Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT Editorial Pages Form Circular Firing Squad on Obama's Foreign Policy (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The American people, however, (11+ / 0-)

    in poll after poll, dont want keep pouring their limbs and their money into 'internationalism.' Becuase the return on investment is rather shitty. We should welcome this development as the silver lining of our foreign adventures in this new century.

    I worry little about how events in obscure corners of the world affect some small, regional interest of some very wealthy multinational corporations. Weve got too many of our own problems to keep getting involved in shit that has nothing to do with us.

    The time of 'bear any burden' was for a nation that was internally strong, unified,  and prosperous. Until such a new time comes about, im all for 'bear no burden.'

    So much as President Obama keeps us out of costly conflicts and ridiculous quagmires, he has done his job well.

    •  Incremental defense expenditures should be... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jay C, AlexDrew, brooklynbadboy, buffie

      ..focused on Southeast Asia.

      The military pact that President Obama agreed to with the Philippines this week is but the start.

      Contain China, not Russia.

      If Germany doesn't perceive Russia as a threat, neither should we.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:39:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If there is to be a major conflict with a foreign (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marsanges, PatriciaVa

        power, it is likely to be China or possibly North Korea. Our security interests there are extensive, considering at some point we will have to redefine our trade relationship with China to their detriment. So it is wise for us to decrease our focus on land wars in Europe, covert wars in the Middle East, our mindless obsession with Israel's security issues, and put the focus where it belongs..East Asia.

        Id be all for shifting Defense resources away from the Special Forces, Air Force and the Army, to the Marine Corps and Navy. No more carriers, more subs and missle destroyers. More Naval rapid deployment capability. And a shitload more drones.We could do all that at much less cost than what we spend now on fighting the last century's wars.

        •  It depends on what you mean. (0+ / 0-)

          I don't mean the sort of internationalism where you try and dictate to the other side like we are right now. Or the kind where you create a nuclear arms race to see who blinks first.

          "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

          by Eternal Hope on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:11:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, what I mean is the general counterweight (0+ / 0-)

            to nationalism. Because what we have seen from our experiment in internationalism is that it causes internal divides among what are still nation-states. This is why so many world leaders outside of the Wester n Collective Security Area have such a hard time keeping internal order. The institutions of internationalism...the UN, the WTO, the World Bank,the IMF...have all been awful. What we see that actually works is something like NATO, collective security that buttresses the nation-state concept, not dispenses with it arbitrarily. NATO brought peace and cooperation throughout Europe. All the other international institutions have cause a sharp rise in internal disorder or authoritarianism in mucn of the nations outside of it.

            I dont doubt that we will evolve from the nation-state concept at some point, but we certainly aren't there yet in most of the world, just emerging from colonial rule. Most of the worlds nation-states are fairly new. Very few more than 200 years old. We should make collective security our guide star and save internationalism for a future time.

            •  Collective security is important. (0+ / 0-)

              The UN could be a powerful collective security tool (as evidenced by the First Gulf War) when nations are able to put their differences aside to stop a common threat. The WTO, World Bank, and IMF have been hijacked by a right-wing agenda that has nothing to do with raising the standards of working people. The crisis in Ukraine made NATO relevant again after people were starting to question it after Iraq and Afghanistan.

              "The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression." - W.E.B. Du Bois Be informed. Fight the Police State.

              by Eternal Hope on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:33:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Kuwait is actually a case in point. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Eternal Hope

                The whole place is barely governable if youve been keeping up with events sice the wars. A medeival, corrupt monarchy buttressed by American military power. While at the same time funding some of worst terrorist elements in the world, keeping the entire middle east unstable. That country could be a case study in fucking up with internationalism.

              •  NATO was never irrellevant. (0+ / 0-)

                Know why? Because no memeber has ever attacked each other, and no non-member has ever attacked a member. It works just as it should.

                What is irrellevant is the useless UN Security Council. Becauseit has no unified military commandto enforce anything it says, even when  it is able to agree. Which is why none of the major powers give a shit when they want to act outside of it. The General Assembly is even more powerless and useless.

                NATO works. Other nations should emulate that, not the UN.

                •  Greece and Turkey have (6+ / 0-)

                  Engaged in military conflict, and almost gone to war many times,

                  Incidents
                  On 18 June 1992, a Greek Mirage F1CG crashed near the island of Saint Eustratius in the Northern Aegean, during a low-altitude dogfight with two Turkish F-16's. Greek pilot Nikolaos Sialmas was killed in the crash.
                  On 8 October 1996, a pair of Greek Mirage 2000's intercepted a pair of Turkish F-16's over the Aegean. One of the Turkish F-16's was shot down by a Greek Mirage 2000 piloted by Thanos Grivas.[20] Turkish pilot Nail Erdoğan was killed whereas back seater pilot Osman Cicekli bailed out and was rescued by a Greek helicopter.
                  On 23 May 2006, a Greek F-16 and a Turkish F-16 collided approximately 35 nautical miles south off the island of Rhodes, near the island of Karpathos during a Turkish reconnaissance flight.[21][22] Greek pilot Kostas Iliakis was killed, and the Turkish pilot Halil İbrahim Özdemir bailed out and was rescued by a cargo ship.
                  They both joined in 1952.

                  Since 1950, it has been proposed 43 times that the UNSC establish a permanent standing Military Force, (through both the UNSC, and the UN General Council), and each time, it is vetoed by the same three permenent members of the UNSC, France, Britain and the United States.

                  •  I stand corrected! Well done. nt (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    buffie
                    •  NATO is on of those, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lepanto

                      Self perpetuating bureaucracies, when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact collapsed, rather than dissolving, they created new reasons to exist.

                      It get's harder and harder for them every year as military costs skyrocket and budgets are cut back as economies retract.

                      NATO is pretty much the reason why the EU does not have an integrated or collective military force,

                      And is one of the reasons why the UN will never have a permenent military force.

                      The "winners" of WWII basically stacked the deck, and now that the world is changing, with new economic powers rising and the old Empires collapsing, they are more and more, becoming an impediment to peacefully change.

                      Every prior shift in economic dominance resulted in a World War, because of old alliances constructed when the power paridigm was different.

                      •  NATO predates the Warsaw Pact. (0+ / 0-)

                        Incorrect to say it was founded as a response to the Warsaw Pact. It was the other way round. The EU has no such components because EU couldnt agree on such a military treaty on its best day. Furthermore, NATO would likely be much cheaper due to its financing accorded by relative GDP. Why reinvent the wheel? NATO works.

                        NATO's military budget for 2013 was 1.4 Billion Euro. Its a pittance relative to aggregate GDP of its members. NATO isnt busting any western nations budget, including ours. Tax cuts are.

                        However, youre right about power shifts and war. Which is why I would say if there is a war, it will be with China and its allies. I think that would be the test when we will say if NATO can hold up. But as of today, the international order is relatively stable since World War 2. The white, western nations make the international rules and most nations more or less abide by them. NATO members still spends 70% of the worlds military budget. That wont change completely until the rest of the world has enough consumers to sustain their economies. But as of today, they perform much of the same function they performed prior to the war, supplying goods to western markets. That will keep things more or less quiet for thr foreseeable future.

                        •  Never said it was founded (0+ / 0-)

                          As a response to the Warsaw Pact,

                          I said that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, it lost it's reason  d'ettere,

                          But like all large and powerfull bureaucracies, found other reasons to exist.

                          For a recent example, Lybia. NATO Nations got a no-fly zone over Lybia through  the UNSC, which was seamlessly morphed into an Air Support of the Lybian Rebels, with no UNSC support. The mission was transformed, with hardly anybody noticing .

      •  But does China need "containment"? (8+ / 0-)

        I don't see China amassing troops and being about to invade any of its neighbors, let alone, say, California.

        Why do we always have to portray economic and commercial competition in terms of military rivalry? Why need we see another country's economic prosperity as a military threat?

        If we want to "contain" China we should do something about our obsolete infrastructure and try to revive our collapsing manufacturing, not build more carriers and have them cruise around the south east Asian seas at enormous, wasteful expense.

        We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

        by Lepanto on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:13:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site