's insatiable appetite for drugs, and I don't blame them.)

This is too long already but we could argue about Ukraine and how we got here and what we should have done, in another thread.

 

[ESay]

This is too long already but we could argue about Ukraine and how we got here and what we should have done, in another thread

Why another thread? This one fits more than enough for that.

 

[Doug1943]

The main mistake of Western politicians and people was thinking in the matrix of the Cold War. As if there were only the US and Soviet Union and nothing before.

Reality and history shows that liberalisation and 'westernization' in China and Russia are possible only in the scope it doesn't endanger the ruling elite and 'traditional values'.

China has for centuries viewed itself as the Middle empire surrounded by inferior vassals. Russia has for centuries viewed itself as the Third Rome with expansionist policy of gathering 'Russian lands'. Naturally, nothing changed overnight.

You're right about China, for sure. And Russia is certainly not indifferent to the fate of ethnic Russians in its former empire.

How these countries will evolve socially/politically in the future is not certain. I believe we had a very negative impact on Russia, where, I believe, the ordinary people just want to become a 'normal country'.

The view that the Orientals have a different way of viewing the world -- social harmony as opposed to individual agency -- must have a lot of truth to it, but note: South Koreans and Japanese have adapted pretty well to becoming recognizable democracies ... Japan is certainly more liberal than Western Hungary, for example.

So we'll just have to wait and see. Unfortunately, accident plays a big role in history. Churchill was not inevitable, Gorbachev was not inevitable. Our Russian and Chinese adversaries are now led by very smart men. We have Trump and Biden. We've lost the Mandate of Heaven.

 

[Doug1943]

Why another thread? This one fits more than enough for that.

Well, okay. But that means getting into the nitty-gritty details of our policy towards Russia since 1991, the Ukrainian internal situation (where a significant minority of its people are Russian-oriented) ... lots of specifics. Yes, it's related to what our overall policy in the world should be, but really is a separate discussion. However, I suppose it's inevitable for threads to wander all over the place, (and also to become hosts to shouting contests).

 

[ESay]

You're right about China, for sure. And Russia is certainly not indifferent to the fate of ethnic Russians in its former empire.

How these countries will evolve socially/politically in the future is not certain. I believe we had a very negative impact on Russia, where, I believe, the ordinary people just want to become a 'normal country'.

The view that the Orientals have a different way of viewing the world -- social harmony as opposed to individual agency -- must have a lot of truth to it, but note: South Koreans and Japanese have adapted pretty well to becoming recognizable democracies ... Japan is certainly more liberal than Western Hungary, for example.

So we'll just have to wait and see. Unfortunately, accident plays a big role in history. Churchill was not inevitable, Gorbachev was not inevitable. Our Russian and Chinese adversaries are now led by very smart men. We have Trump and Biden. We've lost the Mandate of Heaven.

Yes, these countries had to adopt the Western-like form of governance for their survival. I would add Taiwan to that list. Though, S Korea and Taiwan were 'troubled' democracies for decades, and only in the late 1980s they overcame that.

Japan still has what some people call 'one and a half party rule'. Though, they indeed can be called liberal democracies now.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Can you name your "both sides" and identify which you're on?
The article's message appears quite opposed such simplistic treatment.

/----/ "The article's message appears quite opposed such simplistic treatment."
Say what?

 

[gipper]

Foreign policy is, or used to be, one of those boring topics one shied away from studying in depth. Like international trade, it was clearly important, but not very interesting. At least, that was the case fifty years ago. But now ...

When the Soviet Union collapsed and Eastern Europe was set free, it looked like, as a famous book put it, "the end of history". There just was no reasonable alternative to free-market liberal democracy. At the time, I naively predicted we'd see liberal democracies from Copenhagen out to Vladivostock, and then it would only be a matter of time before China followed Russia. (I had a number of Russian friends, having lived there for a few months in 1985 (my wife at that time was a Fulbright Exchange Scholar), and visited Russia several times after that year, before the system collapsed. They were all lovely people: ideal citizens for a democratic republic. {(This even included the KGB man who was in charge of foreigners in the city where my then-wife and I stayed.)) )

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Events, historic accidents, determine everything.

We were the sole superpower for ten years, after the USSR dissolved. Everyone thought China could be brought onto the democratic path via international trade. We blatantly interfered in Russian elections, and encouraged them to pursue 'shock therapy' in transitioning from socialism to capitalism: ie, to go from a situation where rents had not been raised since 1928, basic foodstuffs were subsidized, and everyone was guaranteed an apartment and job ... to red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism, overnight.The Russian people saw a sharp fall in their living standards, and Russian assets quickly grabbed by ex-Communist bureaucrats who became capitalist oligarchs. But what could the Russian people do?

We saw what they did: they turned to a strongman, who slapped a few oligarchs around, and promised to make Russia great again. And he did: living standards increased dramatically under his rule.

And ... then came 9/11. We turned our attention to the Muslim world, and decided to bring democracy to them, at the point of a bayonet.

Our previous foreign policy, to the dismay of liberals, had been one of 'realism'. What this meant was that we supported (and on occasion helped install) governments that took our side in the Cold War, even if they were mass murderers. But now we were going to promote democracy everywhere.

This didn't turn out well.

Now a substantial section of the conservative base -- the people whose children did the democracy-promoting abroad and all too often came home to their parents in body bags -- is against more foreign wars of choice.

But ... are these wars still, perhaps, in the American interest?

There's a good discussion about this issue, with both sides represented, at Foreign Affairs magazine:
[ Should America Still Promote Democracy? ]

Why such lengthy posts, when the problem is evident? Neocons run our government’s foreign policy and neoliberalism rules the nation.

The aggressive warlike USG is a consequence of all of this. They want US hegemony to continue and intend to destroy any nation who opposes them. Its very likely their actions will lead to the demise of the US as we know it today.

 

[EMH]

then came 9/11. We turned our attention to the Muslim world, and decided to bring democracy to them

LOL!!!

Like your hero W, you still think it is DUH

"The Iraqi People"

Not Shias, Sunnis and Kurds.


If 911 was about bringing democracy to the "Muslim world," why did your hero W side with TALIBAN over THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE in Afghan.


Duh duh duh neither Faux "News" nor my Jew fraud of a Christian preacher said that....

 

[Doug1943]

Yes, these countries had to adopt the Western-like form of governance for their survival. I would add Taiwan to that list. Though, S Korea and Taiwan were 'troubled' democracies for decades, and only in the late 1980s they overcame that.

Japan still has what some people call 'one and a half party rule'. Though, they indeed can be called liberal democracies now.

You're right ... I forgot about Taiwan. When I was young, South Korea and Taiwan were military dictatorships. I don't know a lot about those two countries, or Japan, in terms of the 'depth' of their liberal democracy. I wouldn't be suprised to find that it's rather brittle. (Although I have been surprised to see our own melting away.) My guess as to the 'authentic' Oriental sort-of democracy -- ie not one fashioned strongly by America, either as occupier or protector -- would be Singapore. If China evolved to be like Singapore, it would be step forward.

 

[Doug1943]

Why such lengthy posts, when the problem is evident? Neocons run our government’s foreign policy and neoliberalism rules the nation.

The aggressive warlike USG is a consequence of all of this. They want US hegemony to continue and intend to destroy any nation who opposes them. Its very likely their actions will lead to the demise of the US as we know it today.

It's evident to you, and to me -- perhaps somewhat differently. But we -- serious people who're concerned about this -- need factual information. In particular, we need to know how we got here -- the background to all this. I completely agree about 'lengthy posts', which take two or three minutes to read, but I don't know how to get across what I want to get across in anything shorter. Sorry.

The Foreign Affairs debate is a good place to start.

 

[Doug1943]

LOL!!!

Like your hero W, you still think it is DUH

"The Iraqi People"

Not Shias, Sunnis and Kurds.


If 911 was about bringing democracy to the "Muslim world," why did your hero W side with TALIBAN over THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE in Afghan.


Duh duh duh neither Faux "News" nor my Jew fraud of a Christian preacher said that....

It's a bit frustrating posting here. There are people who never click on any links, and then there are those who cannot detect irony. I suppose when I'm being ironic, I'll have to have a warning: ATTENTION: THIS IS IRONY!

 

[EMH]

It's a bit frustrating posting here. There are people who never click on any links, and then there are those who cannot detect irony. I suppose when I'm being ironic, I'll have to have a warning: ATTENTION: THIS IS IRONY!

911 was a Zionist Fascist false flag HATE HOAX used to SELL OUT OUR TROOPS AND NATIONAL INTEREST for the cause of ZIONIST FASCISM, the re-conquest of the Middle East for Israel.

 

[the watcher]

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the bankrupting of Russia and the beginning of our financial spiral downward, some of us were hoping for a "peace dividend" or at least a break in the madness. It never came. To further understand the emergence of the neo cons that continued the prosecution of war it is helpful to move the timeline back to at least WW2, when the OSS were courting Rhinehard Gehlen, the head of Nazi intelligence. After the war, he was recruited into the newly formed CIA, successor to the OSS as an advisor, to use his in place spy network to spy against the new designated enemy, the USSR. He fed them intel that inflated the threat from the USSR to make him more valuable, and that rocketed the cold war immediately. The necons gathered power and influence, got us invested in Korea, Viet Nam, and nefarious adventures all over the world, mixing business, patriotism, and more over reach under the guise of national security. After the Soviet Union busted out over Afghanistan and we almost did, there was a brief window open where we could step up and make the world a better place, but the new guys, with their Project for a New American Century saw a different opportunity, and they are still with us.

 

[EMH]

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the bankrupting of Russia and the beginning of our financial spiral downward, some of us were hoping for a "peace dividend" or at least a break in the madness. It never came. To further understand the emergence of the neo cons that continued the prosecution of war it is helpful to move the timeline back to at least WW2, when the OSS were courting Rhinehard Gehlen, the head of Nazi intelligence. After the war, he was recruited into the newly formed CIA, successor to the OSS as an advisor, to use his in place spy network to spy against the new designated enemy, the USSR. He fed them intel that inflated the threat from the USSR to make him more valuable, and that rocketed the cold war immediately. The necons gathered power and influence, got us invested in Korea, Viet Nam, and nefarious adventures all over the world, mixing business, patriotism, and more over reach under the guise of national security. After the Soviet Union busted out over Afghanistan and we almost did, there was a brief window open where we could step up and make the world a better place, but the new guys, with their Project for a New American Century saw a different opportunity, and they are still with us.

Col Tim Osman was a CIA lead in a CIA effort to destabilize the Soviet occupation of Afghan.

One from that group told the world that shortly after 911, that "Osama" was really a Mossad/CIA double agent.

Bless that American Patriot who "leaked" THE TRUTH.

 

[Doug1943]

911 was a Zionist Fascist false flag HATE HOAX used to SELL OUT OUR TROOPS AND NATIONAL INTEREST for the cause of ZIONIST FASCISM, the re-conquest of the Middle East for Israel.

Yes, those Zionists are very crafty. Around 1970, they chose several dozen six-year old Jewish children -- whose parents were fanatical Zionists -- and told them, "You are going to go on a very important mission for the state of Israel." Then they proceeded to teach them all about Islam, and how to act like a Muslim.

Then -- and this was the tricky part -- they somehow got them adopted into Saudi and other Arab families. Sometimes they did child-switches for genuine Muslim children who resembled the Zionist plants, with the help of skillful Israeli plastic surgeons. Then these children grew up as Muslims ... not real ones of course, but Zionist sleeper agents. (Staying in touch with them, having them meet their handlers, was very tricky as well.)

Then, almost 30 years later, these plants became Al Queda operatives. And flew the planes into the buildings. The rest was history.

So devilishly cunning, these Zionists!!!!

 

[Doug1943]

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the bankrupting of Russia and the beginning of our financial spiral downward, some of us were hoping for a "peace dividend" or at least a break in the madness. It never came. To further understand the emergence of the neo cons that continued the prosecution of war it is helpful to move the timeline back to at least WW2, when the OSS were courting Rhinehard Gehlen, the head of Nazi intelligence. After the war, he was recruited into the newly formed CIA, successor to the OSS as an advisor, to use his in place spy network to spy against the new designated enemy, the USSR. He fed them intel that inflated the threat from the USSR to make him more valuable, and that rocketed the cold war immediately. The necons gathered power and influence, got us invested in Korea, Viet Nam, and nefarious adventures all over the world, mixing business, patriotism, and more over reach under the guise of national security. After the Soviet Union busted out over Afghanistan and we almost did, there was a brief window open where we could step up and make the world a better place, but the new guys, with their Project for a New American Century saw a different opportunity, and they are still with us.

I think you're half right. We didn't go into Korea because of Neo-con influence, and the same for Vietnam.

It's a long story, but we missed a big opportunity at the end of WWI, to take the anti-colonial movement under our wing and discretely support it. But Woodrow Wilson told the various young nationalists from the British and French colonies that his "right of self determination of nations" was just for white people. So they turned to another big power that offered them support. We still had a chance after WWII, but, again, we supported the colonialists.

Our 'Great Contest' with the Soviets was probably inevitable -- we were the only two superpowers. They were born in revolution -- Lenin predicted that war with the capitalist powers was inevitable. And we had Hitler and Munich very much in mind, and Stalin seemed to fit that mold: appease a dictator, try to ignore him ... and see what you get!

Of course the Vietnamese and Chinese Communists were not really socialists ... they're not that stupid. They were nationalists. The Chinese broke with Moscow after a few years, and pretty quickly both ruling parties allowed their hardworking peoples to start making money. They're still one-party states, but that's not so unusual outside the West.

The only important issue now is: what should our foreign/military (same thing, really) be?

 

[Grumblenuts]

/----/ "The article's message appears quite opposed such simplistic treatment."
Say what?

Here, too, Boot’s account falls short. He presents a stark choice between doing too much (forcible regime change) or too little (criticizing human rights abuses). There are many other options for supporting democracy.

I urge him to avoid trading one simplified dogma for another and instead embrace the complex realities of U.S. interests and choices relating to democracy and security as they play out in many countries around the world.

From next article(same link):

I have long admired Boot as a writer. But I fear that like many true believers in a given faith, he has exchanged one dogma for another.

there is a vast middle ground between these simplistic, opposing worldviews, and there is much more history to guide the United States than the examples of Munich and Iraq. What is needed today is not more dogma but better judgment.

From next (Max Boot Responds):

HOW IT SHOULD BE​

I agree with Malinowski that there is a “vast middle ground”

As both Carothers and Malinowski point out, there are many ways that the United States can and should promote democracy and human rights “with humility and restraint.” On that, we can agree.

Okay, or do you need me to hold your hand to guide your illiterate self even more somehow?