Thursday, October 27, 2011

Idiotic American Foreign Policy

Normally this blog deals with the coming Great Depression so foreign policy is a bit of a stretch. We have just helped kill the leader of Libya. Not much of a big deal, but we did it so these people could have Democracy. That country is totally devoid of any social institutions so there will be no Democracy, the guy with the most bullets will be the new President. Of course if your currency becomes suddenly worthless, you are pretty much in the midst of a depression. Life in Libya looks rather brutal for the foreseeable future.

We are getting out of Iraq. Great idea; Christmas comes early for Iran. There is turmoil in Palestine, Jordan and Egypt; Israel could go bananas and nuke Iran or vice versa.

Oil ties the US to the Middle East; water ties the Middle East people to the land. The real key is not oil, but rather water. Iran and Turkey, China and South East Asia, are building dams that could start a war over water; the hell with the people downstream.

Then in Pakistan, we send a woman (Hillary) (where women are considered property) to tell them how to run their government. Great for women’s lib, but who are we kidding, the Pakistanis would like to chain her up in a basement and teach her what the slang term "airtight" means. These people are not going to listen to a woman, more to the point; they feel insulted having to deal with her.

The US press is selling their readers this "goodie two shoes" idealistic policy of spreading Democracy to the world. The reason we lost in Viet Nam, was because the average farmer could point to his family and land, but he could not point to Democracy. Democracy does not come from the masses who have nothing, but rather from those who have a position of wealth that needs to be preserved. Democracy is not an option for the Middle East; they have always taken what they have wanted. Might is right.

U.S foreign policy towards Libya has been very irresponsible; we can't shoot first and then think about it. Getting rid of Qaddafi accomplished nothing. His supply of stinger missiles is now on the auction block. Leaving Iraq without some advisory troops begs Iran to move in. Obama needs to send Hillary home with a box of cigars for Bill. And while he's at it, he mise well paint a bull's eye on Air Force One. The score is Obama 3 Arabs 0. I feel that the game is only pausing for the half time activities. Got Stingers?

11 comments:

frakrak said...

Jim glad you "strayed" into foreign policy, agree with all! Did you see your Secretary of State in her interview laughing and making the statement "we came, we saw, he died" (ex Libyan leaders demise) pretty pee poor from your leadership.
China is sitting in the background, building dams and hospitals in Africa, while your saddled with that rabble .....

dearieme said...

"Christmas comes early for Iran": six hundred and umpty-um years too early.

Drewbert said...

Pakistan has had a woman leader while the U.S. has not.

Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister from 1988-90 and again from 1993-96.

Shift said...

Sounds to me like a lot of complaining, but no solutions. Personally, I am sick and tired of the Middle East. I do not care what happens to the place. We have made some very strong statements regarding terrorist activities (read: blew-up a lot of people and stuff) and can wait for the Middle Eastern people to decide if they want some more "strong statements". Their call.

I have a question: What do you propose to do with the Middle East?

The way I see it:
For outsiders, it is a waste of time to try and create positive change in the Middle East. Instead, we can watch them stumble along while hoping they make the right decision.

America is not responsible for running the affairs of all other countries. Sometimes, the best thing for America to do is nothing.

At this time, there should exist no doubt about the ability and resolve of the American people to destroy their enemies. If you have doubts about the reaction of the American people to terrorist aggression, then there is not much that can be said to change your point of view (but doubting the American people is patently silly).

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Shift

No argument from me. We don't need to be in that part of the world. Maybe I didn't make it clear, Democracy is not an option in the Middle East, just as is the issue of womans suffrage.

You can't mix religion and politics and expect constructive results.

Anonymous said...

If everyone in the middle east had an iPad and a non-censored internet connection, I think the problems would take care of themselves in a few years.

raptor said...

@8:43
Exactly, just Interent and send mcdonalds and walmart to open stores there and in 5 years everything would have been fine...

goodrich4bk said...

Jim, I don't know where you got the idea that NATO got involved to establish a democracy. As with every military action, there is the stated reason and the real reason. In Iraq, the stated reason was WMD, in Afghanistan it was Al Queda cells. In both cases, the real reason was geo-politics, ie., the need for our country to ensure a stable supply of oil. In Libya, the stated reason was to protect the civilian population from violence. The real reason was to encourage a populist movement that might topple a troublesome dictator.

From all of the reporting I have seen so far, the average Libyan loves Americans and is greatful to NATO and its member states for the help. We have yet to see, though, whether this can be translated into stable supplies of sweet crude. It will be an interesting contrast to Iraq, where the promised pipelines never materialized because the cost of maintaining a necessary military footprint was simply too high. I think it will be at least a decade before we know which method --- a physical invasion to establish a short term puppet government vs. a soft invasion that gives us less control over the ulimate governing mechanisms --- was the most cost effective. Until then,I'm afraid your speculation and others' is just more political posturing.

goodrich4bk said...

Jim, I was so taken aback by your assumption that NATO's purpose was to establish a democracy (rather than to protect Europe's sweet crude source from a troublesome dictator) that I never read the other nuggets in your post. Like the odd idea that "Democracy does not come from the masses who have nothing, but rather from those who have a position of wealth that needs to be preserved." I almost fell out of my chair. Compare India and China. The former adopted democracy long before they had anything to preserve. The latter still hasn't adopted democracy even though they are now the third largest economy in the world.

I agree that a merchant class is usually the best antidote to totalitarianism and that depots will ofter destroy their merchant class as a prelude to eliminating free elections. See, e.g., Chavez and Castro. But the world is not such a simple place and I believe your conservative bromides are not at all useful in chosing among several foreign policy alternatives.

As just one example, another commenter astutely noted that your critique of Hillary Clinton (that she was not the person to send to Pakistan because the Pakistanis don't respect women) was just plain stupid. That country twice elected a woman as Prime Minister, and India also had a female Prime Minister.

You really need to get out more, Jim.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Goodrich4bk

What I was pointing out about Democracy is the fallacy people in the US have about how easy it is to give the world Democracy. I fought in Viet Nam and know the reality of war. You can't sell the masses something they can't point to. Democracy is an abstraction. Even in the United States the fabric of Democracy and its founding concepts have been stretched to absurd limits.


My Dad when he was alive use to travel to Lahore Pakistan for a month each year to visit with relatives of the Bhutto family that he met in San Francisco. He was incredulously amazed at the poverty there. You only saw the very rich and the very poor. He found it very difficult to spend $100 a month there.

Women in the Middle East, are property and have no rights. If you have a lot of money, then it's different. And very very few do.

So I suggest that maybe you need to expand your horizons and look to other newspapers,that cover the world that the US newspapers feel unfit to print

Pakistan is a time bomb and they have NUKES.

frakrak said...

If you sit back and think about the state of play in the world at the moment, you may get that horrible "sinking feeling," the months ahead are going to be momentous for all.

Democracy may not be all that important at the moment, where order and the avoidance of war should be prioritised!

Western leadership may not be up to the task! The U.S. may still avoid both if you have someone that can get your population back on side!