Carter Redux?

[rubato]

The world is too deeply interconnected for us to survive and not be concerned with other countries. Physical misery, political oppression, and social collapse elsewhere will always ultimately arrive at our door. Laws, guards and fences cannot stop human migrations away from areas of suffering to places which seem less bad. Nothing can ever save us from the effects of pollution from factories even across the oceans.

We have to intervene. There is no choice.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

One thing that's funny about this topic is that it appears to have me and rube lined up on one side, and Dave and Andrew on the other....

That's not a configuration one frequently sees around here....

[dales]

Tennis, anyone?

[rubato]

It also shows the true brilliance of the Carter Doctrine. It is a temptation to see it as a moral imperative; we should change our relations with other countries to influence their governments to be less brutal (like Apartheid South Africa) because we are morally responsible to reduce suffering. But it is also a purer form of self-interest. Corrupt and brutal regimes (like those supported by Ronald Reagan) externalize a lot of their poison and it is in our self-interest to reduce it. Pinochet ordered a lethal bombing in Washington DC.

When more people have rising stds. of living and perceive their societies as more 'fair' there is less violence.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Okay, now he's just trying to antagonize Lord Jim. Being on the same side as Jim obviously makes rubato even more uncomfortable than it makes Jim.

Just sayin'

[Andrew D]

I'm referring to the fact that by allowing our defense capabilities to atrophy, and disengaging internationally ....

What a strawman.

No sane person is advocating "disengaging internationally". Sane people are arguing against foreign adventurism.

... a complete US military withdrawal from the globe ....

Another strawman.

Who is advocating "a complete US military withdrawal from the globe"?

I certainly am not. I wrote that it is fine that we maintain military forces in countries which " are among our allies; we have air bases, hospitals, embassies, and consulates there; etc."

And speaking of strawmen, "allowing our defense capabilities to atrophy" has nothing to do with "isolationism". We are perfectly capable of defending ourselves without devoting ourselves to foreign adventurism.

So how about you answer -- if you can -- the straightforward questions which have been presented:

Why do we need 53,786 troops in Germany? Why do we need 39,222 troops in Japan? Why do we need 10,801 troops in Italy?

Not why should we have any troops in those countries: Small military presences in countries allied with us is self-evidently a good idea. Cooperation among NATO allies might well be impossible without it.

But the people who claim that we need to have more than 100,000 troops in those three countries bear the burden of justifying that position. Screaming "isolationism," fretting about "disengaging internationally," and raising the boogeyman of "a complete US military withdrawal from the globe" -- not one of which is actually at issue -- amounts to nothing more than an admission that one cannot justify the position which one espouses.

[Andrew D]

And speaking of strawmen:

The world is too deeply interconnected for us to survive and not be concerned with other countries.

Who has suggested that the US should "not be concerned with other countries"?

[Lord Jim]

Being on the same side as Jim obviously makes rubato even more uncomfortable than it makes Jim.

That wouldn't seem possible, would it? And yet somehow he manages to accomplish it....

It also shows the true brilliance of the Carter Doctrine, blah blah blah.....

The naive, Amateur Hour foreign policy of TIC was of course both a complete disaster for US and Western security and diplomacy, (a disaster which in some aspects we continue to pay for to this very day) and a policy approach that did not improve the level of freedom for one single human being anywhere on the planet . (As opposed to Reagan policies which resulted in a couple of hundred million people all across Eastern Europe today enjoying representative democracy.)

As I've pointed out before, the two countries where the "we won't support a pro-Western autocrat" policy were most vigorously pursued under Carter, proved to be the biggest disasters...

In Nicaragua, we wound up having a pro-American authoritarian regime replaced with an authoritarian Soviet client state, and in Iran, we wound up having a pro-Western autocrat replaced by the world's first anti-Western Islamo-fascist regime...(we're still paying for that one.... )

While these were the worst results of his disastrous policy, they were hardly the only ones....All over Africa, Soviet-aligned states bloomed like spring flowers, as the Russians rushed to take advantage of their unexepected good fortune....in Angola, in Mozambique, in Ethiopia....

It was not until the late 80's, after the Reagan Administration had put the Soviets back on their heels, (and undone much of the damage caused by Carter) that a country finally saw a successful transfer of power from an authoritarian leader to a real democracy; when under US pressure, and without substantial bloodshed, Ferdinand Marcos finally packed it in....

The necessary, essential pre-condition for a policy of pressuring pro-West dictators to accept democratic reforms to be a successful one, (both in terms of Western interests, and the well being of the people of those countries themselves) was the removal of the Soviet Union as a player ready willing and able to rush into to provide the support necessary to replace pro-Western dictatorships with pro-Soviet ones....

The historical record makes this quite clear. The proof is abundant; under Carter, not one single authoritarian regime anywhere was replaced by a democratic one; after the defeat of the Soviet Union, it's happened at every point of the compass. (This is particularly true not only in Eastern Europe, but in also in Latin America... and the peaceful transfer of power by the Apartheid regime in Africa is another case in point; so long as the ANC was a Soviet backed guerrilla movement, the Afrikaners were fully prepared to endure whatever sacrifices they had to make as a result international sanctions; it was only after this dynamic changed that they were ready to cut a deal. )

Now, in having this discussion with some folks over the years, I have sometimes received a counter argument, that goes something like this:

"Well, even if Carter tried to implement the policy badly and percipiently, you still have to give him credit for coming up with it. If he hadn't then subsequent Administrations wouldn't have incorporated it into their policies."

I completely reject this. Of course, all things being equal,the US is better off not supporting dictators, (in addition to being more in line with our values as a country, dictatorships tend to be more unstable and unreliable as partners, and supporting genuine democratic movements tends to provide much better relations for the US with those countries in the long run.)

But this is so obvious, that once the larger threat of enhanced Soviet power was removed, it is inconceivable to me that any Administration, of either party, would have failed to recognize it, Carter or no Carter.

[rubato]

And speaking of strawmen:

The world is too deeply interconnected for us to survive and not be concerned with other countries.

Who has suggested that the US should "not be concerned with other countries"?

I think we agree that the US military budget is stupidly inflated and most US bases serve no purpose which justifies the cost.

I'm very glad to see France picking up the slack in Libya and now Mali and hope some of our other shiftless "partners" will get off their asses and pull their weight as well.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Oh god, please don't tell me he's wanting to display his ignorance on Mali and Libya again?

Which colouring book does he get his retarded views from?

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the Libyan civil war and military operations began, with US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles, the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Canadian Royal Canadian Air Force undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces. Air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles by French jets were since confirmed. The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States

In January 2012 a Tuareg rebellion began in Northern Mali, led by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. In March, military officer Amadou Sanogo seized power in a coup d'état, citing Touré's failures in quelling the rebellion, and leading to sanctions and an embargo by the Economic Community of West African States. The MNLA quickly took control of the north, declaring independence as Azawad. However, Islamist groups including Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), who had helped the MNLA defeat the government, turned on the Tuareg and took control of the North with the goal of implementing Sharia Law in Mali. On 11 January 2013, the French Armed Forces intervened at the request of Sanogo's government.

[rubato]

While other countries provided support and followed them, France took the leadership role in Libya. No one else did. What was needed was leadership in confronting regional challenges and not always depending on us to do it for you and the French deserve all the credit for that.

In Mali it has been the French who have done nearly all the heavy lifting with some support from others, like the US, and the fighting has been directed by them. Nearly everyone else was dithering.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

France wants to keep its former colonies in line.

[Econoline]

http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/01/frenc ... surrender/

[dales]

[Gob]

While other countries provided support and followed them, France took the leadership role in Libya. No one else did. What was needed was leadership in confronting regional challenges and not always depending on us to do it for you and the French deserve all the credit for that.

God you're dumb.


First external intervention in Libya;

On 19 March, the first Allied act to secure the no-fly zone began when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets. Allied military action to enforce the ceasefire commenced the same day when a French aircraft opened fire and destroyed a vehicle on the ground. French jets also destroyed five tanks belonging to the Gaddafi regime. The United States and United Kingdom launched attacks on over 20 "integrated air defense systems" using more than 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles during operations Odyssey Dawn and Ellamy.

In Mali it has been the French who have done nearly all the heavy lifting with some support from others, like the US, and the fighting has been directed by them. Nearly everyone else was dithering.

The French were INVITED into Mali, no one else has been, or need be.

You are a moron.