A question about the US's place in the world

"so far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."

- from "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience" by John Lewis Gaddis

The quote above suggests that a purposeful and proactive America has strengthened our place in the world, not diminished it. But I have heard a lot of talk that America has squandered its goodwill in the world by going to war in Iraq, which hurts us in the war on terror. What exactly does this mean? Are countries like France and Germany refusing to try and stop terrorists because their governments are pissed at America? I don't believe that for one second. And for all of the complaints that countries will be less likely to support us militarily in the future, I would have to look at the results of recent wars and say that we don't need them much to begin with.

So, somebody explain it to me. How does losing the goodwill of nations who are unwilling to step up and do the right thing undermine US influence or goals?

You are slowly creating isolated environment around yourselves.
Not that much has changed with Bush driving, he simply lacks the style and ""politesse"" that could mask U.S. ignorance of others. US has not so much really friendly partners in the world, actually. America has always been ""I`ll drive, you sit in the backseat"", dont give me crap about ocean of countries rallying behind you. Its interesting to watch how US is operating in UN, bribing and bullying in backstage. Because on lots of issues it simply would not be able to gather support for resolutions.

So, answering your question - could US influence be undermined by losing friendships - answer is no, because you never had any.
Would that add to dislike with one country being the World Cop?
Yup.

No offense to my American firends but when was the last time that America cared ?

I disagree with the quote, ""emerge"" is the wrong word ""re-emerge"" should be used.

Also empire building is a real tricky business just ask the Brits.

Also empire building is a real tricky business just ask the Brits.

If you think that the US is empire building, you really should talk to the Brits, since they would quickly inform you that you don''t know what the word ""empire"" means. Traditionally, the Empirereceivestribute from conquered territory, it doesn''t pour money in...

You are slowly creating isolated environment around yourselves.

I think there is some truth in this, given the attitudes of much of the internation community. But so what? I don''t see other nations failing to fight terrorism or cutting economic ties. So other that Europeans being rude to American tourists, what is the downside?

You are slowly creating isolated environment around yourselves.

I think there is some truth in this, given the attitudes of much of the internation community. But so what? I don''t see other nations failing to fight terrorism or cutting economic ties. So other that Europeans being rude to American tourists, what is the downside?[/quote]

I would lie if I said I know for sure. I should say something poisonous now because I`m the rude vulture waiting for American tourists, after all, but it would be pure speculation, as these issues are far too complex and too long term to be calculated by one person while typing answer on forums.

In a long term it could backlash in some specific political situation. Maybe. Maybe not and it will be only rude souvenire shop keepers in Europe.

Empire building what I was led to believe is extending the empire to new territories like what happened in India way back, Installing loyal gov''t etc..

Speaking as a both a Canadian and US citizen, I would say that isolated enviroment has been for quite a long time. That''s NOT something I would criticize.

I for one am sick and tired of people talking about ignorant the US is, for one it''s hardly the case. Now there were a few in Ohio when I lived there but these people would have clueless regardless where they were raised.

I don''t think any country has the right to point to another and say ""I''m right, you''re wrong""

Empire building what I was led to believe is extending the empire to new territories like what happened in India way back, Installing loyal gov''t etc..

I guess I have a problem with people throwing around words that have evoke incredibly strong feelings, usually negative, when they shouldn''t be.

An ""empire"" means something specific, historically. When a country conquers territory, installs it''s own government there, and takes tribute and resources from the people there without their consent, that''s an empire. Now I realize that I have just opened myself up to those who get their foreign policy analysis from late night comedians, but the reality is that we are doing none of those things in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The government of Iraq is going to be made up of Iraqis and elected by Iraqis. It will be their choice, ultimately, whether the US keeps any presence there or has any access to oil or other resources - and what we take, we will pay for.

This is the antithesis of Empire, and it is almost insulting, given the sacrifice we are making which will result in an independent people who are welcome to tell us to bugger off, to call it empire-building.

I never meant this as an insult or swipe, this is purely my observations based on the fact I''m reading ""A History of Britian""

I for one am not accusing the US of going in and looting Iraq for oil or any of that nonsense. I don''t think anyone would dispute that Saddam had to go and that yes, he was an evil man. I find it hard in context to accept, it comes across like Panama and once again no is disputing Manuel had to go but ...

The troops on ground will always have my 100% support as they are the ones on the line, they didn''t sign up exclusively for the purpose of invading Iraq, these are men and women doing their job for their country, the person who deserves blame is Rumsfeld for rewritting the OPPFOR.

Now I realize that I have just opened myself up to those who get their foreign policy analysis from late night comedians, but the reality is that we are doing none of those things in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Nah, they get it from the Mothman.

I guess I have a problem with people throwing around words that have evoke incredibly strong feelings, usually negative, when they shouldn''t be.

Ah, irony.

An ""empire"" means something specific, historically. When a country conquers territory, installs it''s own government there, and takes tribute and resources from the people there without their consent, that''s an empire.

Actually, an empire is a large grouping of territories, of different nationalities and forms of governance, under the control of an emperor. Clearly, we are not forming an empire.

So why do people constantly refer to that? It''s because we have begun to create the military and economic presences required to directly influence many countries in areas of the world that we normally ignore. These resemble the effects of empire, without actually bothering to establish one.

An empire can project power in many areas besides it''s homeland neighbors. We can do that, and do do it. (So did the Soviets.) It also has a similar effect on economics, and the political situation of countries that otherwise would be out of reach. And we have deliberately established those relationships, in areas we did not have them in before.

This is all to the good, if we can create a situation where everyone understands what our goal is. Indeed, we''ve simply promised to attack terrorists and states that shelter or sponsor them. A laudable goal.

So, why are other countries looking askance? They helped us with Afghanistan. But...after that, our actions changed. We attacked a country that had no plausible connections to worldwide terror organizations. We''d already made a deal with Syria, and persuaded Hezbollah to avoid American targets to keep the Iranians out of our hair (according to Seymour Hersh). Syria and Iran are the two biggest state sponsors of terror in the Middle East, and we''ve stayed at peace with them. Their terror networks are still in place. Our major ally in the region, Pakistan, was known to be transferring missile technology to terrorist sponsor states, and has been discovered to be doing the same with nuclear tech. Heck, it even put so many of it''s intel guys and motivated citizens into Afghanistan that we needed to overlook the evac flights for these guys, when we finally won. And we stonewalled North Korea until it threatened to build it''s own nukes, even though it was on the Axis of Evil.

Now we say we want to influence events in the Middle East, but we''ve disengaged from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We''ve pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia, a country in serious danger of losing any form of democracy. We attempted to negotiate with the military in Turkey, when the elected government turned down our requests for access before the war (Hersch again).

We''ve established all this power, and yet we don''t have a consistent plan for applying it yet. We''ve dismissed long-term allies as ""Old Europe"", threatened that the UN would be ""irrelevant"" if it did not follow our wishes, and made the country with the best anti-Islamic terror record the center of the Axis of Weasel. We''re fighting terror in some ways, but not others; sponsoring democracies here and dictators there; we invaded Iraq for moral reasons, we are now told, but express no desire to do the same elsewhere, even though there are other countries in similar or worse shape.

What country is next on the list? What will we do to it? It''s probably good not to telegraph that stuff, but looking at what we have done in the last two years, and the friends we''ve picked, there must be a number of countries wondering when they will be penalized for crossing us, in some unpredictable way. That''s great in a war, but not so good for reassuring our allies that we''ll be stable and predictable in our attacks. And our attacks, our military bases, are the primary focus of our power projection right now.

Sure, it can turn out to be good. But countries that could be helping us are standing by the sidelines as much as they can, simply because our diplomatic stance right now is extremely aggressive. Why do people talk about the rise of an American Empire? Not because we are one, but because we are behaving like one. And with no fixed boundaries for our influence, every country is affected.

The government of Iraq is going to be made up of Iraqis and elected by Iraqis.

The government of South Vietnam in the 60''s was elected by and made up of Vietnamese. Nonetheless, it was deeply influenced by the CIA, and the obvious fear is that a similar puppet government will fall into place in Iraq. Time will tell.

Robear (edited to fix quote html)

"Robear" wrote:

It''s because we have begun to create the military and economic presences required to directly influence many countries in areas of the world that we normally ignore. These resemble the effects of empire, without actually bothering to establish one.

It''s also because people hostile to America and its current leaders intentionally misuse the word to spread ill will.

"Robear" wrote:

But...after that, our actions changed. We attacked a country that had no plausible connections to worldwide terror organizations.

Again you confuse your preconceptions with the reality that the experts who know better indeed have shown dozens of connections between Saddam and terrorism - connections that are 100% unrefuted. But thank you for accurately showing the misguided position of those who also view the US as an imperial power.

"Robear" wrote:

And we stonewalled North Korea until it threatened to build it''s own nukes

N. Korea began its program for producing nuclear weapons before Bush took office.

"Robear" wrote:

we invaded Iraq for moral reasons, we are now told, but express no desire to do the same elsewhere, even though there are other countries in similar or worse shape.

No one ever said we invaded Iraq solely for moral reasons. It''s amazing how many times you have this explained to you - without you contesting it - and yet go right on repeating it like a broken record. But then most of your post is conspiracy theory or logically inconsistent rambling (the world thinks we are an empire because we haven''t invaded enough countries after Iraq? Huh?), so I shouldn''t be too surprised.

"Robear" wrote:

Not because we are one, but because we are behaving like one.

Only if you are ignorant of what an empire is, which you at least claim not to be...

But countries that could be helping us are standing by the sidelines as much as they can, simply because our diplomatic stance right now is extremely aggressive.

So you are saying that countries are specifically choosing the immoral route of failing to confront terrorism because they don''t like US power. That is reprehensible! Which countries are doing this and how?

[quote[
So you are saying that countries are specifically choosing the immoral route of failing to confront terrorism because they don''t like US power.
[/quote]

No, I''m not saying that.

Robear

So how are they ""standing by the sidelines""?

ral, you are being agressively unfair to Robear.
And, come on - ""dozens of connections"" between Saddam and terrorists are basically: ""someone in Iraq met with some terrorist types"". Great, well, so did Pakistanis. Attack on Afganistan was justified and because of that US gathered serious coalition. Attack on Iraq was just administration trying to ride the wave. Of course that wide support disappeared.
And current brawl over poor intelligence will not help. Next time US says it has ""new and startling evidence"" people will just grin. And why shouldnt they?

Again you confuse your preconceptions with the reality that the experts who know better indeed have shown dozens of connections between Saddam and terrorism - connections that are 100% unrefuted.

Well, that''s your preconception. We''re equally and oppositely preconcepted.

No one ever said we invaded Iraq solely for moral reasons.

Neither did I. Are you asserting it had nothing to do with the war? I don''t think that''s true.

(the world thinks we are an empire because we haven''t invaded enough countries after Iraq? Huh?)

Nope. I acknowledged that we are not creating an empire, but rather behaving like one, with the muscle to back it up. I think you missed that distinction, since you stated you didn''t see the logic.

Only if you are ignorant of what an empire is, which you at least claim not to be...

Okay. Explain how the worldwide projection of military, economic and political power could not be done by an empire.

The point is, right or wrong, we are behaving in a way that is only possible for a worldwide superpower. The use of the term empire also refers to ""supreme power, sovereignty, sway, dominion""...All states to which we seem to aspire. As you noted yourself, misrepresentation or not, this is how we are perceived in some quarters.

Robear

So how are they ""standing by the sidelines""?

Hmmm. Fair question. Turkey before the war comes to mind. So does the comparison between Arab involvement in the first Gulf war, and the lack of Arab troops in the second.

I''m sure you can think of some more examples.

Robear

"Most" wrote:

ral, you are being agressively unfair to Robear.

How is asking how to explain his own assertion unfair?

"Most" wrote:

And, come on - ""dozens of connections"" between Saddam and terrorists are basically: ""someone in Iraq met with some terrorist types"".

No, it''s ""someone in Saddam''sgovernment or intelligence servicesmet with terrorists"" or ""terrorists (like the one trying to start a civil war in Iraq now) sought and recieved refuge in Baghdad when they were wanted by the West"" or ""Saddam gave payoff money to encourage people to become suicide bombers"" or ""Saddam''s regime gave training in the use of chemicals and poisons to Al Qaeda members""

"Most" wrote:

Attack on Iraq was just administration trying to ride the wave.

Well, that''s two who have bought into that theory - doesn''t make it so.

"Most" wrote:

Next time US says it has ""new and startling evidence"" people will just grin.

Let them. We didn''t need them to invade before, why should we even bother asking next time?

And, come on - ""dozens of connections"" between Saddam and terrorists are basically: ""someone in Iraq met with some terrorist types"".

Or it might be the 20 grand he was giving the families of Palestinians to blow themselves up and kill as many Israelies as possible. But of course that is ""justified"" terrorism...

"Robear" wrote:

Turkey before the war comes to mind. So does the comparison between Arab involvement in the first Gulf war, and the lack of Arab troops in the second.

I notice you are changing your assertion. You previously stated:

"Robear" wrote:

countries that could be helping us are standing by the sidelines as much as they can, simply because our diplomatic stance right now is extremely aggressive.

Not only did you assert this in the present tense, but you explained the reasons. We aren''t talking about countries before this war or the first Iraq war. Which countries are standing by the sidelines ""because our diplomatic stance right now is extremely aggressive"", and how?

We didn''t need them to invade before, why should we even bother asking next time?

Cuts to the core of the issue, as usual. Even in the last century, we went from one of the most powerful nations in the world, up through WWI and the 20''s, to an economic wreck, within months of voting our army down to ineffective strengths when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. It''s times like that when your long-term allies become important.

Is your view ""Who dares, wins""? or is it ""There are old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots""? Something to be said for both positions. I''m guessing you are with the SAS guys on this one.

Robear

Which countries are standing by the sidelines ""because our diplomatic stance right now is extremely aggressive"", and how?

An inadvertant slip. I didn''t mean to limit that to the current situation, but to the period beginning roughly 3 months after the invasion of Afghanistan. Very detail-oriented of you to notice, however.

Right now, I''d say that the countries that we asked to provide money and troops for Iraq, who provided less than we asked for, would be a good start. You''ll have to look up the details yourself; all I remember is that the pledges were not equal to the requests. As an example, the refusal of the South Koreans to send combat troops to help in Iraq, they sent non-combat personnel instead.

And of course there is still Turkey.

Robear

And my point has been that we didn''t need them in Iraq, militarily or economically. Would they have been nice? Sure. But are they the difference between success and failure? Not even close.

But the assertion I have heard (which I thought you were adding to) is that it somehow matters that we lost goodwill over Iraq. Your inability to name a country standing by the sidelines in matters outside of Iraq is pretty telling to me that I am right.

But the assertion I have heard (which I thought you were adding to) is that it somehow matters that we lost goodwill over Iraq. Your inability to name a country standing by the sidelines in matters outside of Iraq is pretty telling to me that I am right.

I was talking about goodwill we lost because of Iraq, not matters outside of Iraq.

I''m just drawing a different distinction. How can countries disengage from us totally? They can''t. An inability to avoid the power of a country is a partial definition of empire (dominion, sway, etc). It''s much more useful to ask, who is smiling and waiting till we''re down to kick us?

Robear

I was talking about goodwill we lost because of Iraq, not matters outside of Iraq.

So we lost goodwill because of Iraq that only affects us in Iraq? I can live with that.

So we lost goodwill because of Iraq that only affects us in Iraq? I can live with that.

Well, that''s not what I said in context, but I''m happy you like it. It''s not what I meant, however. We lost goodwill because of events that included the invasion of Iraq; it''s been reflected in situations like that last September, where we asked other countries for up to 40,000 troops to assist in Iraq, and got very few. It''s also reflected in the fact that while we paid a fraction of the cost of the first Gulf War, we''re paying the bulk of the second one. We''ve had some trade skirmishes with Europe that were perhaps being used as protests. And so forth. Nothing to stop us, so far, but definitely noticeable. Since no country can completely disengage from us, or us from them - North Korea being the most extreme example - we have to remember that any goodwill lost will have some effect, large or small, later on. It''s like we''re betting on being a permanent superpower, that we can always brush off the complicated web of international relations when they become bothersome. Who knows, maybe we can pull it off? But I''m betting against that.

Robear

"Robear" wrote:

Well, that''s not what I said in context

You''ll have to explain how this:

"Robear" wrote:

I was talking about goodwill we lost because of Iraq, not matters outside of Iraq.

is different than this:

"ralcydan" wrote:

we lost goodwill because of Iraq that only affects us in Iraq

Looks the same to me, especially when you have no examples of it affecting us outside of Iraq, outside of trying to tell me that trade conflicts (which happen annually if not more often) are a new development this year...

"Robear" wrote:

It''s like we''re betting on being a permanent superpower, that we can always brush off the complicated web of international relations when they become bothersome. Who knows, maybe we can pull it off? But I''m betting against that.

I never bet against the potential of the United States to do anything. This is of course the core difference in so many issues - inluding Iraq. One side is can-do, the other bets against success.

American Imperialism isn''t the old style of imperialism. Basically, we go in and ""pour money in"" in order to set up a foundation for our corporations to get a foothold. Then, it''s the corporations who do the tribute-gathering, in the form of virtual slave labor.

Sorry if you disagree, but that''s my honest opinion of the new form of imperialism that America practices.

All I really have to say to that is what you consider ""slave labor"" generally pays 10 times the wage for much easier work than what the ""enslaved"" would otherwise earn and do had the Western company not set up shop...

Yup. Not that their living conditions actually improve much. Or that the corporations care at all except that it further lines their obscenely bloated pockets.

""Low-Wage Costa Ricans Make Baseballs for Millionaires.""

That was the headline on one of those New York Times ""news"" stories that continued its recent tradition of disguised editorials. The headline said it all but the story ran on and on anyway, with details and quotes that added nothing to the familiar story that Third World workers don''t earn nearly as much money as most Americans, even when they work for rich American companies.

Perhaps the best refutation of the implied message of this ""news"" story also appeared in the New York Times, in a frankly labeled op-ed piece by the paper''s own Nicholas D. Kristof. Writing from Cambodia, Kristof reported: ""Here in Cambodia factory jobs are in such demand that workers usually have to bribe a factory insider with a month''s salary just to get hired.""

The workers in Cambodia receive even lower wages than those in Costa Rica. But the difference is that the report from Cambodia spelled out what the local workers'' alternatives were and how anxious they are to get the jobs denounced by intellectuals and politicians in affluent countries.

""Nhep Chanda averages 75 cents a day for her efforts. For her, the idea of being exploited in a garment factory -- working only six days a week, inside instead of in the broiling sun, for up to $2 a day -- is a dream.""

By and large, multinational companies pay about double the local wages in Third World countries. As for ""exploitation,"" the vast majority of American investment overseas goes to high-wage countries, not low-wage countries.

Why are these international capitalists passing up supposedly golden opportunities for exploitation? Because they understand economics better than most intellectuals and politicians, who are content to score cheap points, without worrying about the logic or the consequences.

If outsiders succeed in pressuring or forcing multinational companies to pay higher wages, that will make it more economical for those companies to relocate many of their operations to more affluent countries, where the higher productivity of the workers there will cover the higher wage rates.

Net result: Third World workers will be worse off for having lost better jobs than most of them can find locally. Meanwhile, Western intellectuals and politicians will be congratulating themselves for having ended exploitation.

At the heart of all this is a confusion between the vagaries of fate and the sins of man.All of us wish that workers in Costa Rica and Cambodia, not to mention other poor countries, were able to earn higher pay and live better lives. But wishing will not make it so and causing them to lose their jobs will not help.

It is tragic that people in some societies simply have not had the same opportunities to develop more valuable skills and that those societies have not had economic and political systems that promote economic progress comparable to that in most Western countries.

Low pay is one symptom of that fact -- and changing the symptom will not change the underlying problem, which is that the people in such countries got a raw deal from fate, history, geography or culture. Butthe left attempts to blame Western employers who are providing these workers with better options than they had before.

The left-wing spin is that the poor are poor because the rich are rich. That opens the door for a big power-grab by the left in the name of ""fairness"" or ""social justice"" or whatever other rhetoric resonates with the unwary and the ill-informed.

Unfortunately, this theory does not also resonate with the facts. Whether domestically or internationally, investors looking for the highest rates of return usually steer clear of poor areas and put their money where there are people with more advanced skills, living in more prosperous countries, even if they have to pay much higher salaries in such countries.

The United States, for example, has long invested more in Canada than in all of poverty-stricken sub-Saharan Africa, where wage rates are a fraction of Canadian wage rates. If the facts mattered -- and if the poor really mattered to their supposed saviors -- the implications of that would have been understood long ago.

- Thomas Sowell