Trump broke through the moralistic BS of American foreign policy

anatta said:
the nation building afterwards especially in AfPak was morality driven.
But I agree there was also counter-terrorism at play there too.
we should have stuck with Whack A Mole instead of nationbuilding there.

you don't understand that realpolitik is the same as a transactional foreign policy.
It's not a "19th century dead concept"wherever you got that from

You don't understand why we went into Libya -the Albright operative phrase kicking around the UN then was
" responsibility to protect" (R2P). it was a 100% moral justification to join in their civil war.

we can still espouse democratic values -but not as a driving force for policy
Click to expand...

You don't get to decide this you arrogant fuckstick.
 
anatta said:
Because we don't deal with China as a human rights abuser ( you forgot the Uigers / Xinjiang reeducation camps)
we deal with them as a malign military power and global hegemon, and as a trade partner
Click to expand...

None of which makes them a good example.=
 
anatta said:
Donald Trump, for all of the man's considerable faults, may well end up doing a bit of good — by forcing defenders of America's bipartisan foreign policy consensus to reflect critically on the foolishness that so often follows from their moralistic assumptions.

The president views international relations in transactional terms. Those who are most committed to a highly moralized version of American foreign policy find this offensive and like to describe it as amoral or even anti-moral. But the source of the objection isn't immediately obvious. In any transaction, one balances one's own good against those on the other side. The goal is gaining advantage for oneself. When an American president deals with the other nations of the world, we should hope and assume that he's doing so with the overriding aim of advancing the good of the United States.

Yet a significant segment of elite opinion in the United States is exceedingly uncomfortable with thinking in such self-interested terms.
Instead, these opinion-makers believe the U.S. should think of itself as a moral actor using its military and economic power for noble ends. That sounds nice, and if the U.S. were an individual human being, it might well lead to acts of admirable, heroic self-sacrifice. But political communities are not individuals. Their elected leaders cannot escape the need to justify their actions on the world stage in terms of how they benefit the country — whose citizens fund and die in the wars the moralists so nobly justify.

This conflict between pursuing the good of the nation and the good of the world at large produces the moralistic muddle that is American foreign policy, with the U.S. constantly conflating what's good for itself with what's good for our allies with what's good for those in foreign countries suffering from poverty and oppression with what's good for the world as a whole.

It was this muddle that convinced leading figures from both parties that overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein would be a splendid idea for everyone concerned — for the U.S., for Israel, for the Iraqi people, for the Greater Middle East, and for global order more generally. This turned out to be wrong in just about every single respect.

Very similar, if less catastrophic, mistakes have led the U.S. to expend blood and treasure in Afghanistan for a stupefying 17 years and counting. They led Barack Obama to reproduce the errors of Iraq in Libya. They've led leading politicians and pundits to spend much of the last six years clamoring for the U.S. to intervene more forcefully in the Syrian civil war.

Over and over again the same arguments are made:
Something bad is happening; we need to do something about it militarily; doing something about it is automatically in our interests, because our interests can't possibly clash with our values (or vice versa); if we fail to do something about it, then anything bad that transpires after our refusal to act can be attributed to our failure of nerve; and finally, if we act and things turn out badly (as they nearly always do), this is merely a product of faulty execution, which can and will be fixed the next time, and never a consequence of the overriding moral imperative (to do something) itself.

It is this string of faulty assumptions that Trump's amoral transactionalism promises to break.

Now, it's true that Trump could easily stumble into new wars due to incompetence. And there's no denying he's continued the wars he inherited; we're still in Afghanistan, and still funding Saudi Arabia's proxy war with Iran in Yemen. But so far, at least, there are no new Iraqs or Libyas on the horizon. And that's a very encouraging development.

For the first time in a very long time, the man occupying the Oval Office appears to be almost totally unmoved by moral appeals in dealing with the rest of the world. That understandably troubles many, and if it motivated him to launch wars of outright plunder (to "take the oil" perhaps), it would be a cause for serious concern and stringent opposition.

But the stark and troubling fact is that the U.S. has an extremely bad habit of starting wars (and spreading chaos and bloodshed) with the very best of moral intentions. If Trump can help us to break that habit, laying the foundations for a foreign policy grounded in greater realism and restraint, it will be a very good thing indeed.
http://theweek.com/articles/802111/how-trump-broke-through-moralistic-bs-american-foreign-policy
Click to expand...

A global expansion of the GOP mantra:

"I got mine, you can go FUCK yourself".

I mean, who cares if human beings on the other side of the planet are being slaughtered as long as we are okay?

Heartless and selfish.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
A global expansion of the GOP mantra:

"I got mine, you can go FUCK yourself".

I mean, who cares if human beings on the other side of the planet are being slaughtered as long as we are okay?

Heartless and selfish.
Click to expand...
because our wars of interventionism have gone so well? :palm:

absent that do what we do with China and the rest of the bad actors ; realpolitik
 
anatta said:
no more mindless interventionism -realpolitik instead. Trump's genius is "America First" policy
Click to expand...

Trump supported invading Iraq.
Trump supported the Libya intervention.
Trump expanded our military intervention in Afghanistan.
Trump expanded our military footprint in Syria and committed us to an open-ended intervention there.
Trump has been heard repeatedly asking staff about the possibility of invading Venezuela.
 
Creeper said:
Trump supported invading Iraq.
Trump supported the Libya intervention.
Trump expanded our military intervention in Afghanistan.
Trump expanded our military footprint in Syria and committed us to an open-ended intervention there.
Trump has been heard repeatedly asking staff about the possibility of invading Venezuela.
Click to expand...

You harass and stalk women. Why should anyone listen to you?
 
America "the shining light on the hill" should be just as cold, ruthless and immoral as Russia and middle east countries. Ok, if that is what you aspire to, have at it. I want more. I really think we should try to a higher level of ethics and morality. Rightys say, I am a religious person who does not give a shit about other people. Kill them if it feels good or is convenient. For Repubs the idea of America the ethical and moral standard is gone. I know we did mostly lip service to that, but I still wanted us to be different. people from all over admired the American ideals. Forgetaboutit.
 
Nerdberg said:
America "the shining light on the hill" should be just as cold, ruthless and immoral as Russia and middle east countries. Ok, if that is what you aspire to, have at it. I want more. I really think we should try to a higher level of ethics and morality. Rightys say, I am a religious person who does not give a shit about other people. Kill them if it feels good or is convenient. For Repubs the idea of America the ethical and moral standard is gone. I know we did mostly lip service to that, but I still wanted us to be different. people from all over admired the American ideals. Forgetaboutit.
Click to expand...

You really think America is more 'moral' than any other nation? You poor, deluded sap.
 
Nordberg said:
America "the shining light on the hill" should be just as cold, ruthless and immoral as Russia and middle east countries. Ok, if that is what you aspire to, have at it. I want more. I really think we should try to a higher level of ethics and morality. Rightys say, I am a religious person who does not give a shit about other people. Kill them if it feels good or is convenient. For Repubs the idea of America the ethical and moral standard is gone. I know we did mostly lip service to that, but I still wanted us to be different. people from all over admired the American ideals. Forgetaboutit.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of this. But we got the bill of rights right. That's something.
 
Legion said:
You don't get to support the DEMOCRAT Party and pretend to be morally superior to anyone. Grow up.
Click to expand...

You kidding? The. repubs are the nastiest, anti-citizen, pro-wealthy and corporations party we have ever had. It is anti-minority , anti women, pro rich old white man. It fights the people's healthcare, the min wage and a fair judicialsystem. You are so nuts and as usual dead wrong.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Secretary Clinton wouldn't have put despicable troglodytes like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
As bad as she was, not voting for her was an assault on the Republic--essentially treason in my view.
Click to expand...

No, she would have put in more Leftist whackjobs like Ginzburg, Kagan, and Soto. The we would have had to increase the size of the court to ensure a Conservative majority, as it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top