George Will "The Price of American Hubris"

• Footwedge

  First Ann Coulter, then Newt Gingrich, and now a third prominent conservative thinker reviews the woes of our forward internationalist policies around the globe citing a very high price that is paid to maintain American exceptional-ism.
  
  George Bush 43 ran in 2000, citing a much more humble foreign policy...that we should not embrace nation building...that we should not police the world.
  
  Ron Paul was mocked off the political stage by Fox news and the right winged AM dial pundits. Only Glenn Beck (was at CNN at the time) would bring Paul on for extensive interviews.
  
  Looks to me that the old schooled Republicans, like DD Ike are making a resurgence in the mainstream Republican party.
  
  It's good news for America...and it's even better news for the prospects of a more peaceful world.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071404223_pf.html
• believer

  

  ^^^More peaceful world? Are you implying that only Republicans are warhawks? Do you really believe that "a resurgence in the mainstream Republican Party" will actually help create peace around the world? Seriously?
  
  I don't think al Qaeda - for example - gives a rat's ass who runs the Republican Party.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;425544 wrote:It's good news for America...and it's even better news for the prospects of a more peaceful world.

  I was with you until this ridiculous statement. This idea we are the problem in the world is utter nonsense. Are we perfect? No. But the idea that the nations of the world will get together and sing kumbaya once the big bad USA learns to mind its own business only displays ones ignorance of human history. Foot you are a smart guy. Surely you can't really believe this. Surely you just had a little too much to drink while reading George Will's article and got too excited about another conservative jumping off the bus.
  
  The world was not a peaceful place before we got ourselves involved in it and it will not be after we have had enough. In fact if we were to just say the hell with it right now and bring everyone home and just mind our own business. It would immediately become a more violent place. Our pulling out would create a vacuum of power that countless nations would violently seek to fill.
• Footwedge

  OK...Believer and Sparky haven't changed their stance on the ME wars like fellow conservatives Ann, Newt and George have. It will take time...but the landscape is changing for the GOP base. Just as there were immeasurable costs and loss of human life in S Korea and Vietnam, it took republican administrations to finally stop the nonsense.
  
  In the meantime, the US has sent tens of millions of cash dollars to Karzai and the leadership of the Agfghan puppet government only to see it disappear before it's intended use was realized. Yet the "liberal" media" never talks about how badly the war is going. And then last month, the military just released the numbers that saw the highest number of soldier suicides ever recorded. Another fact that is buried ourside of the main stream media arm.
  
  40 years ago, the US left Vietnam in so called defeat, after our attempts to spread democracy there had "failed". Yet both Vietnams are now trading with us, and never have any internal civil wars or strifes to deal with. Moreover, the communist regime in Nam somehow has avoided the global economic demise of recent years, and continues to grow their GOP at a nice pace.
  
  But we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan....Even though neither state had even one citizen on those 4 planes that attacked us on 9-11. There were 15 Saudis, 3 from United Arab emirates and one from Jordan. The 9-11 plot was planned in secret meetings in Germany.
  
  Only when the innane thought that "fighting them over there" so that we "don't have to fight them over here" nonsense is shitcanned, can America really start addressing the myriad of domestic problems we face today.
• Footwedge

  believer;425812 wrote:^^^More peaceful world? Are you implying that only Republicans are warhawks?

  Your words not mine.
  

  Do you really believe that "a resurgence in the mainstream Republican Party" will actually help create peace around the world? Seriously?

  That's exactly what I'm saying...and so is Coulter, Newt and George Will.
  

  I don't think al Qaeda - for example - gives a rat's ass who runs the Republican Party.

  
  Of course they don't. It doesn't matter to Al Quada which party invaded and occupies their lands. If we stay, then their recruitment numbers are up...and they kill our soldiers. If we leave the area, then they will leave us alone. It doesn't matter a hoot who the party is.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Wow, I can't believe I read what you wrote about Vietnam.
  
  You have no clue about history. None. Zero. Zip.
  
  That you think we were "trying to bring democracy" to Vietnam negates any credibility about your knowledge of international affairs, and that you think "both Vietnams...never have any internal civil wars or strifes to deal with" should exclude you from all and any talk about foreign relations -- here and elsewhere.
  
  Finally, that you think Al Quada will simply "leave us alone" if we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq is so laughable and puts the cherry on top of your ignorance.
• Mr. 300

  

  Footwedge has a serious wedgy going on right now. To actually say if we pull out of those two countries right now and they'll leave us alone is so ignorant, words can not describe. Looks like everyone should just step aside and let Footwedge make a fool out of himself, as that's the only thing he's doing.
• IggyPride00

  

  Mr. 300;426071 wrote:Footwedge has a serious wedgy going on right now. To actually say if we pull out of those two countries right now and they'll leave us alone is so ignorant, words can not describe. Looks like everyone should just step aside and let Footwedge make a fool out of himself, as that's the only thing he's doing.

  
  Of course they won't leave us alone at this point. We created Al Qaeda and the Taliban "freedom fighters" in the 80's and gave Hekmatyar's, Bin Laden's and other Mujihadeen thugs over there a handbook on how to topple an empire. They are convinced it was Allah, and not U.S financial backing, that helped them bring down the Soviets. That allowed Bin Laden to run around the Middle East recruiting people to his cause because they believed Allah would allow them to run the Americans out of Muslim lands just like they did the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
  
  We got the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and all it cost us was many trillions of dollars, 1,000's of American lives, multiple destabilized governments because of the new wing of radical Islam, and the prospects of a never ending war.
  
  Intervening there was not worth the eventual cost.
  
  Just like overthrowing President Mossadegh of Iran in 1954 as a favor to the British because they were pissed Iran nationalized their oil industry wasn't worth it in the long run. It ultimately led to the overthrow of the government in 79 and the birth of the Islamic revolution was born with America in the crosshairs. Not coincidentally, they happen to fund all the terror groups Israel deals with (something that drives us crazy).
  
  Just like in Afghanistan, none of that happens if we didn't lay the groundwork for it by intervening in other nations affairs when no direct threat to the U.S was present.
  
  Its not a blame America first thing, its an indictment on the idea that America can play world police, serve as moral judge and jury and be all things to all people. The idea of blowback has never once entered into American foreign policy decision making, and because of that we are paying a very very steep price right now.
  
  The big elephant in the room (pardon the pun) that our politicians of both parties have failed to realize is that "American Exceptionalism" as a foreign policy will bankrupt our empire and ultimately render us a second rate power that will be of little or no help to anyone in the future when a real crisis (such as WWII) breaks out and we are really needed.
• believer

  

  IggyPride00;426098 wrote:Its not a blame America first thing, its an indictment on the idea that America can play world police, serve as moral judge and jury and be all things to all people. The idea of blowback has never once entered into American foreign policy decision making, and because of that we are paying a very very steep price right now.
  
  The big elephant in the room (pardon the pun) that our politicians of both parties have failed to realize is that "American Exceptionalism" as a foreign policy will bankrupt our empire and ultimately render us a second rate power that will be of little or no help to anyone in the future when a real crisis (such as WWII) breaks out and we are really needed.

  So what do you suggest we do to deal effectively with the blowback?
  
  We've made the mistake and now we have just about no choice but to carry on. If we withdraw, all the forces you mentioned above will conduct civil war to achieve supremacy in the region and then set its sights on the West. If we stay, we could very easily go bankrupt in the process as you suggest and probably make things even worse in the long haul. No matter what we do or try we will piss someone or some radical group off.
  
  Obama secured his party's nomination by promising the anti-war left he'd withdraw our troops from the region in a year or two. Here we are almost two years into his presidency and what I see is a BHO Administration that sees reality and is struggling with this very same question.
• IggyPride00

  

  believer;426129 wrote:So what do you suggest we do to deal effectively with the blowback?
  
  We've made the mistake and now we have just about no choice but to carry on. If we withdraw, all the forces you mentioned above will conduct civil war to achieve supremacy in the region and then set its sights on the West. If we stay, we could very easily go bankrupt in the process as you suggest and probably make things even worse in the long haul. No matter what we do or try we will piss someone or some radical group off.
  
  Although Obama secured his party's nomination by promising the anti-war left he'd withdraw our troops from the region in a year or two. Here we are almost two years into his presidency and what I see is a BHO Administration that sees reality and is struggling with this very same question.

  
  I agree we can't just leave now that we're there.
  
  My larger point was that America needs to learn to come to grips with the idea that there may be situations on the globe we don't like, but that we need to learn to live with them.
  
  Invariably there will be situations in the future where it will be tempting to try and overthrow or destabilize regimes, or fight proxy wars like we did with the Russians in Afghanistan. We need to avoid them no matter how big of a slam dunk they seem.
  
  We also need to downsize our empire. We have military bases in over 100 countries I think it is. China is kicking our ass in the development of all types of technological and industrial fields because we are spending 100's of billions on weapons, bases and war that aren't doing a damn thing to advance our economy and develop tomorrows technological advances.
  
  It is time to get back to our isolationist roots. I am surprised with the Tea Party coming to power that none of them have picked up on that. Sadly, since WWII, outside of the 1st Gulf War our military engagements and interventionist foreign policy have largely ended up creating more long terms harm for us than good. For every good outcome we get, it is typically associated with at least 1-2 problems that end up being more harmful to us than the status quo had previously been.
  
  Part of the American Hubris/Exceptionalism idea is that we are somehow different. Someone how we will be able to manage an empire without economically crumbling underneath it the way every other empire in history has fallen. It is just madness. I feel like its a bad dream sometimes that you can see unfolding before your eyes but for whatever reason no one changes course even though they know what waits at the end of the cliff.
  
  The days of funding/training gorilla forces so they can eventually take what they learn and turn it against us needs to stop. Removing dictators/unfriendly regimes who pose no tangible threat to us, only to see their neighbors emboldened because they know we're bogged down next door and pose no credible military threat needs to stop. The days of funding and supplying Israel with billions of dollars of weapons (that they use to impose their will on their neighbors) a year so as to alienate an entire region that is already skeptical of us (and home to 70% of the world's known oil reserves) needs to stop.
  
  The days of selling weapons to Taiwan needs to stop. In the future, as China continues to evolve into a major power they day is going to come they are going to (by force) I believe take Taiwan back. This is an example of a fight the U.S needs to stay the hell away from. Defending democracy is great, but it is a perfect example of a situation where we would naturally love to go join the fight as we have the past 50 years where the likely downside so drastically outweighs the possible good that can come from a positive outcome it is not worth butting our noses in.
  
  It should not be the responsibility of the American citizens to pay (through lives and treasure) for the freedom of all the citizens of the world. Only when it is a direct material threat to our national security (not just strategic interests) should we get involved in conflicts. That would be entirely consistent with what our founders envisioned for our foreign policy.
  
  We all know in very concrete terms what the fallout is to all of the actions above, yet I continually hear more of the same from our politicians.
• believer

  

  IggyPride00;426167 wrote:It should not be the responsibility of the American citizens to pay (through lives and treasure) for the freedom of all the citizens of the world. Only when it is a direct material threat to our national security (not just strategic interests) should we get involved in conflicts. That would be entirely consistent with what our founders envisioned for our foreign policy.

  I agree with a vast majority of what you say.
  
  However when it comes to realpolitik, as a world superpower it would be nearly impossible to return to isolationist policies in the long haul particularly when it comes to world situations that have a clear, direct impact on vital national interests. And let's face it, almost anything can be perceived as a threat to our national security with the right spin applied to it.
• I Wear Pants

  Mr. 300;426071 wrote:Footwedge has a serious wedgy going on right now. To actually say if we pull out of those two countries right now and they'll leave us alone is so ignorant, words can not describe. Looks like everyone should just step aside and let Footwedge make a fool out of himself, as that's the only thing he's doing.

  Two things: What threat was Iraq to us in 2003/2004? And what threat would an Iraq be currently if we left?
• Footwedge

  I Wear Pants;426609 wrote:Two things: What threat was Iraq to us in 2003/2004? And what threat would an Iraq be currently if we left?

  Afghanistan either. Neither country even has a military.
• Footwedge

  Mr. 300;426071 wrote:Footwedge has a serious wedgy going on right now. To actually say if we pull out of those two countries right now and they'll leave us alone is so ignorant, words can not describe. Looks like everyone should just step aside and let Footwedge make a fool out of himself, as that's the only thing he's doing.

  
  SMH. I know....Newt Gingrich and George Will have wedgies going on too. I'm still waiting for Vietnam to bomb us and invade us.
• Footwedge

  I too would like to know what Obama's definition of victory is over there. What is the exit strategy? Or is he just like McCain that promotes sending our kids over therer to the slaughter house for another 100 years.
  
  Those that think that Afghanistan would present the slightest threat to us are not thinking clearly at all. I heard the same lame arguments during the Vietnam War.
  
  http://www.fff.org/comment/com1007e.asp
• Footwedge

  And still another ultra conservative pundit has a wedgie on Afghanistan....
  
  "At What Price, Afghanistan?"
  
  "The people of Kandahar apparently do not want U.S. protection any more than they want a battle for the city. And how can President Kharzi win their loyalty when his drug-lord brother, Wali Kharzi, is the Al Capone of Kandahar?."
  
  "For the United States and NATO, however, casualties are rising to the highest levels of the war. June is shaping up as the bloodiest month ever..........."
  
  "While Barack Obama has promised a review of U.S. strategy and policy in December, at the present rate, hundreds more young Americans will by then have given up their lives.
  
  For what?"
  
  http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2010/06/18/what_price_afghanistan/page/1
• jhay78

  

  Footwedge;425544 wrote:
  It's good news for America...and it's even better news for the prospects of a more peaceful world.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071404223_pf.html

  Don' think so.
  

  believer;426396 wrote:I agree with a vast majority of what you say.
  
  However when it comes to realpolitik, as a world superpower it would be nearly impossible to return to isolationist policies in the long haul particularly when it comes to world situations that have a clear, direct impact on vital national interests. And let's face it, almost anything can be perceived as a threat to our national security with the right spin applied to it.

  
  I'll agree with that, but going back to the George Will article, I think even Woodrow Wilson would've agreed with Will (and Footwedge, etc.) until the Germans sank the Lusitania and were caught trying to urge Mexico to declare war on the US in return for Texas, NM, and Arizona as victory spoils.
  
  We can't ever be truly isolationist, but I'll agree with Will and others that a severe drawback is needed. Will has been consistent on this issue, but part of me wonders if Gingrich, Coulter, and others are playing politics now that it's "Obama's War" and not Bush's.
• Footwedge

  jhay78;427111 wrote:Don' think so.
  
  Why? Do you not know how many human beings are being killed in Bananastan daily? Each day? Or how about the daily tally in the 60's in SE Asia? The idea of keeping more wars going to keep peace is as radical as it gets. Will there be bloodshed when we leave? Yes...That's their problem, not ours. Maybe we should go back to Vietnem and finish the job.
  
  
  

  I'll agree with that, but going back to the George Will article, I think even Woodrow Wilson would've agreed with Will (and Footwedge, etc.) until the Germans sank the Lusitania and were caught trying to urge Mexico to declare war on the US in return for Texas, NM, and Arizona as victory spoils.
  
  We can't ever be truly isolationist, but I'll agree with Will and others that a severe drawback is needed. Will has been consistent on this issue, but part of me wonders if Gingrich, Coulter, and others are playing politics now that it's "Obama's War" and not Bush's.

  Great point here....but in my humble opinion, Coulter speaks as a Republican shill and as such, it is all partisan blather. But I believe Buchanan, Newt, and George Will (and even Michael Steele) are thinking with their brains.

• BoatShoes

  Footwedge;427339 wrote:

  jhay78;427111 wrote: Will there be bloodshed when we leave? Yes...That's their problem, not ours.

  
  Is it ever our problem? You're a Ron Paul guy so certainly appreciate the powers and freedoms provided by a free market and a liberalized constitutional democracy grounded in seemingly just philosophical principles. It is undoubtedly true that millions, if not billions, don't enjoy even a semblance of this while we eat ourselves to death freely scootering ourselves around at wal-mart charging all of the worthless crap those beleaguered folks make for us on our credit cards. Do you ever think it's justified for the most powerful nation in the world to use it's power, perhaps supported by a threat of military force to help others experience the same kind of freedoms we enjoy? (Certainly not when we're 15 trillion in debt I agree, but the question still remains).

• Footwedge

  BoatShoes;427344 wrote:

  Footwedge;427339 wrote:
  Is it ever our problem? You're a Ron Paul guy so certainly appreciate the powers and freedoms provided by a free market and a liberalized constitutional democracy grounded in seemingly just philosophical principles. It is undoubtedly true that millions, if not billions, don't enjoy even a semblance of this while we eat ourselves to death freely scootering ourselves around at wal-mart charging all of the worthless crap those beleaguered folks make for us on our credit cards. Do you ever think it's justified for the most powerful nation in the world to use it's power, perhaps supported by a threat of military force to help others experience the same kind of freedoms we enjoy? (Certainly not when we're 15 trillion in debt I agree, but the question still remains).

  That was actually my quote you cited..not jay. My wording probably was not very good...but both Afghanistan and Iraq will have less bloodshed in the long run if we leave. When Russia left in the late 80's, no big deal. They got over it. The same thing would happen if we leave. If the Taliban regains power, so what? Are we ever going to get cuaght with our pnts down again? Never. In fact the number of potential attacks will go way down. It's common sense.
  
  Iraq might be a little different...but not much. Aren't they a democracy now? At least that's what the neocons have been singing. Let them have their elections and figure it out. Again, it is not our problem. Doesn't matter to me if the Shia or the Sunnis rule. Let them haggle over footnotes and interpretations of the Qur'an. They are no threat to us. Never have been.
  
  As an aside....do you think we should invade and occupy Uganda? Sudan? Somalia? Shit going on there too.