What are the chances, that the US society will kickstart a process to reprocess the era which led to the Iraq war?
Where is Obama's change in foreign policy, has he resigned himself to the comprehension, that it is a very big fight to change the course against the foreign policy establishment? Against a lot of powerful groups in US's foreign policy establishment waiting to label him a Communist, Muslim, Jew-Hater?
The White House even had to give statements about Obama not being a Muslim.
The White House obviously was forced by developments within society to give statements, that Obama is a Christian.
There are some patterns in majority of American's psyche (at least on this board, especially on this board), which are recognizable and which give an overall insight into where US society is moving to.
So, how could the Europeans be so naive to award Obama the prestigious peace-prize? Where is the momentum of 'Change' with which Obama came into office and with which Obama has been awarded the peace-price on the theoretical basis of expected change?
Is Obama playing for his 2nd term and delays 'change' so his chances for the 2nd term aren't lowered?
If so, will it even matter whether 'change' finally arrives some years later in America? Change is happening /everyday/weekly/monthly in the world independent from the USA and increasingly against American interests.
And what should the outside world make out of Americans who portray themselves as some kind of morale leaders, but there is no process happening in America to reprocess the pre-Iraq time.
And obviously the US society doesn't want change in Guantanamo also.
In places like Palestine anyway not.
After a decade of using the instruments of hard-power, do you think, that the places where you projected that hard-power into will be receptive for your soft-power?
Or has 'showing open sympathy towards the USA' by US's guys in the region has become totally counter-productive for these guys?
Do you think, that it is possible, that people in the intelligentsia who sympathized with the 'American way of life' and who live in those countries have realized, that the US influence simply needs to be kicked out of their countries? Bridges can only accommodate a certain level of hard-power rolling over them, after that, those bridges will simply collapse. Bridge-builders you are certainly not.
If you ask me, what 'change' means:
1. completely redeploying out of the region
2. Analyzing the effect of past decade's hard-power on US position in the world
3. re-adjusting the US's use of privileges the US has in institutions like UN when it comes to the issue of Palestine. The USA grants a de-facto umbrella of unaccountability to Israel.
So, which way will you go? Adjusting to the reality, that world is changing or hanging on to a conviction, that the USA is still the same potent USA of the last century with healthy finances, facing a receptive world audience for American soft-power?
You are not the first in mankind's history who had to step back (out of free will or forcefully) from its undisputed position within the world system.
There is no Abracadabra to make the USA financially healthy over night and to stop the fast-pace development of the rest of the world, so that you can regain your once held position.
Will you adjust or will you 'stay the course' which will lead your position to become one of a reactionary crisis-manager, whose influence is pushed back one by one in this world's regions.
If the Greater Middle-East is important to American interests (it obviously is), how do you expect, that countries, which are increasingly switching to the concept of population's administrative sovereignty, will be seeking preferential relations with you?
You were the inheritor of the Brit/French system of Oil-Colonialism in this region and obviously you held-up a system, which turned out to be a system which consolidates non-democratic repressive regimes.
3. is also the HEARTS issue which unites Muslims all over the world independent of ethnicities and intra-religious strains.
The USA should have bombed Afghanistan in 2001, then the USA should have been implementing a more European (pragmatist) roadmap to bring real change to the region. This the USA could've achieved with preferential relations to certain countries, including free Muslim countries. But this would've meant to overthrow the US backed system in the not-free Muslim countries. See that logic?
Instead, the USA invaded Iraq with bogus claims.
Switched to 'either with us or against us'-mentality, and another invasion of a country of the 'Axis of Evil' was simply prevented by complications witnessed in Iraq.
So, how will the USA come to peace with the 'Muslim world'?
Once the USA isn't the prettiest guy anymore in this world (we're going this direction) and has been pushed back, will the USA simply live side-by-side with a still growing 1.X Billion portion of this world, who have the remembrance of 2 of their brother-countries being invaded and stories like Abu-Ghraib and Gaza passing from generation to generation?
Where is Obama's change in foreign policy, has he resigned himself to the comprehension, that it is a very big fight to change the course against the foreign policy establishment? Against a lot of powerful groups in US's foreign policy establishment waiting to label him a Communist, Muslim, Jew-Hater?
The White House even had to give statements about Obama not being a Muslim.
The White House obviously was forced by developments within society to give statements, that Obama is a Christian.
There are some patterns in majority of American's psyche (at least on this board, especially on this board), which are recognizable and which give an overall insight into where US society is moving to.
So, how could the Europeans be so naive to award Obama the prestigious peace-prize? Where is the momentum of 'Change' with which Obama came into office and with which Obama has been awarded the peace-price on the theoretical basis of expected change?
Is Obama playing for his 2nd term and delays 'change' so his chances for the 2nd term aren't lowered?
If so, will it even matter whether 'change' finally arrives some years later in America? Change is happening /everyday/weekly/monthly in the world independent from the USA and increasingly against American interests.
And what should the outside world make out of Americans who portray themselves as some kind of morale leaders, but there is no process happening in America to reprocess the pre-Iraq time.
And obviously the US society doesn't want change in Guantanamo also.
In places like Palestine anyway not.
After a decade of using the instruments of hard-power, do you think, that the places where you projected that hard-power into will be receptive for your soft-power?
Or has 'showing open sympathy towards the USA' by US's guys in the region has become totally counter-productive for these guys?
Do you think, that it is possible, that people in the intelligentsia who sympathized with the 'American way of life' and who live in those countries have realized, that the US influence simply needs to be kicked out of their countries? Bridges can only accommodate a certain level of hard-power rolling over them, after that, those bridges will simply collapse. Bridge-builders you are certainly not.
If you ask me, what 'change' means:
1. completely redeploying out of the region
2. Analyzing the effect of past decade's hard-power on US position in the world
3. re-adjusting the US's use of privileges the US has in institutions like UN when it comes to the issue of Palestine. The USA grants a de-facto umbrella of unaccountability to Israel.
So, which way will you go? Adjusting to the reality, that world is changing or hanging on to a conviction, that the USA is still the same potent USA of the last century with healthy finances, facing a receptive world audience for American soft-power?
You are not the first in mankind's history who had to step back (out of free will or forcefully) from its undisputed position within the world system.
There is no Abracadabra to make the USA financially healthy over night and to stop the fast-pace development of the rest of the world, so that you can regain your once held position.
Will you adjust or will you 'stay the course' which will lead your position to become one of a reactionary crisis-manager, whose influence is pushed back one by one in this world's regions.
If the Greater Middle-East is important to American interests (it obviously is), how do you expect, that countries, which are increasingly switching to the concept of population's administrative sovereignty, will be seeking preferential relations with you?
You were the inheritor of the Brit/French system of Oil-Colonialism in this region and obviously you held-up a system, which turned out to be a system which consolidates non-democratic repressive regimes.
3. is also the HEARTS issue which unites Muslims all over the world independent of ethnicities and intra-religious strains.
The USA should have bombed Afghanistan in 2001, then the USA should have been implementing a more European (pragmatist) roadmap to bring real change to the region. This the USA could've achieved with preferential relations to certain countries, including free Muslim countries. But this would've meant to overthrow the US backed system in the not-free Muslim countries. See that logic?
Instead, the USA invaded Iraq with bogus claims.
Switched to 'either with us or against us'-mentality, and another invasion of a country of the 'Axis of Evil' was simply prevented by complications witnessed in Iraq.
So, how will the USA come to peace with the 'Muslim world'?
Once the USA isn't the prettiest guy anymore in this world (we're going this direction) and has been pushed back, will the USA simply live side-by-side with a still growing 1.X Billion portion of this world, who have the remembrance of 2 of their brother-countries being invaded and stories like Abu-Ghraib and Gaza passing from generation to generation?
