This is an offshoot of CR's thread on US foreign policy coming home to roost. The intent here is not to discuss specifics but rather the theories behind our policy in general.

As I have posted elsewhere, several NSC documents from the late 1940s made it quite clear the USA was pursuing a policy of containment of global communism and the USA was going to intervene as needed to isolate (and hopefully destroy) the growth of communism anywhere in the world, using overt and covert means, military, economic or otherwise. It is only in this context that anyone can understand what occurred over the next 40 years, from East Berlin to Afghanistan.

The underlying goal of this policy was two-fold--preserve American predominance in the world in light of the fact the only two surviving "great powers" after WWII were the USA and the Soviet Union, and keep our allies and friends out of a forced Soviet orbit.

So, with that in mind:

1) Today, what should be the underlying goal of all USA foreign policy?

2) Under what circumstances should the USA use military force, overt or covert, to accomplish this stated goal?

3) Under what circumstances should the USA use economic or political pressure to accomplish this stated goal?

4) Should the USA seek and require UN approval before it pursues this stated goal in any specific tactical way?

5) What do you think the benefits to the USA and its citizens would be from this underlying goal and your tactical constructs in questions 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish that goal?

1) Today, what should be the underlying goal of all USA foreign policy?

First off- we need a massive overhauling of the checks and balances allowing our goverment to go to war.

1) No more presidential leeway in ordering troops off US soil. For the first 60 days, congress must have an emergency vote within 72 hours, allowing senators and legislators to vote absentee. Any lawmaker refusing to vote or obstaining, that should be immediate dismissal from office. You gotta vote, you gotta make it public, you gotta decide.

There must be a national referendum vote within 90 days. If the vote fails, the money to pay for the vote needs to come out of the actual net worth of the president and every lawmaker that voted for the measure- with no bankruptcy protections- they will be made paupers for life.

If there is no demonstratable, emprical, verifieable attack on US soil- then there can be no mobilization without a national referendum, binding, and the vote needs to re-occur every year, on the anniversery date of the invasion.

The only "out" for this is when a soveriegn nation or entity takes and attepts to hold or holds US soil. Then, the president has full authority to annihilate the foriegn invader. The rules of war need to be clear- no surrender will be neccesary- we MIGHT give it a try-but mostly- we will kill you and execute every last mothers one of you without trial or forethought. You will die. Not torture- just a bullet to the head without appeal.

If the president does not present ALL facts to the full house and senate to the need for war- then he is subject to charges of treason. I would make the standard for proof on this be exactly the level of lies and such that GW spewed forth on this current "war".

In other words- the first major foriegn policy shift needs to be a check on the goverments ability to make war- period.

Protect America from IMMEDIATE AND VERIFIABLE ATTACK- NOT nation building, NOT regime change, NOT colonialism.

2) Under what circumstances should the USA use military force, overt or covert, to accomplish this stated goal?

Only when we have been directly attacked- business interests in other countries don't count BTW- if they want to string up Exxon employees- that is on Exxon- but if they bomb US soil- then it is on.

3) Under what circumstances should the USA use economic or political pressure to accomplish this stated goal?

Uh- when we are under direct attack- only, period. You do business in other countries, and get killed or captured- that is on you, America has no business protecting business from risk- period.

4) Should the USA seek and require UN approval before it pursues this stated goal in any specific tactical way?

Uh- none is needed if we are attacked- directly. No pre-emptive strikes, no nation building, no regime change. Remove ALL bases from any country that doesn't PAY US for occupying the bases. In other words- all bases abroad have to be completely self supporting and invited to stay by the country we are inhabiting. The canadian model- peacekeeping by invitation only- period. Someone pays us and the world invites us. No more of this "they could be doing this or that" crap we saw from GW. No more fearmongering- you better have evidence, or you lose your life. Period.

Also- we need to make the stakes MUCH MUCH MUCH higher for the people ordering the war at all- after a national referendum, and we have gone to war, and we have taken casualties- then we need a second referendum every election cycle- a 2/3 vote is required to keep lawmakers that voted for war alive- if they don't get 2/3 approval for keeping thier life, they are executed the day after the vote is confirmed.

If the war is worth others dying for- it is worth senators and presidents dying for- no more hiding behind the office while others go to die- you will die too- it is your patriotic sacrifice- don't like it- don't run.

5) What do you think the benefits to the USA and its citizens would be from this underlying goal and your tactical constructs in questions 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish that goal?

Let's see- trillions in savings would be nice, not maintaining huge white elephant baSes all over the world, no soldiers dying for corporate nonsense, or dying for despots in foriegn lands, not dying to prop an evil warlord backed by theocratic goverments. That would be a GREAT accomplishment.

How about actually being able t secure our own borders? Take all those resources from foriegn lands, build bases and security precautions completely around the entire nation, using all our resources to keep bad guys out.
That is an enormous payoff- also helping to stem the tied of unrestricted illegal immigration. Won't stop those that come here legally then stay illegally- but the sneaker types will be done.

Security.


When ever it is deemed necesary by the American government, who ever that may be


When ever it is deemed necesary by the American government, who ever that may be


No. The UN should be abolished. It has become a tool for ideological oppression.


Security.




And who pays if the President and every lawmaker that voted for the measure were actually right in their assessment of the need to go to war and the lethargic, uninformed population (those who can actually be bothered to vote at all) were wrong?

And what happens when the politicians see a need to go to war, but won't take the risk of becoming paupers for life because they doubt the population will back them?


In this case, will you approve Exxon the right to bear arms when abroad in order to safeguard its personnel?

And what happens when Exxon's interests coincide with America's vital interests? Do you advocate America gives up its vital interests in order to conform to your notions of democratic war mongering?


So who will safe guard Americans ability to conduct business in the rest of the world? Who do you expect to honour America's needs in a world where America won't protect its over sea's commercial enterprises? Do you suppose local governments will provide any security to people whom they know are without any security what so ever?

Are you aware of what happens to people who venture into a ghetto without security?

What you are proposing here would not only cripple your economy, it would force American companies to hire private armies in order to protect themselves.

I'm curious, since your no longer going to provide military aid to American companies operating abroad, would you then punish American companies for military actions committed abroad? I wonder what it is you think a standing military is actually for CR?


edited for formatting

Moif- it is up to the business to live by the laws of the land they occupy. If they can not do that- then do not invest in that area- companies choose to risk it all when they do business with a country that is unstable- it is not up to American soldiers to protect the risky investments of business abroad- in no way, shape or form should even one soldier be obligated otherwise.

Exxon does business in Russia right now- if Russia decided to lock them out- what would we do about it? Nothing.

BP operates in risky places, so does Totalfinaelf- I doubt britain is going to invade Nigeria to protect the pipeline there- in fact, no one really is, now are they?

It is up to a business doing business in a foriegn land to operate within the laws of that country and take thier risks as they come- American goverment has 0 obligation to protect those businesses. The best way is to let the market take care of that issue anyway- unstable goverments make risky investments- better be prepared to lose everything if you take your money there!

Hey- not going to war is a good fail safe Moif- if the politicians are too afraid to risk and sacrifice- why should one American soldier?

Poor things, they may be poor for life for invading? What- they can't make the sacrifice- a much smaller sacrifice than a soldier is asked to make- then the war is CLEARLY not worth it.

If we need a war so bad- they had best be ready to give it all up, including thier own lives.

I would go a step further and even ask for automatic execution upon leaving the office- after all- they have sent others to die- why should they be immune from death in a war they started Moif? Why shouldn't they be asked to make the same sacrifice they demand of others Moif?


BTW- how big is Totalfinaelfs or chevron's army in Venezuela, or Russia, these days?

So, with that in mind:

1) Today, what should be the underlying goal of all USA foreign policy?

Security for the country, its people and enterprises abroad.

2) Under what circumstances should the USA use military force, overt or covert, to accomplish this stated goal?

Whenever negotiations fail or an immanent danger threatens the above.

3) Under what circumstances should the USA use economic or political pressure to accomplish this stated goal?

Whenever possible and before the use of force.

4) Should the USA seek and require UN approval before it pursues this stated goal in any specific tactical way?

NO. They UN has proved itself to be worthless except for humanitarian aid – and mediocre at that.

5) What do you think the benefits to the USA and its citizens would be from this underlying goal and your tactical constructs in questions 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish that goal?
Competition between countries and philosophies has been part of the international landscape for thousands of years. The goal of foreign policy should be to maximize the security and wellbeing of this country, and our allies and interests abroad.

This is a tough one. I'm going off the cuff here and am interested in seeing how this one comes along.

1) Today, what should be the underlying goal of all USA foreign policy?
While security is a part of this, freedom is my answer. Both global and domestic. Freedom leads to economic growth, and economic alliances and growth lead to security. Our trade stances are just as important as our military stances in a good foreign policy.

2) Under what circumstances should the USA use military force, overt or covert, to accomplish this stated goal?
Tough one. We can isolate without military force often. When US citizen's freedoms are in jeopardy is when military force is certainly warranted.

3) Under what circumstances should the USA use economic or political pressure to accomplish this stated goal?
All the time. This is where you choose your friends. You can see McCain's vision of the world pretty easily if you look at his stances on trade. Pro-NAFTA, Pro-CAFTA, Pro-Columbia free trade act. Speaking out against Russia, China, and Middle East dictatorships that we've aligned ourselves in the past with, and a desire to increase trade relations with India and Brazil. His economic moves are directly tied to the potential for those countries to be first allies, and when that appears impossible, then he moves the other way if they are potential military threats in the future.

4) Should the USA seek and require UN approval before it pursues this stated goal in any specific tactical way?
The UN includes our best friends as well as countries that rejoiced on 9-11. While it would be nice, the US would be better served working under the advisement of a League of Democracies.

5) What do you think the benefits to the USA and its citizens would be from this underlying goal and your tactical constructs in questions 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish that goal?
Prosperity. Global prosperity = Peace.

1) Today, what should be the underlying goal of all USA foreign policy?

To promote peace, trade with, talk with, and improve relations with our world's neighbors. And to do so humbly, openly, and honestly. We should be cautious of interfering in the world's business, give them the respect and honor of fixing their own problems, and to give aid when we see fit, but not to overexert our control or their dependence upon it.


2) Under what circumstances should the USA use military force, overt or covert, to accomplish this stated goal?

The U.S. should only go to war when Congress declares it. We should not overexert our military aggressiveness, for that actually weakens our security.

Covert operations (when appropriate) can be used to obtain information about an enemy. But as with military force, if we overexert our covert operations, it will weaken us. The U.S. should not be involved in selecting leaders or backing coups. These instances (such as the 1953 installing of the Shah of Iran) led to resentment and -in this case- the taking of our hostages in 1979.


3) Under what circumstances should the USA use economic or political pressure to accomplish this stated goal?

We should take great care before publicly putting pressure on a foreign body. Action is taken more to heart than words. In most cases, private communication should precede it.

That said, there is only one case when the U.S. might need to use public pressure:
If a nation takes aggressive actions toward the U.S.

If a nation attacks another country, we don't necessarily have to get involved. This is an internal confrontation that we do not want to be entangled in. If we want to be policemen of the world, yes we should get involved but that commits our lives and money. We have enough problems at home, so we should take great care before lunging into a conflict.

We have to think of our future generations, what are we willing to commit them to? Fixing the impending social security collapse of 2040? Or making sure all countries like each other?


4) Should the USA seek and require UN approval before it pursues this stated goal in any specific tactical way?

No. Foreign countries should not have a say in how we accomplish our foreign policy. We handle our plans. They handle theirs. Every country should be free to deal with its neighbors in its own fashion.

If countries object to our policy, they should discuss it with us privately. And vice-versa. Policy should not be entangling and public, for that tends to conglomerate nations into subtle alliances that can quickly become comlpex and unmanageable.

It is the same as dealing with people on an individual level - your friends for instance. If you have a problem with someone, out of respect you take them to the side and talk it over with them. You don't bring it up and put them on the spot for everyone to see.


5) What do you think the benefits to the USA and its citizens would be from this underlying goal and your tactical constructs in questions 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish that goal?

I believe this policy of non-interference (no nation-building, don't police the world, but be open and trade with people, aid them when necessary) will reduce hate and resentment toward the U.S., especially in the Middle East, over the long-term.

If we weren't so involved in giving Osama Bin Laden weapons to fight the Soviets in the 80s...
If we weren't so involved in giving Saddam Hussein weapons to fight Iran in the 80s....
If we weren't so involved in installing the Shah of Iran in 1953, who overthrew a democratically-elected leader...
If we weren't so involved in entering undeclared wars...
If we weren't so involved in talking about bombing Iran and refusing to sit down with them...

I believe we would actually be safer.

If we show respect, show humility, show an eager openness to understand other countries' point of view, I believe the U.S. would be better for it.

We are too tied to international events to stay out of world politics. And the “blame the victim” scenario you paint doesn’t work for me. We made mistakes opposing the Soviets but on the whole we probably saved millions of lives doing so.

Nothing will “reduce hatred of the US in the ME” unless we abandon Israel – are you ready to do that? We help Saddam as the lesser of two evils but had nothing to do with his WMD or crazy expansionist ideas for Kuwait.

The big “if” I have – if we weren’t so dependant on foreign oil we wouldn’t be so involved in and dependant on the ME. But fools in DC won’t even let us drill our own oil so we are stuck with defending many of the people who hate us – at all cost.

1) Today, what should be the underlying goal of all USA foreign policy?

To integrate and connect the 'gap nations' [struggling, third world nations and stateless areas] to the 'core nations' or first world industrialized nations. The US can take the lead to preserve the core which in turn grows the core, by matching our practices with our stated principles......as opposed to taking military or espionage shortcuts for political expediency. This concept of a swath of gap nations has been termed the 'arc of instability' by the Pentagon and Britain, Canada and Australia..........so turning the concept into an actionable, multi-lateral foreign foreign policy would not be terribly difficult.

Connecting these gap nations to the industrialized world would provide jobs and information to the indigenous populations and mitigate the threat posed by religious fervor, state run media and ignorance.

2) Under what circumstances should the USA use military force, overt or covert, to accomplish this stated goal?
3) Under what circumstances should the USA use economic or political pressure to accomplish this stated goal?

I combined these two questions, because in today's world, they can be one and the same in terms of perception and end result.

ONLY when there is an identified imminent threat to US national security, and ONLY when the administration provides clear guidance for the use of the Leviathan force [conventional military formations] to be followed by a multi-lateral rebuilding or peacekeeping force. This action can only be successful if the action is not perceived [rightly or wrongly] as an occupation. We regularly conduct war games to sharpen our proficiency, but the most the peace side gets are seminars with coffee and donuts. Lose the peace and you've lost the war, no matter how successful the leviathan force was.

Any action must bring together ALL parties from the inception. State, USAID, UN, IMF, etc..... Trying to entice outside agencies to come into an insurgent climate is not effective, as we have seen. Inter-agency cooperation and planning must be conducted during peacetime; trying to ramp up in a hurry during a crisis is also ineffective.

4) Should the USA seek and require UN approval before it pursues this stated goal in any specific tactical way?

Not necessarily, but we as the United States must get past elementary school shoving matches with nations to bring any stability in the world. We need to collectively understand that Iran, India and China WILL be dominate nations; isolating them on principles of pride will only hurt us in the near term. That's right, not the in the long run, but within the next decade. Finding common ground in which to form working relationships is key NOW. Boastful jingoism coming out of the White House will only serve to alienate the very nations that can work to avert terrorist attacks on the US in the future.



Ted, everything that Triad47 listed is true, how is that 'blaming the victim'?

Well, we decide how tied we are so if we care about policing the world, we can totally do it. If we want to back off a little, we can do that.

Blaming the victim...yes hindsight is 20/20 and it tells me that the same pattern repeats. Who are our friends one day turn out to be our enemies. So why in the Middle East do we give weapons and money to militant dictators in a region of political instability? Only to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives to take them out years later?

Logic tells us that we can have much more peaceful relations if we aren't so involved. Remember, the main motivation for arming Osama Bin Laden was to stop the Communist Soviets. And we decided we liked Iran less than Iraq so we gave Saddam weapons. What did he do? Gas his own people? And worsen relations with Iran...I think we can do better.




Hmm not in the short term. But intervention over the long-term has antagonized terrorists to come on U.S. soil and attack us here. It is because of our policies with Israel, our support for oppressive regimes, and the fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia that motivations the 9/11 attackers to choose to hate us.

We can be more careful in a region that has such intense feelings toward us. We don't need to antagonize the easily antagonizable, especially when it endangers us. Foreign policy is the first line of defense (and the cheapest method) against terrorism.

Abandon Israel? Hmm, I don't know that I would say abandon it. But I think if we say something like "be less involved in the Middle East peace process" it would ease relations with that region. And if we give Israel the respect to create their own peace treaties with their neighbors, I think it would make them safer too.

The first Gulf War, yes there was basis for action. But what if we had not acted? Do you think the countries in the region were prepared or capable or willing to handle the threat? If not, perhaps we are justified. If so, I wonder how things would have turned out.





It's so paradoxical, we end up supporting militant dictators and oppressive regimes, then go to Iraq promoting democracy which isn't working. I think maybe America should figure out what it believes in, then put it into action. IF we are really about promoting democracy and liberty, we should not be supporting these regimes with money and other rewards. Don't you think? Actions speak louder than words...

But then again, oil is the lifeblood of our economy. Such is life.

I agree and so where we do not have vital interests (like the ME) we should back off from. And we should stay the hell out of Africa all together. Let the folks in the NY Monolith (less the US) deal with it.



Nothing we did for Saddam or OBL made any dramatic differences in the ME. Opposing Saddam’s takeover of Kuwait which lead to bases in Saudi Arabia, and our support for Israel did. Since this is, we believe , the primary motivators behind Bin laden.

The ME, because of our ties to oil is far to critical for us to “pull out of” imo.

.

Sooo are you saying we should withdraw our support for Israel? As for “oppressive regimes” name a country in the area that is not.

No the 2 hot buttons for Bin Laden will not change easily and so we have to, as always, deal with people who talk to us out of the barrel of a gun.



Ya sure it would. The Palestinians blame us since every weapon used to kill them is from or paid for by the US and this will not change – esp. if Obama is elected.



If we had not acted we would have a wealthy and bigger Iraq today with nuclear weapons right in the middle of more than ½ the world’s oil supply.



It is working and it is preferable to a nuclear Iraq which would have surely tried to wipe out Israel or Iran sooner or later.

Trade and peace. Note, trade and peace cannot be achieved through an interventionist foreign policy that undermines the sovereignty of foreign countries. Wah, wah, wah.


If we are attacked, we have the right and duty to defend ourselves and destroy our enemy. If we initiate force, we are interfering with the stated goals [peace and trade].

My goal and tactics would require the United States to embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy. No nation building, no interfering in the business of foreign nations. No wars to protect wealthy business elites [Spanish American War, Mexican-American War, etc.]. No saber rattling. The benefits of these would be: an substantially better reputation among the rest of the world, which, in turn results in willingness to trade and cooperate. American sons and daughters would not be used as pawns in a geo-political game of Risk. The Constitution would be strictly followed.

Sounds good to me, if I do say so myself.

CP

I agree except for one small and perhaps semantic point. Aside from naked aggression, there are three other categories of initiation of force: precautionary, preventive and preemptive. I would argue that only preemptive includes verifiable and confirmed intelligence of an impending attack upon the US, and thus falls within legality of the use of force. This condition was certainly not met in regards to Iraq; that was precautionary and thus, naked aggression.

Agreed. I basically fall in line with 'just war theory' regarding the question of what does and does not qualify as a 'just' war. If we are sure that a country is intending to attack us, it is just to pre-empt them.

CP

The U.S. pulled out most of its bases in Saudi Arabia in 2003.

If we pull out of Iraq and other places, aren't we still trading with the region? Is not America's presence at Iran's doorstep (and our verbal warnings about bombing Iran and keeping a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the table) antagonizing them, and creating an atmosphere of uncertainty in the market that drives oil prices higher?





Israel can broker its own peace. The U.S. doesn't need to set the rules. The culture of hate toward the U.S. regarding Israel support is insurmountable. The peace process hasn't gone anywhere. If we do the same thing, we should expect the same outcome.

Israel can take care of itself. It has 100-200 nuclear weapons. They bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981 before it was to be loaded with nuclear fuel.

The Shah of Iran is a militant dictator we installed, overthrowing a democratically-elected leader. Decades of resentment later, they took our hostages. This does not go away overnight, and adds to the arsenal of hate against an intervening superpower.




No, Iraq's nuclear program ended when Israel bombed their reactor in 1981. Hussein never got that close again.
Do you think the Middle East would have left Saddam Hussein uncontested? They may have come together and defended against him, Muslims defending their holy land, as they see fit.

And Osama Bin Laded (having just driven the Soviets out of Afghanistan), approached The Saudi government with an offer to drive Saddam Hussein out of their land. He was politely declined when the U.S. made an offer to neutralize the threat.




Democracy in its true form cannot be forced. In the past it is always the strongest when the people themselves stand up and fight for it.
Iraq did not develop nuclear weapons. Israel has 100-200 nuclear weapons and can defend themselves.


haha do I sound like a broken record?

1) Today, what should be the underlying goal of all USA foreign policy?

Global stability and enhanced cooperation by rewarding our allies economically, and isolating nations that are uncooperative, while always leaving the door open for reconciliation.

An effort to minimize our dependence on other nations, while maximizing their dependence on us.


2) Under what circumstances should the USA use military force, overt or covert, to accomplish this stated goal?

Overall, we should use our regular military force as a deterrent. We should reduce our presence in foreign nations to the minimum required in a given locale to defend itself and pursue limited strikes until reinforcements can be brought to bear. With the advances in aviation and systematic logistics, there is no need to have a large force in any one place, so long as the force that is present is sufficient to provide a initial jump-off point for their reinforcements.

In regards to combating terrorism, we should strike covertly where ever possible, always seeking to strike at leadership and economic resources.


3) Under what circumstances should the USA use economic or political pressure to accomplish this stated goal?

Whenever possible, as it is both cheaper and, when used positively, is mutually beneficial. When used negatively, our reasoning and/or demands must be clear, and the lines of communication constantly open. This must be balanced, to the extent that we are dependent on other nations who are otherwise uncooperative. Creative solutions must be found for festering problems. For example, if we are concerned that China's oil demand is increasing, we should offer them technical and/or financial assistance with their infrastructure design. It's a win even if they refuse, and should they accept, we could reduce the impact of their rapid growth on limited resources, while enhancing our relationship when approaching other important issues.

4) Should the USA seek and require UN approval before it pursues this stated goal in any specific tactical way?

The US is a sovereign nation, and it has a right to defend itself. The UN is a forum. If other nations want to discuss issues or negotiate within a UN framework, we should be open to this. We need to act in good faith, and share the discussions, and the logic behind our conclusions, with the public of all nations party to the discussions. We need to fix the UN resolution system by either providing legitimate enforcement of ALL resolutions, or by eliminating that aspect of the UN.


5) What do you think the benefits to the USA and its citizens would be from this underlying goal and your tactical constructs in questions 2, 3 and 4 to accomplish that goal?

Stability is it's own reward. The present gas price increases are a direct result of our intervention in the ME, and the panicked speculation it has caused, rather than a sign of an actual immediate production or distribution issue. If we made it clear to the world's investors that we weren't interested in dominating the ME militarily, prices would stabilize rapidly. Of course, if we do intend to dominate the ME militarily, we should quit pretending otherwise, and just do it as rapidly as possible, accepting the consequences.

Enhanced cooperation would allow nations to coordinate against global infrastructure problems. There are problems of growing concern involving resource management that must be addressed in a rational manner, or they will become progressively worse in the long term.

We aren't fighting in Iraq for oil in the same sense that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. We should never delude ourselves.