MikeJ said:
You talk about mixed signals a lot. Can you define what you mean by that? What constitutes a mixed signal?
It can be difficult to define the policies of some of our allies. For example: in 1999 the United States, along with several allies decided to launch OPERATION: ALLIED FORCE to stop Slobodan Milosevic’s campaign in Kosovo. A year later, tens of thousands of people lined the streets of London to greet President Clinton.
In 2003, the United States, along with several allies launched OPERATION: IRAQI FREEDOM, which in part had the objective of stopping Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror. Several months later, President Bush arrives in London and is greeted by tens of thousands of protesters.
I’m certain people will point out the differences between the two operations. It wasn’t NATO’s stated mission to depose Milosevic. However, in reality, the US and her allies were discussing a ground invasion, which ultimately would have led to regime change.
Another counter-argument would be to use Bush’s reason for not using military action against to bring down North Korea or Iran. Different situations require different strategies, while this is true; it still leaves room for considerable debate.
The honest answer of course is stopping Slobodan Milosevic was in the best interest of the wider majority. I agree with this. The world was better off without him, and I’m glad we did something to knock that smirk off his face (referring to interview he gave to the BBC or CNN). Yet, again, there is room for discussion. Iraq is located in strategically vital region. Isn’t it in everyone’s best interest to get rid of Saddam and hopefully establish a better government?
Another example of mixed signals is the policy the EU used in late 2003. Bush informed a number of our allies he would take the case to the UN, and everyone basically said they would not support it. However, if the US kept the Iran issue out of the General Assembly, they would work with us.
Yet, time and again, the media blast the US for not cooperating with the UN. I don’t blame the EU members completely. Given Bush’s track record, I would also be reluctant to commit my country to an UN Resolution which could later be used to justify military action. However, the American people only see a bunch of hypocrites condemning the US for the very policies they encourage.
In all fairness, I should point out America is also guilty of sending mixed signals. Part of the reason why countries appear to apply contradicting policies is because they are trying to address confusing American foreign policies. When in front of cameras, Bush speaks of wider co-operation on a number of issues. However, behind closed doors he wants Iraq to be “America’s Success.”
A deeper problem is how the US and many in Western Europe see democracy itself. As I pointed out in another threat, West Europe resembles the America of about the late 1940’s through 1950’s, ideal wise. A series of successes has created extreme idealism in what can be achieved and how. People seem to believe we can work together peacefully to encourage the group of democracy and freedom. This is best described as liberal internationalism, partly because it hold’s what Richard Gardner once called
”the intellectual and political tradition that believes in the necessity of leadership by liberal democracies in the construction of a peaceful world order.”
After Vietnam, the American people began to realize that the expansion of democracy was anything, but peaceful. Congressional Hearings and several scandals revealed the true detail of how democracy was constructed. While America still holds that the goals of promoting democracy should first be pursued peacefully, it now recognized that this is not always the case.
The only chance Iraq, Iran, Congo, and elsewhere have at freedom is by the will to use force to remove obstacles. While I realize some here believe the Iraqi people are not free, we should not mitigate the reality that if it weren’t for invasion, Iraq had no real chance at deliverance.
Like America in the 1950’s, people don’t know, or want to know just how peace is being established. Bush for all his faults, uncovered the truth by invading Iraq. I think people have a problem with that. America’s overall perception about world peace is closer to reality than that being offered by other world leaders. We’re not going be able to talk our way through all this crap. The only time man is reasonable is when he has no other choice. The world order will be filled with bodies and blood.
As Martin pointed out, we Americans might also be living in a past. Bush seems to believe the US is so powerful we can do what we want when we want. He and many neo-conservatives fear “not being superpowers.” Bush is so determined to fight for everything; he is setting a course to leave us with nothing. For all our power, the US can be rendered obsolete real quit. The fastest way to create enemies from friends is to keep him from progressing. I often find myself thinking why Bush is so determined to alienate America when all he has is give people an opportunity. No one really wants America’s job. I wish he would analyze it that way.
Dicke Bertha said:
Deltapooh your're a sensible guy. I have been drinking tonight but what the mighty hell is this. How the heck am I a benefictor of American goodity, I have no wish fot a Saddamite president. Finally all you damnos yanks get off it it is not with us or against us; many true friends of America are really really scared and lost now about the ways of the US. Get that. The US simply is not hte provider of good anymore as it might have been seen o decade ago. Read Jamiams post, with the review, right on spot. Europe is a US allied, if you will let us be, as differnet as we are (we Europeans)
The US didn’t get arrogant overnight. That came about when people all over time and again said “let America work it out” or “we’ll wait and see what the US does.” In Bush’s mind, he doesn’t have to listen to a bunch of countries that have already proven their inability to dominate global events.
The international community must be more willing to seize the initiative. That doesn’t mean they go out and engage the US. However, it does mean expanding the global projection platforms to ensure recognition. Physical support will ensure the US has no other choice, but to acknowledge your importance in global affairs. It won’t come from how many troops you commit or the amount you spend toward US led efforts either. People need to rethink and focus on making an impact that is both within their capacity, and as well as productive.
I’m not sure how to go about this. Although as an American I would pray it doesn’t require directly engaging my country.
I’ve made clear time and again that I support internationalism. And I’m not afraid to admit the US isn’t demonstrating supreme leadership. However, I am trying to offer some insight into what I see as fundamental problems and offer solutions.