Ricky:

My example was incomplete. as I didn't fully demonstrate this part of the dilemma. The way the secession from Ukraine took place.

I think your example, and your ethical approach, is incomplete for another reason. A lot of international relations involves signaling.

For example Obama had signaled weakness as it relates to Syria. Perhaps his motivations were largely ethical, but they may not be perceived that way. Similarly, acceptance of the Russian invasion of Crimea may be signaling weakness which is a factor used by Putin to calculate whether he can further invade Ukraine, which he has. Certainly Russia has acted aggressively as it relates to other neighbors.

Our actions in the Middle East are also scrutinized by different powers through different lenses. Telegraphing a desire for regime change in Saudi Arabia can have disastrous results.

ray

For example Obama had signaled weakness as it relates to Syria.

To whom? In what deliberate way? (This "signal" BS sounds ever so much like Washington beltway talk by tv pundits. with no correlation to the events on the ground as conducted by the citizens of Syria and its neighbors. The opposition to Assad is not in any way influenced by what Washington signals. Nor would Assad, in an existential war, care about signals from a nation that he knew was not going to invade a middle eastern nation again.)

ray

Telegraphing a desire for regime change in Saudi Arabia can have disastrous results.

For whom? In what way? For Saudis or Bahrainis with a desire for a democracy, maybe not so bad? For the West? Oil will still flow. Hell ISIS is selling oil through Turkey so whomever is in power in KSA will sell oil...
If you're talking about chaos and war, isn't that the current situation anyways?

What we know is that historically the US has opposed the creation of democracies in the Middle East. (Other than Israel, and it was largely uninvolved at that time).
What we know is that ultimately people every where aspire to the freedoms of liberal democracies and social justice that allows them the opportunity to make a good life for themselves and their children. We also know that whenever these aspirations are thwarted people tend to be attracted to extreme alternatives politically and desperate measures personally (crime). (That's the danger when wealth disparity becomes to great in any society.) We know this from the various European revolutions, the Russian revolution and so on...
What we don't know is what would have happened if the US and other Western nations would have promoted democracy and helped nourish it wherever it evolved. Syria, Egypt, Iran and others ... all were nations where nascent democracies were sacrificed in large part for western expediency.
What have now in the middle east is the result of decades of expediency.
Continued expediency will not make a course change possible.
Right now, the effective forces on the ground fighting ISIS are Iranian backed militias and volunteer groups.... If the enemy of ISIS is your friend (The US and the west) then suddenly we have strange bed fellows. Because the enemy of the Saud's is the Iranian Shiites..
Tell me whats the expedient course? Support the Iranian Shiites or what?
ISIS has managed to do something unique. They've united the Muslim world in opposition to it... with Egypt throwing in yesterday. Inevitably they must lose and will be largely eradicated.
Once that is done, whats next? Is the US going to get involved in the inevitable war between Shiites and conservative Sunnis? Because if the US overtly backs the Saudis that's a course of action, (And what the US did in supporting Sadddam against Iran for years.)

The Iranians are, despite the current theocratic form of government, a more modern and liberal nation than KSA. They have known democracy and their theocracy is still somewhat democratic. There is rule of law rather than the monarchs fiat. It would seem odd to be a beacon for freedom by siding with the feudal nation over the partly developed nation.

Bush's invasion of Iraq looks worse and worse every day doesn't it?

Ricky:

To whom? In what deliberate way?

The whole world saw that the US doesn't stand behind its redlines. Our foes (Russia, Iran and Hezbollah all noticed). Our 3 important regional allies (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) also noticed. All of the calculations by all of the powers are influenced by their interpretation for the reasons of Obama's inaction.

Ricky:

What we know is that ultimately people every where aspire to the freedoms of liberal democracies and social justice that allows them the opportunity to make a good life for themselves and their children.

People everywhere, but not all people. Certainly there are many people in the region who could care less about democracy. They include everyone volunteering for Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban, etc.

What have now in the middle east is the result of decades of expediency.

You seem to see all this very black and white. There is a whole continuum between regime change of democratically elected leaders to regime change of non-democratically elected leaders. You are saying that since we have failed by the former the only other solution is to do the latter. I have now debated with both you and Hacker as you both argue for one extreme. There are middle grounds and practical considerations. There are shared values, there are political and economic practicalities, and there are military considerations.

Ricky:

The Iranians are, despite the current theocratic form of government, a more modern and liberal nation than KSA. They have known democracy and their theocracy is still somewhat democratic. There is rule of law rather than the monarchs fiat. It would seem odd to be a beacon for freedom by siding with the feudal nation over the partly developed nation.

Except that they are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Was it you who once said that one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day?

I have now debated with both you and Hacker as you both argue for one extreme.

Not so fast. I was never saying that at all. In fact, I was arguing with Ricky against his black and white view of foreign policy. If I remember correctly, mine was a little more....flexible. To quote an American clergyman opposed to Prohibition: "Very little good has been done by the Absolute Shall." I'd say that, if I had to choose a Secretary of State between you [Ray] and Ricky; your name would already have been sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

My way of thinking toward foreign policy is that there needs to be some general guidelines, but they be flexible. Ricky seems, if I understand him correctly, to be arguing that it be absolutely ethical; but he's contradicted himself by allowing expediency without admitting that he's doing precisely that. That was my point....because if you are choosing a foreign policy with strictly "ethical guidelines", deviating from them would, indeed, be an act of pursuing expediency. Get my drift?

Also Ray Jay is right when he says:

The whole world saw that the US doesn't stand behind its redlines. Our foes (Russia, Iran and Hezbollah all noticed). Our 3 important regional allies (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) also noticed. All of the calculations by all of the powers are influenced by their interpretation for the reasons of Obama's inaction.

See, this is where I argue for general guidelines in foreign policy. Not "ethical", because you'll only end up looking like you're pursuing expediency whenever situations arise in which you cannot be so. But nonetheless, general guidelines that are pragmatic enough to allow flexibility. But, they would tell us when to interfere and when not to. When to use force and when to use diplomacy.

But whatever the hell we do, we must be CONSISTENT. (Not the same as "black and white".) Because the world does not look at world history, or even American history, in these discrete little four to eight year periods. They see one president immediately undoing his predecessor's foreign policy. The flexibility comes in where you decide yes or no (to take a certain action of statecraft) based on the question "does this protect Americans and their interests, at home and abroad?"

That does not mean that I advocate invading Iraq was the right thing to do in 2003. But nonetheless, it's been done. There is no going back. And to the rest of the world (who as I said think long-term, not short-term like American policymakers do) does notice when one president (and they don't care his name or party affiliation!) undoes what his predecessor does. It makes us look like hypocrites. Such hypocrisy as the American Government (the "government" meaning more than just the president, cabinet members and congress) performs only breeds hatred and contempt of us around the world, and our own allies know they cannot completely, if at all, trust us. Ray Jay is exactly right about that part (the part where we fail to impress our own allies as well as our enemies).

Bush is a cowboy. Obama is too weak. The next president may be a cowboy again. And the one following him may again be weak. What is the world to think of us? The attitude of: "Oh, but that was Bush who did it, not Obama!" I have often heard, is an attitude which fails to impress anybody, friend or foe.

Robert Baer's book on Iran was actually rather fascinating. Ricky is right about the KSA being a less open society than Iran (they're both pretty closed societies, but if you wanted to have a contest to see who's the least bad, Iran wins over KSA hands down). But what's the difference between bad and worse? Still pretty @#$! up societies.

Hacker:

Not so fast. I was never saying that at all. In fact, I was arguing with Ricky against his black and white view of foreign policy.

Point taken ... my apologies.

None necessary.

By the way...whilst watching The Borgias and re-reading The Prince, I've noticed something rather interesting and I'm wondering if those of you who have read it (or seen the show) have noticed it, too...about the modern Middle East. I figured that this would be the best thread on which to raise the issue, as it closely involves the Saudi Crown as well as the whole "neighborhood".

Comparisons between one time and place with another are always fraught with dangers and caveats but the more I look at the Middle East, the more it seems to mirror pre-Risorgimento Italy (circa 1500). We have a bunch of petty states, dominated by four or five regional powers, not unlike pre-revolutionary Italy of the Renaissance era. Interference by external actors (United States, USSR, UK, France, etc.) in the modern Middle East, is not unlike the invasions of the French, Spanish and Germans into the Italian peninsula.

Machiavelli dreamed of his Caesar--who came in the form of Garibaldi and Count Cavour--who would one day reunite the peninsula under one banner. A republic was of course preferable, but anybody would do who made the trains run on time. In a way, that person would be Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Middle East, though he abjectly failed to set out to do what he wanted to: to unite as much of the "Arab" world as possible under one banner. (There was of course a brief union between Syria and Egypt called the "United Arab Republic" but Nasser's domination of the alliance ensured its quick death. There is a reason the flags of Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Yemen all look similar.)

One wonders what would have happened had the overly-gregarious second president of Egypt read the book, or had Machiavelli in his cabinet.

Personally, I think that important conclusions can be drawn, and even solutions possibly discovered, by a candid reexamination of the history of both times/places.

Just like the Italian peninsula, circa 1500, the Middle East circa 2015 once had five or six (now down to four) greater princes pretty much controlling the balance of power in the region, vis a vis the myriad of petty princes in both situations. As were the Pope, King of Naples, Duke of Milan, Venice and Florence; Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the four controlling powers of the modern middle east.

There's a risorgimento of sorts going on now, yet the great dictators of the Middle East oppose it. (And who can blame them.) One wonders if, one day, the states of the Arab League will come to such an arrangement as did medieval Italy, or at least find a "caesar" to restore the glory of the Arab Caliphate in some way that isn't scary to most of the population there.

Hacker is making an argument (I think) that one of the main problems with our foreign policy is that we have not been consistent. That other countries cannot rely on us because our foreign policy changes with each new president. I guess I don't agree with that...at all. it would be a problem if our foreign policy totally reversed course.

But there are major areas of continuity in our foreign policy. Our foreign policy has emphasized promoting trade over the past 30 years. Our allies in Japan and South Korea in Asia, Saudi Arabia and Israel in the Middle East and the UK and other European countries have remained relatively constant, though there are changes in emphasis. We have maintained military bases around the world to project military power and a powerful navy, as well.

Every president, however, comes with a different approach. They are going to deal with crises in different ways; I guess one way to look at is that are there areas of continuity in our foreign policy but there is a certain part of foreign policy which is in flux that a president can put his stamp on. I am not sure what we should do about that, given that the alternative would be a dictator who presumably would be consistent. I would also note that the public circumscribes what is possible. I am not sure that a politician who favored continued intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan without an exit plan could have been elected in 2008.

The problem with Bush II (and to a lesser extent Obama) was not due to a failure of continuity but rather due to foreign policy mistakes.

If I see a generalized problem with foreign policy it is the failure to anticipate consequences of our foreign policy moves. Ricky appears to have a deontological view of our foreign policy, meaning that we have to wage a moral/ethical foreign without doing a utilitarian calculation that a less moral/ethical stance might have beneficial results. We had bad dictators in Libya and Iraq; now we have a vacuum with regard to central authority. The lack of central authority in Iraq and areas of Syria have led to ISIS, not the west being against democracy. Right now, subverting centralized authority in the Middle East, regardless of the reason ( including supporting democracy) is extremely problematic.

So we need to support the current leaders in Saudi Arabia and Egypt as anchors. It would be a bad idea to even think of trying to introduce democracy right now when democracy appears to be at substantial risk of being hijacked by Islamic extremists like ISIS. Our number one priority right is to restore centralized authority on the Middle East; not to establish democracy. Once we get centralized authority restored in the Middle East we can start talking about promoting democracy again. I don't know when the Middle East will be ready for democracy, but I suspect it will be when (like Turkey) that people in the region accept that government must be largely secular.

I guess I don't agree with that...at all. it would be a problem if our foreign policy totally reversed course.

Er, wait a sec, Freeman...did you mean "I guess I don't disagree with that..." otherwise the rest of the sentence confused me. Unless I am reading that wrong? (Am I? I'll always leave open the possibility I misunderstood something.)

Yes, it is a problem that presidents can and do turn American foreign policy on a dime. (So I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with that part.)

Yes, there are certain "cornerstones" or our foreign policy. Many have been in place for years. Our "original" foreign policy, as set out in Washington's "farewell address" (really an open letter published in all the newspapers addressed "To the People of the United States", not a speech per se) was essentially to [almost] not have one. Well, that's an oversimplification of course. He said that we should avoid "entangling alliances" because the United States was too weak, on land and on the high seas as well; as long as we stayed "out of Europe's business" (which is what he meant) for at least a few decades, we'd be all right. Otherwise, we'd be picking sides in this or that conflict (just as the Napoleonic Wars were starting) and get stomped on by the winner. The "entangling alliances" doctrine has often been misinterpreted as "stay out of the world's business....forever" by isolationists. But Washington didn't mean that at all. There are cornerstones such as the alliances with Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan. And perhaps it is beneficial that Nixon did a total 180 on our foreign policy with China and the USSR. At least temporarily, we had a "detente" with those two powers, even if our detente with the Russians came to a crashing halt when they invaded Afghanistan.

there areas of continuity in our foreign policy but there is a certain part of foreign policy which is in flux that a president can put his stamp on. I am not sure what we should do about that, given that the alternative would be a dictator who presumably would be consistent.

Well don't forget that there are other democracies with more consistent foreign policy aims than the United States. America would not have to become a dictatorship in order to improve its own foreign policy.

So we need to support the current leaders in Saudi Arabia and Egypt as anchors. It would be a bad idea to even think of trying to introduce democracy right now when democracy appears to be at substantial risk of being hijacked by Islamic extremists like ISIS. Our number one priority right is to restore centralized authority on the Middle East; not to establish democracy. Once we get centralized authority restored in the Middle East we can start talking about promoting democracy again. I don't know when the Middle East will be ready for democracy, but I suspect it will be when (like Turkey) that people in the region accept that government must be largely secular.

Agreed. However, I think it's irresponsible to pressure other regimes to democratize, even when possible. If we are going to talk about "self-determination", maybe some of these countries do not like the idea of democracy? Even when they are stable? Not our business to regulate other countries' internal affairs, we are told by many, and those many are totally correct. What business do we have telling Hosni Mubarak he has to have a "real" election (the sham of 2005 wherein Hosni put his main opponent in jail before the election, or kicked him off the ballot or something, so he would win with 85%of the "popular" vote).

freeman3

If I see a generalized problem with foreign policy it is the failure to anticipate consequences of our foreign policy moves. Ricky appears to have a deontological view of our foreign policy, meaning that we have to wage a moral/ethical foreign without doing a utilitarian calculation that a less moral/ethical stance might have beneficial results

Not entirely. What needs to be acknowledged and owned is the past. we didn't get to the point where large numbers of Middle Eastern citizens have embraced extreme views magically.
Those who have embraced Al Queda and ISIS have done so because they and theirs have suffered at the hands of the incumbents. Dictators propped up by various elements. religion, (KSA) the west, etc.
It needs to be acknowledged that you cannot grow liberty and democracy from well spring of totalitarianism. especially if those totalitarian governments are seen to be solidly in bed with western commercial interests and political interests at the expense of the citizens.
It needs to be acknowledged that the past has lead to the present. And that repeating the strategies of intervention and aid to pliant dictators will not lead to a long term peaceful solution.
I am in favor of limited intervention against the most dangerous elements. Limited assistance to those fighting ISIS and defending vulnerable minorities is sensible and moral.

ray

The whole world saw that the US doesn't stand behind its redlines.

Actually the whole world saw the mess that became the occupation of Iraq once Bush enforced the red Lines he drew there...
Obama may be guilty of rhetoric that he wasn't willing to back up. But enforcing arbitrary red lines in an attempt to influence what is inevitable is stupid. Reagan understood that when he abandoned Lebanon to civil war, even after 148 Marines were murdered.
Bush I understood that when he refused to occupy Iraq after chasing Saddam out of Kuwait.
Bus II thought the no fly zone incursions, if there actually were any, were a reason to commit the US to a disastrous occupation.
Red lines lead to consequences...on both sides of the line. Perhaps thats why they shouldn't be etched in stone but rather drawn in sand.

ray

People everywhere, but not all people. Certainly there are many people in the region who could care less about democracy. They include everyone volunteering for Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban, etc

The people drawn to ISIS are drawn to it because it offers them more than what the alternative has been... The alternative has never been democracy only dictatorships that profit a small minority in Syria or Iraq . Or in Iran the Shah and his entourage.
In Syria and Iran there were once, democratic alternatives. The CIA ensured they did not thrive. You think Syrians and Iranians don't remember this? That the past doesn't influence them?
Many Iranians want exactly what they had before, a vibrant democracy.....and don't understand why the US would have contributed to ending this...

ray

You seem to see all this very black and white

.
I don't. I'm just saying that it is expedient foreign policy that has brought the US (and the rest of the West) the results of today.
I'm saying that when you are involved in regime change and the regime ends up destroying the aspirations of a people for liberty and socio economic justice, any alternative you offer them is void of credibility. Arabs don't trust the US with good reason. That many have turned to extremist alternatives is a result of having no good alternative offered them ... Because the good alternative that should have been supported by the West was denied them for reasons of expediency.
As ye sow ...so shall ye reap.

ray

Except that they are hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Was it you who once said that one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day?

I'm not sure they are bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
If they are could it be because Israe possesses them and that the strategy of mutually assured destruction (proven to be so effective by the US and Russia) might be a realistic strategy?
Just wondering...

Ricky, we all know what you are saying. The question is whether you can ever acknowledge what others are saying. BTW, excellent posts by Hacker and Freeman.

P.S. The Iranian regime wants to obtain nuclear weapons so that they can stay in power, and increase their power. Israel is their excuse. Your chances of turning them into a democracy after they have nuclear weapons are virtually nil. If you care about democracy you should do everything you can to prevent that regime from going nuclear.

freeman3

Hacker is making an argument (I think) that one of the main problems with our foreign policy is that we have not been consistent. That other countries cannot rely on us because our foreign policy changes with each new president. I guess I don't agree with that...at all. it would be a problem if our foreign policy totally reversed course.

How can foreign policy be consistent when it is formed based on two distinctly different sets of guiding principles.
one the short term promotion of commercial and strategic interests.
the other, the promotion of the democratic principles of self determination, and liberty?

If you are saying, as I think Hacker is, that the second set of guiding principles is not genuinely espoused, then isn't it understandable that long term credibility is undermined?

hacker

Ricky seems, if I understand him correctly, to be arguing that it be absolutely ethical; but he's contradicted himself by allowing expediency without admitting that he's doing precisely that. That was my point....because if you are choosing a foreign policy with strictly "ethical guidelines", deviating from them would, indeed, be an act of pursuing expediency. Get my drift?

I'm not an absolutist.
I'm saying that abandoning support for democracy and self determination, as seems to be demonstrably clear has occurred in the last 60 years, hasn't produced results anyway. (Based upon the current situation in the middle east.) .
So its well past time to intervene as a dominant player in the region. Limited involvement that acknowledges that the people who actually inhabit the region have a right to sort out their own affairs can't have worse results than the constant intervention of the last 60 years.Interventions designed with only US and western interests in mind....

ray, there are lots of reasons why iran doesn't want nuclear weapons. here's ten.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... -bomb-7802


ray

P.S. The Iranian regime wants to obtain nuclear weapons so that they can stay in power, and increase their power. Israel is their excuse.

nuclear weapons won't help them against an internal revolution. Which is their biggest threat to the end of the current regime. (Which, by the way, is somewhat democratic.)
But nuclear weapons would defend them from the nuclear threat that is ISrael.
Why is it okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons but not Iran?

hacker

However, I think it's irresponsible to pressure other regimes to democratize, even when possible. If we are going to talk about "self-determination", maybe some of these countries do not like the idea of democracy?

Really?
And whom do you think doesn't like the notion of democracy in dictatorships?