The US doesn’t necessarily have direct interests in Ukraine, but there are a lot of indirect ones. First, Putin is probably correct when he says that the US wants to weaken Russia. Regardless of whether the US sees a direct economic boost from a Westward-facing Ukraine, reducing Russia’s (somewhat limited) position as a counter-weight to the US is a good policy for Washington - China is already set up as a counter-weight in Asia, and having two of them rather than one would limit US businesses.
Second - and probably far more important - a strengthened EU is a good thing for the US due to our very close ties and economic treaties with them. If Eastern Europe comes to think of themselves as Europeans rather than Eurasians, that means greater wealth for the Western Europeans, and thus greater trade opportunities for the US.
Finally, while most of the business and economic talk above is largely true, the US does actually want to spread democracy across the globe… it’s not just cynical posturing by smarmy politicians. Most of congress and probably the majority of the US State Department believes that a fairly elected, secular government that really represents the interests of the people is better than dictatorship. They even believe that in the Middle East, all evidence to the contrary.
Their response to the free and fair elections that voted Hamas into power in the Palestinian territories argues otherwise. I’ve always been of the opinion that “spreading democracy” is given lip service right up until the instant that elections produce a government we don’t like. Then support for military dictators kicks in. It’s…distasteful, shall we say.
European culture is overthrowing lesser nations, a good civ 4 strategy that could lead to a cultural victory. Once we win everybody will get free Wiener schnitzel .
I think you’re kind of both right. The key distinction there is “secular.” Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are unpalatable both for realpolitik concerns and for their sectarian nature. The lofty rhetoric of American support for democracy falters when the people of other countries disagree with us about what that democracy should look like, but I think most people really do want to improve other countries’ governments for idealistic reasons.
Picking sides, and encouraging the violence in the streets strikes me as grossly irresponsible. It certainly doesn’t serve our interests, unless we have some stake in chaos or weakening Russia.
I mostly I agree with that. I’d say the U.S. rhetoric about free and fair secular elections is pretty consistent. When the government that is elected acts (or threatens to act) in ways contrary to U.S. interests, then the U.S. gets down and plays realpolitik. Remember, states have interests, not friends, and act to protect those interests.
The moral of the story, to me, is that if you’re elected to power, do yourself a favor and try not to threaten U.S. interests. You can be a leftist lunatic – look at current leadership in a number of South American states! – and the U.S. won’t do more than speak up against the dumber things you do, so long as you don’t act in ways egregiously contrary to U.S. interests. Similarly, while the U.S. isn’t generally particularly thrilled when military strongmen take power, the U.S. puts up with them (and often supports them, though less post-Cold War) as long as they’re perceived as better than the alternative.
The U.S. has interests both in reducing Russian power (since the Russians continue to oppose American interests, the more the U.S. does to weaken them the more powerful America is in relative terms), and in strengthening the E.U. (which has major energy dependency issues vis-a-vis Russia, which has been a repeated sticking point in the last decade).
Incidentally, picking sides and supporting violence in the streets is pretty minimal in terms of foreign policy actions. Hell, the French did that in the American revolution – not so much to help America, but to weaken Britain. I think similar logic applies here.
Either you’re pro democracy or you aren’t. Real democracies by definition elect the leaders the people want. If the people vote sectarian theocrats into power in free and fair elections and you’re supposedly pro-democracy, you back up your rhetoric with polite congratulations to the new regime and recognize their legitimacy even if you wind up as foes later on (or the next day).
Adding the “secular” qualifier ignores the fact that vast swathes of the world don’t want secular governments. In fact, vast swathes of the US don’t want them either! That’s why we’ve supported a long and depressing list of military dictators in nations like Egypt who always claim (with considerable justification) that the alternative is an Islamist state. Since I see both alternatives as equally awful, we might as well be consistent and stand for democracy even when we don’t like the results.
Where you differ from most of the foreign policy establishment is that you don’t see a less of two evils. From the perspective of American interests, military dictators can usually be swayed by pretty things that go boom (of which the U.S. may have some to spare) more readily than religious fundamentalists who preach a rhetoric of armageddon. “He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s OUR son of a bitch.”
Once you accept that promoting Democracy is secondary to (or simply a way of) promoting American interests, U.S. foreign policy starts to make a lot of sense. America promotes democracy, but opposes regimes – democratically elected or not – that threaten American interests. It’s generally as simple as that.
That’s my position, I see democracy as one value in a greater basket of goods. Supporting one value, at the cost of all the others, seems short sighted.
The U.S. has interests both in reducing Russian power (since the Russians continue to oppose American interests, the more the U.S. does to weaken them the more powerful America is in relative terms), and in strengthening the E.U. (which has major energy dependency issues vis-a-vis Russia, which has been a repeated sticking point in the last decade).
My primary interests are security, with that in mind I think degrading Russia is a mistake. We can not be everywhere at once. If we want peace in central Asia we need regional powers to step up and enforce their writ. That means Russia. If we want to keep the peace in Asia, we need a powerful Russia to balance the competing powers. In the Middle East, we could do with Russia’s help combating militant Islam. Indeed, we share many of the same concerns regarding proliferation and terrorism.
Incidentally, picking sides and supporting violence in the streets is pretty minimal in terms of foreign policy actions.
I’ve been occupied with other issues these past few months and I’ve only just started reaquanting myself with the issues in Ukraine. It appears we’ve spent 5 billion USD there? I’m not sure what we’re doing if not trying to buy influence and wrest Ukraine into our sphere of influence. Again, I don’t see the point of picking a fight with Russia over the issue. We certainly don’t need Ukraine. The only upside is a weaker Russia and again I think that’s shortsighted. Cordial relations with Moscow could be very profitable for both sides. This isn’t 1982. The Cold War ended a long time ago.
I never said I didn’t understand US foreign policy. The rationale behind it is glaringly obvious. It’s a shortsighted and stupid one, however. Propping up dictators at the expense of their subjects makes friends of tyrants and enemies of their people. I’d rather do the reverse, because tyrants eventually fall but cultures have long memories.
If the people share your values then supporting them would make sense. Unfortunately, our values aren’t universal – indeed, many in the Middle East are militantly opposed to our way of life. Why arm our enemies? Why equip them to fight us?
Yeah, and a lot of that violent opposition is a direct consequence of our decades of support for those who oppress the masses in many parts of the world. It’s deserved and a by product of the short sighted stupidity you want to continue. End it, now, and our reputation will improve. Not overnight, to be sure, but in time. We aren’t required to arm would-be rebels to improve our status. Ceasing to arm tyrants would do that all by itself.
How much goodwill did our support of the Brothers buy us? We had backed their enemies, yes, but their lingering and deeply rooted hostility came from something else. It was values. They are the bannerman for a movement that see salvation in the past, and it is deeply hostile to enlightenment thinking.
We can’t hope to bridge that gap. It’s rank folly to even try.
No, it was our nearly unconditional support for an Israeli regime that has constantly oppressed their coreligionists that was the “something else” that started this. They’re deeply hostile to us now, but that hostility was almost non-existent until we called it unthinkingly into being. What’s rank folly is your (and various US administrations’) constant “oh well, they hate us so let’s bankroll their oppressors and killers” attitude. They hate us BECAUSE we’ve paid for their oppression and killing, both in Israel and throughout the Middle East.
Israel is an issue, and I would echo Petraeus’s comments on that. That said, there are more substantial issues at work. Conservative Muslims feel under assault by western mores. Our culture is undermining their way of life. Osama targeted the WTC for just that reason, he viewed Western capitalism as a direct threat to traditional Arab beliefs.
They hate us BECAUSE we’ve paid for their oppression and killing, both in Israel and throughout the Middle East.
There’s a tinge of utopianism in that thinking. It’s the belief that everyone would just ‘get along’ if we just played nice.
No, there aren’t. Israel is the sine qua non of worldwide Islamic hostility towards the United States. There’s absolutely nothing that comes close to its importance. And you need re-examine Bin Laden’s motives. His chief cause for hatred of the US was our support of Israel (surprise!) and the presence of American military forces in the region. As wiki puts it:
Identified motivations of the September 11 attacks include the support of Israel by the United States, presence of the U. S. military in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the US enforcement of sanctions against Iraq. Bin Laden had a complicated relationship with the United States, as he was supported by the United States in the Soviet-Afghan war. However, he first called for jihad against the United States in 1996. This call solely focused on US troops in Saudi Arabia; Bin Laden loathed their presence and wanted them removed in a “rain of bullets”.[18]
In his 1998 fatwa entitled, “Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders”[20] bin Laden identified three grievances against the US:
“First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
Moreover, it’s trying to conflate very different issues - Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah…are not like Al-Qa’ida or the Taliban. For flip sake, look at what Hezbollah are doing in Syria!
Dave - He was hating on Jews, Israel is very much a side-issue for Al-Qa’ida, and certainly they don’t do a thing for the Palestinians in practice. It’s propagit, and needs to be treated as such.
