|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Obama and McCain - Neck and Neck (8/6/2008 7:21:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
.....just something to add to the discussion between Thadius and Firm, another difference between the candidates will be the tone of their foreign policy. Now, i know that to many Americans this is an obscure and not particulary interesting backroad, but i think its clear that many of the US's allies would much prefer Obama over McCain if only for domestic political reasons. To the extent that the US wants/needs to work internationally it's an important factor.
It is a factor, philo, unfortunately, it's one that you and I likely disagree on.
I prefer a "muscular" US foreign policy. International affairs and politics happens to be one of my areas of advanced studies (although I've not worked in it directly for a long while), and I have somewhat of a different view on it than the average citizen.
Other nations populations approval or disapproval of US policy isn't necessarily an important issue to me, for the most part. Nation-states act in their self -interests, and react to the aspects of power that other nations have, and show the ability and will to exercise. I think the US needs to be seen as ready and willing to protect it's interests vehemently if necessary, as just that perception will make the international arena safer and less likely to see eruptions of small and medium wars.
FYI, there is a great movie (not widely known, or seen) called Harrison Bergeron, based on a (very) short story of Vonnegut's that has a great scene. If I can find the movie for download, I'll extract the scene and upload it to youtube.
Basically, its social commentary using the vehicle of a young man's visit to the future. In this visit, everyone is reduced to "equality". It you are too strong, you have to carry weights around. If you are too intelligent, you have radio transmitter in your ear that occasionally emits loud noises, to confuse your mental processes.
The particular scene that I love has Eugene Levy as the current President of the US. He's basically an idiot: belligerent, hasty, and demanding of other countries of the world, with his finger on the nuclear attack switch.
He is making an outrageous demand on another country that must be met within minutes, or he will launch the nukes. Bergeron is watching with one of the "hidden watchers" who actually control everything, and Bergeron is convinced that a nuclear war is about to start, but the watcher just grins and says "Wait".
Before the deadline expires, the leader of the other nation calls up and capitulates. When Bergeron asks why any nation would give in like that, the watcher basically says "They know the President is crazy enough to do it.".
I'm talking about effective deterrence, and not freely nuking any opposition on the planet (for those other than philo that might take a different message). I think there are several examples of such deterrence today, due to Bush's willingness to use force, and his "stubbornness" in continuing until he decides it's finished: Libya, and Iraq, Syria, and North Korea.
I don't think Libya would have given up their nuclear ambition sans Bush's fortitude, nor would Syria have moved out of Lebanon. North Korea blustered, but in the end, with American troops as a trip wire on their border, and the example of what happened to the regular military forces of Iraq during the invasion (along with a couple of other actions that I think occurred, but disclaimed by the US, such as destroying one of the North Korea test missiles), in the end they came to an agreement.
I think in the Middle East, that almost all the anti-American forces were convinced that the "hollow Americans' would elect Kerry, and cut and run. I think it was a major shock to them when Bush won the election, and kept in the fight.
I think it took a lot of winds out of the sails of those jihadist who were convinced that the US was a paper tiger.
All that would be lost with Obama, if he actually tries to run foreign policy based on "being nice". You can be nice ... if you have the ability and the will not to be nice if you so chose, and your opponent knows this. This is the concept of "speaking softly, and carrying a big stick". It works, and doesn't depend on the "good will" of the populations of other countries who have no ability to project force, and darn slight ability to protect their own borders.
Too much stuff, but I think you get my drift.
Obama's "be nice" foreign policy would be a big set back to American credibility, just as we have built it up to a point of usefulness.
We would get it back, because the result would lead to American humiliations and defeats, and eventually the American people would throw him out, and put in a more "muscular" President. So yes, we would recover. At what costs though?
I suspect McCain is less likely to make the same mistakes.
Firm
|
|
|
|
