|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Obama and McCain - Neck and Neck (8/8/2008 12:05:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
...nope, i have no example of lost intel, but i was only trying to show it as a plausible consequence, not a documented one. Finding such documentation would only be possible with hindsight, and such evidence would be sketchy anyway.
Certainly it's pausible concern. It's a matter of weighing the costs, and the benefits of any foreign policy. You can't please everyone, all the time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
i think you may be mistaken when you characterise those countries who may withdraw some support as 'globally inconsequential'. Even a globally inconsequential country, say the Lebanon, may become highly important regionally......and US foreign policy, like all countries, is contingent on the balance of forces at both a global and regional level.
Excellent point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
The muscular type of foreign policy you describe seems to me to be a short term one. In the long term, consensus and negotiation are more stable than conflict and intimidation. In the long term, a less muscular foreign policy may serve US interests better.....
In theory, I don't disagree with you. Consensus and negotiation are more stable ... in a world order that allows them to be effective.
I think perhaps that you (and others, even more so) mistake "being muscular" (which I'll have to define in detail very soon) with being totally unreasonable and immune to reason and negotiation. It's not. It's the only thing that will get some leaders, and some nations to actually negotiate in good faith.
We in the West tend to forget that other cultures and other nations do not have the same cultural imperatives or beliefs that we do. For some, you only negotiate in lieu of surrender or when you do not have the ability to force your will.
One of the reasons (I believe) that the US and the West is in it's current situation was the growing impression that neither side of the Atlantic had the stomach to play in "their turf", or were willing to spend the national treasure and blood to back up our "ideals" and rhetoric.
"They" thought we were bluffing. So some of "them" decided to call our bluff.
Now, after Bush, any country or group that tries to calculate the possibilities, faces a much higher level of uncertainty.
It was this (I believe) that got North Korea to he negotiating table.
Uncertainty is the core of deterrence, and an absolute requirement for effective negotiations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
However, all this argument is based on my perception of the balances involved. Your perception, based on your own experience, is clearly different. i suppose, as a short hand, you could characterise our positions as old world and new world......only time will tell which of us is the more correct.......
Very true. I suspect they could even be classified as cultural differences, and I suspect that they will worsen over time.
Firm
|
|
|
|
