Worldview
There's been a lot of talk recently about what Democrats should embrace as their foreign policy and national security policy. My take is that Democrats need to remind people that it was the Truman administration that created the national security framework that won the cold war and beat communism.
Not to be too retro on this, but it's been the Truman internationalism that's led America to greatness and preeminence in the world. The only periods of decline have come as a result of Republican screw-ups.
The Truman internationalism I'm talking about is based on the Truman doctrine (with the support of Kennedy and Johnson's vision) and the Marshall plan. The Marshall Plan could just as fairly have been called the Truman Plan, but they thought it would be an easier sell to the 'do-nothing' Republican Congress with Marshall's name attached.
What did that mean? It meant the support of friendly nations around the world. It meant military cooperation, economic support, and the UN. It meant the long crushing blow that the Soviet Union could not survive.
How does that apply today? First, we need to recognize that Republican incompetence has once again isolated us at a time when we need our friends more than ever. America is alone in the world and reviled by the civilized and uncivilized alike.
How does that make us more secure?
We are in a quagmire of a war with no exit in sight. We are in debt and owe that debt to foreign powers who are not all friendly to us (China, among others).
We are far less secure today than we were on September 11, 2001. I don't think you'd get an argument on that from anyone - including Republicans.
It's a good place to start for Dems, but they can't run on the fact the other guy is so colossally unfit to govern.
Security in the world means security for everyone. If any government feels threatened, they become a threat. That's not to say that pressure need not be exerted on psycho states like North Korea, but it shouldn't be pressure based on a threat of violence. We can see that once that bluff is called, there's no fall-back. The discussion is simply over.
And empty bully talk is all the Neocons have left. They've wrecked all other avenues of influence, including the UN. By sending the malignant John Bolton there, we've neutralized not the UN, but our ability to effectively influence that body. Nice.
Democrats need to get back to the system of alliances and economic policies that created the "American Century."
Reform and victory are possible in the Middle East, but it will come over time and will be won with ploughshares, not swords. The fundamental problem among Arab states is the enforced ignorance of their populations. They know nothing but radical religion, and that's how their dictators like it.
As I said yesterday, the only real "Islamic Fascists" are in Saudi Arabia and the other oil states. There, the elites rule with an iron fist, stifling any notions of democracy or freedom. The on;y means of expression come in participation in radical Islam. The only education is religious education.
They don't have real economies that could benefit from the entreprenurialism of the populace. They are false front states, floating in oil money. They keep the money with the rich few, and the rest get the pablum of religion. They are able to deflect any internal dissent by re-aiming it at Jews and Westerners. Oh, and by their torturing secret police and religious police.
A real solution is a new Marshall plan for the Middle East. Start with the Palestinians, who are the root of the problem. The Us properly helps Israel economically, and should start helping Palestinians. If we created "Enterprise Zones" in Gaza and demanded that they - and their employees - be 100% demilitarized, we could start giving economic hope where none exists.
I thought that was the real (temporary) victory of the Oslo Accords - the economic development that gave Palestinians hope for the future. Arafat and their own bloodthirsty instincts tore it all down, but it was a good effort and something that could be re-started.
For the rest of the region, we could start targeting small non-governmental businesses and throw loans and contracts at them. Raise the bar for the little guy on the 'Arab street' and watch as they realize that participating in the world is a lot more fun than blowing it up.
For the rest of the world, security for the US means having many friends. It means internationalism. We need to re-build our relationships with friends, and approach enemies with an eye toward developing a positive relationship with them. Engage Iran - which desperately wants a dialog with the US - and North Korea.
And rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. We promised to do that and have failed utterly. I said three years ago that I would not walk the streets of Toronto - one of the most peaceful cities in the world - if the police were not there. Why would anyone even try to build a life or a business in Baghdad with their security situation?
If we put more troops there - yes more - and actually rebuilt the place, we could then draw down and eventually leave. But we can't leave this debacle, nor the one in Afghanistan. 'Stay the course' will only perpetuate the grave errors and get more people killed.
That's a start.
Not to be too retro on this, but it's been the Truman internationalism that's led America to greatness and preeminence in the world. The only periods of decline have come as a result of Republican screw-ups.
The Truman internationalism I'm talking about is based on the Truman doctrine (with the support of Kennedy and Johnson's vision) and the Marshall plan. The Marshall Plan could just as fairly have been called the Truman Plan, but they thought it would be an easier sell to the 'do-nothing' Republican Congress with Marshall's name attached.
What did that mean? It meant the support of friendly nations around the world. It meant military cooperation, economic support, and the UN. It meant the long crushing blow that the Soviet Union could not survive.
How does that apply today? First, we need to recognize that Republican incompetence has once again isolated us at a time when we need our friends more than ever. America is alone in the world and reviled by the civilized and uncivilized alike.
How does that make us more secure?
We are in a quagmire of a war with no exit in sight. We are in debt and owe that debt to foreign powers who are not all friendly to us (China, among others).
We are far less secure today than we were on September 11, 2001. I don't think you'd get an argument on that from anyone - including Republicans.
It's a good place to start for Dems, but they can't run on the fact the other guy is so colossally unfit to govern.
Security in the world means security for everyone. If any government feels threatened, they become a threat. That's not to say that pressure need not be exerted on psycho states like North Korea, but it shouldn't be pressure based on a threat of violence. We can see that once that bluff is called, there's no fall-back. The discussion is simply over.
And empty bully talk is all the Neocons have left. They've wrecked all other avenues of influence, including the UN. By sending the malignant John Bolton there, we've neutralized not the UN, but our ability to effectively influence that body. Nice.
Democrats need to get back to the system of alliances and economic policies that created the "American Century."
Reform and victory are possible in the Middle East, but it will come over time and will be won with ploughshares, not swords. The fundamental problem among Arab states is the enforced ignorance of their populations. They know nothing but radical religion, and that's how their dictators like it.
As I said yesterday, the only real "Islamic Fascists" are in Saudi Arabia and the other oil states. There, the elites rule with an iron fist, stifling any notions of democracy or freedom. The on;y means of expression come in participation in radical Islam. The only education is religious education.
They don't have real economies that could benefit from the entreprenurialism of the populace. They are false front states, floating in oil money. They keep the money with the rich few, and the rest get the pablum of religion. They are able to deflect any internal dissent by re-aiming it at Jews and Westerners. Oh, and by their torturing secret police and religious police.
A real solution is a new Marshall plan for the Middle East. Start with the Palestinians, who are the root of the problem. The Us properly helps Israel economically, and should start helping Palestinians. If we created "Enterprise Zones" in Gaza and demanded that they - and their employees - be 100% demilitarized, we could start giving economic hope where none exists.
I thought that was the real (temporary) victory of the Oslo Accords - the economic development that gave Palestinians hope for the future. Arafat and their own bloodthirsty instincts tore it all down, but it was a good effort and something that could be re-started.
For the rest of the region, we could start targeting small non-governmental businesses and throw loans and contracts at them. Raise the bar for the little guy on the 'Arab street' and watch as they realize that participating in the world is a lot more fun than blowing it up.
For the rest of the world, security for the US means having many friends. It means internationalism. We need to re-build our relationships with friends, and approach enemies with an eye toward developing a positive relationship with them. Engage Iran - which desperately wants a dialog with the US - and North Korea.
And rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq. We promised to do that and have failed utterly. I said three years ago that I would not walk the streets of Toronto - one of the most peaceful cities in the world - if the police were not there. Why would anyone even try to build a life or a business in Baghdad with their security situation?
If we put more troops there - yes more - and actually rebuilt the place, we could then draw down and eventually leave. But we can't leave this debacle, nor the one in Afghanistan. 'Stay the course' will only perpetuate the grave errors and get more people killed.
That's a start.
posted by fiduciary at 8:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home