Many people have framed the current debate over US foreign policy as a fight between pragmatists and idealists, pragmatists believing in a "case by case" basis for foreign policy and idealists believing in an unflinching guiding principles. Having these guiding principles always governing policy has been called "moral clarity". For example, a country having "moral clarity" in its foreign policy would intervene in every country that was committing genocide or none. In the eyes of many the US has lacked moral clarity in foreign policy before (Supporting the Shah, not intervening in Rwanda, indifference to recent Chinese human rights abuses) which has led to a lose of credibility across the world.

Does the current US foreign policy stance have moral clarity?

If not, How do we go about getting it?

Is it even necessary to have moral clarity in our foreign policy?

Does the current US foreign policy stance have moral clarity?

If not, How do we go about getting it?

Is it even necessary to have moral clarity in our foreign policy?

Lets try to answer all three at once. By your definition, this would mean that the US intervened in every case in which there was a clear-cut wrong occurring. This of course is impossible. You can't intervene in every situation no matter how much you want to because foreign policy and diplomacy is far too complex. There are too many extenuating circumstances to each case that effect what our position is. This includes resources (both military and diplomatically), public and global support, exc..

Currently, the Bush Doctrine can be considered idealistic. He see progressing democracy in the Middle East and around the world as the greatest weapon against terrorism and tyranny. However, he has taken a pragmatic approach to this ideal. Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and many of the other nations who are seeing some democratic benefit from Bush's policies. You have to fight the battles you can win. That is a mainstay of our foreign policy that many choose not to accept. Some feel that if we choose to fight one battle, we then should fight every battle. But this logic is flawed....because it cannot be done. You do what you can when you can.

Perhaps the UN could match your definition of moral clarity...but that organization is so corrupted by authoritarian governments in power protecting their own self-interests that there is no way for it to ever become effective on the global stage until reform is made. Whenever there is a crisis...the world turns to the US for help. We have the most money, the most responsibility and the only large military willing to help others. Many Western powers do not have large militaries because they are a part of NATO...and any attack on their nation would mean that the US would come to their defense.

I do think that our policy needs moral clarity meaning that there should be consistency in our actions when we act. People deride our policy and call us the 'Global Police' when we try to intervene and others deride our policy when we fail to act. Its a lose-lose situation in most cases. But we do what we have to do to protect our interests. Usually because this entails maintaining the status quo which often favors the majority of nations. I think that the Bush Doctrine is bringing about positive change faster than it would have occurred on its own and that it will ultimately benefit the world body. As the world's sole superpower, we are both the largest beacon for hope and the largest lightning rod for criticism. That comes with the territory. But what is important is that when there is an injustice such as genocide or true human rights abuses that the US in coordination with the world body does something. Whether it be public condemnation, sanctions, or military force. We cannot afford to allow evil acts by tyrannical leaders to perpetuate without challenge. This would invite only greater disaster.

Does the current US foreign policy stance have moral clarity?
No, not in the least. We act in whatever way benefits us, whether it be supporting brutal dictators such as Saddam, giving money and weapons to Osama bin Laden, or overturning governments and setting up ones friendly to the US. Despite hindsight being 20/20, we've yet to realize that sometimes these things come back to bite us. The only time we act altruistically is when something like a natural disaster occurs. Americans and American foreign policy makers can't seem to grasp the concept that not everyone is like us and not everyone wants to be like us (and that's ok!!). I'm sure many of you who disagree with me will shoot back with many positive actions of the US and I have not overlooked them. However, the above sentiments are shared by many around the world, justified or not, and simply pointing out our positive actions or rhetoric from the Bush Doctrine isn't going to effect that opinion.

If not, How do we go about getting it?
Start acting like a leader. A true leader is someone who recognizes that it's not about him or herself. Someone who is willing and eagerly sacrifices for others before him or herself. Someone who puts the team ahead of them self. We have to get rid of the self serving policies.

I also think we really need to start listening to world opinion, UN or otherwise. We might not like it or agree with it but we sure as heck better start listen to it. Often times our actions fall in lock step with exactly what our enemy is accusing us of because we failed to listen to them. This only supports their cause and ends up hurting us in the long run.

Is it even necessary to have moral clarity in our foreign policy?
A big fat resounding YES! Our lack of moral clarity has played a big part if not begin the reason we're in this whole mess with Osama and co. It's not that he "hates democracy" or "hates freedom" is "a wacked out crazy nut job" or any other easy answer vacant of introspection, it's our foreign policy toward the Muslim world. If we continue to believe our policies in the Middle East are sacrosanct and refuse to pause for reflection we going to continue speeding down a spiral of self destruction.

If I may, I think the problem with US foreign policy right now is the complete shambles of representation.

There is a value in having a moral foreign policy. Saying you will fight evil, and stand up for the lopressed can can be difficult, but certainly has merit.

I also do not think there is anything wrong with a Practical foreign policy. Don't interfere unless it involves, you, send financial aid and the like but do not feel the need to meddle in the internal affairs of others unless there is a direct and personal need. Wheither or not I AGREE with the practical foreign policy, one cannot deny that it has some logical merit.


The problem with the US is that is is using a practical foreign policy, but telling everyone it has a moral foreign policy. Bush Jr is happy to light up rooms in his awkward semi-literate speaking style with fancy words about protecting the weak and the fight against opression, but then refuses to take questions about the longstanding friendship with Saudi Arabia, and other brutally opressive states.


The problem here is that Bush Jr. preaches morality, but makes no effort to follow it, instead following a completely practical (according to him mind you) foreign policy based on his personal idea of what is best for the US. (just how wrong he is is an issue for another thread)

That's my opinion anyways...

1. No.

2. There is no way. You can't have a constant view about any form of morality. If you say "X is bad" and then, 100 years later, "X is good" the turnarounds and adjustments made would cause a huge slowdown because, if the governments entire policy(s) were based on "X is bad" and suddenly it changes, it would be like grabbing a skyscraper, and twisting it until it faced the other way and expected it to still be attached to its foundation.

3. It is not necessary. It is harmful. A country cannot assume utilitarian, teleological, deontological and consequentialist theories will be good in every way. New moralities must be adopted for every situation. Regarding the citation of genocide in Rwanda: Do you know why they didn't intervene? Do you have any citation of someone in the government saying "Unnhh, we just didn't feel like it..." Or are you assuming that since we know that genocide was bad, it must be stopped in every situation, even if it doesn't affect us? What if going to Rwanda meant all of our soldiers would die? What if going to Rwanda meant that other countries could attack the US? What if going to Rwanda meant spending more resources than we could?

Also: I believe that liberals need a moral path to follow, and that they are jumping around just as bad as conservatives are, which the message your post sends is. Why do liberals say "Bad government! It killing and torturing people! Stop!" And then Bush makes a decision, which must mean that it is wrong. Iraq: Bad dictator--->he committed genocide---->why shouldn't he be stopped? You may even contend that "Oh, since we didn't do anything in Rwanda, then our path is to not stop genociders." Which I know isn't the policy of the US. We usually involve ourselves in anything we feel threatens humanity, which Iraq did, if WMDs are imaginary, you must admit that Iraq wasn't a good country when Saddam Hussein ruled it. Back to the original point: since Bush is doing the actions that Liberals value, and Liberals hate him only because he is Bush. Someone tell me if this made no sense.

I agree with a large portion of what you say, but you negate the fact that the US gov't has had a stance on Saudi in this fashion since the mid 1960's, through nearly 6 administrations. I'm not the biggest GW fan, especially considering my staunch republican views.

However, you have to understand that policy like this was in rare form during the Clinton administration. During Clinton's reign, we deployed our military overseas on more campaigns more times than in the previous 50 years combined. It was predominantly a "flag waving" foreign policy with no discernable goal. Consider the long-term effects (or lack there of) of our involvement in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, and our air attacks on the Sudan and Iraq. None of those military actions had any real discernable effect other than a show of force. We left the people in Somalia high and dry, only provided peace-keepers in Haiti and didn't stop any violence, send troops into Rwanda after the genocide (umm... a little late), we blew up an aspirin factory in the Sudan and never deterred Saddam from much of anything... just to name a few off the top of my head. Basically, the US during Clinton's administration was sent out to show the American flag on the shoulders of men and women while abroad. We generally didn't cause any significant change, with the exception of in the Balkans (Bosnia/Kosovo)... which is a different story. (**we also sent troops to Guatemala and other S American countries during Clinton's administration)

Bosnia was the first time that American soldiers (and hopefully the last) served under a foreign commander. We did a wonderful job and handled the vast majority of operations in that theater, but it was driven by the UN. This had less to do with the US, except for the fact that we're the largest enforcement arm of the United Nations.

Now, during Reagan's administration, there were far less Military action, and generally more objective. Let's use the bombing of Tripoli for instance. It was necessary to show Libya that Americans weren't to be used as terrorist targets, and was in the interest of Americans abroad to show force in this matter.

What you have to understand is that since before JFK, the US has had a policy of using foreign policy to promote its needs for nearly 50 years.

If you're not a GW fan, at least you could keep the anti-GW conversation to pertinent topics... of which this has everything to do with the US gov't (if not all of the NATO countries) and little to do specifically with this administration.

Does the current US foreign policy stance have moral clarity?

No- but, to be fair to aevans176, there is no such thing in over 6 administrations- GW can't be blamed for his policy without the background starting with Eisenhour- we have had horrible, nasty, and downright evil foriegn policy as the majority in our foriegn policy decisions pretty much from the Korean war on- and not one president in between has really attempted to fix this. The assasination of Allende, the installation of Saddam and the Shah of Iran, our support of the South Vietnamese goverment, and on and on and on- it is very hard to find an instance were we are not the bad guys- so blaming GW for this one has no legs- we do need a consistant moral stance, but we never have had one.

If not, How do we go about getting it?

I can't say I know for certain- some healthy isolationism migh help- or maybe a Star Trek "prime directive" type solution LOL - no interference in foriegn goverments- neither help nor harm, ever, only the defense when actively threatened (no premption policy) and trade only, and completely even trade at that.

Is it even necessary to have moral clarity in our foreign policy?

I think so- I believe that never having had any moral clarity, no consitant clarity of any kind, has been very harmful to the US- we have backed some of the worst monsters this planet has ever seen, and it has came back to haunt us.

I think that I'd have to agree to a certain extent. I believe that we could force exclusions in cases where American economic interests are threatened or in defense of American soil; as was the case in '91 w/ the Gulf War and it's plausible impediment on the sale of oil to the West, or was legitimately done in Afghanistan.

I personally pray that I never have to sleep in a cot again and the only sand I ever want to have in my shoes (or elsewhere) better come from a white sandy beach on the pacific ocean of the Gulf of Mexico...but will go back to stomp on terrorist cells again if necessary in the duty of my country (but cross your fingers... it was miserable).

That being said, i don't think many Americans would argue that they want to expend American dollars and lives to perpetuate the American stigma of "world police" or "world food bank" or whatever else... I would love for international aid/military action to come to a popular vote. Can you imagine???

Considering the state of the world; the middle east, N Korea, and China... I believe that a strong military deployed permanently in strategic locations globally is necessary to keep the fight off American shores. However, I would never vote against a far more (but not completely) "isolationist" strategy as you mention...

"But what is important is that when there is an injustice such as genocide or true human rights abuses that the US in coordination with the world body does something. Whether it be public condemnation, sanctions, or military force. We cannot afford to allow evil acts by tyrannical leaders to perpetuate without challenge. This would invite only greater disaster. "
What invites disaster is establishing precedent for invading foreign countries at one's caprice. US didn't invade Iraq, because of moral principles or because it had something against Saddam. That was just the excuse (good or bad... IMHO: not worth the thousands of deaths... how many Iraqi civilians were killed for the sake of peace and democracy? Was it worth the political instability they have now?), the way Bush got US to enter the war was by purposly forcing the public to confuse Saddam and Osama ben Laden, Iraq and terrorist, Iraq territory and 9-11 attack, until Americans came to closely associate the them.
You know how during the Cold War US feared an attack from the crazed Soviets? Well, now the roles are switched - people living on the territory of the former USSR are freaking out about American nutters, and wonder who is next to be invaded.

No, US does not have a moral diplomacy. Never did since Wilson, who, in turn, lacked practicality, and achived little.
Yes, US needs a moral diplomacy, at least not to continue fueling the antiamericanism around the world.
Yes, it is possible to have a moral foreign diplomacy, within certain bounds of practicality, of course. But as it is today - the bounds are ridiculously narrow.