ray

Ricky, I get it. We should follow our morals and support Democracy, except when the Democracy is Israel;

If you get it, you didn't get it from anything I've said.

ray

The notion that the Arab world in general is hurting because of Israel is absurd

.
what do you mean by hurting?
here's what was said.
ray

No doubt all of the woes of the 200+ million Arabs in the world is the result of the Great Satan's support of the Zionist swindle.

rickyp

You know, its very true that the majority of the Arabs will actually agree, or at lest sympathize with this statement.

do you disagree with the statement that the Arab world sees US support for Israel as a negative or not?
Do you disagree or not that the Arab world sees the occupation and treatment of Palestinians by Israel as a great injustice?

ray

The Arabs are adults and after 60 years or so of liberation from the West they must own their own institutions

Perhaps this would mean more if
1) the citizens of the Arab world weren't primarily living without liberty in dictatorships and monarchies materially supported by the West for the last 80 years.
2) The US and the rest of the West wasn't heavily involved militarily over the last sixty years.

Ricky,

do you disagree with the statement that the Arab world sees US support for Israel as a negative or not?
Do you disagree or not that the Arab world sees the occupation and treatment of Palestinians by Israel as a great injustice?

Yes, I do agree. Most or many also think that women are property, shouldn't drive, should be stoned if they have an affair, shouldn't be granted a divorce, that gays should be killed, that men should be allowed to have multiple wives, that there shouldn't be free press, that people who draw cartoons should be murdered, that most Jews are evil, that Israel is behind the recent French shootings, that it is ok to kill Jewish civilians from whatever country, that Israel is responsible for the invasion of Iraq, and on and on.

ray

Most or many also think that women are property, shouldn't drive, should be stoned if they have an affair, shouldn't be granted a divorce, that gays should be killed, that men should be allowed to have multiple wives, that there shouldn't be free press,

Are these aspects of a society that should or perhaps should not be supported by the US and the West? And by support I mean military support, and/or economic support and/or political support?
From your tone I'd say not.
And yet, for a full 60 years the alliance with KSA has been strong.

rickyp wrote:ray

Most or many also think that women are property, shouldn't drive, should be stoned if they have an affair, shouldn't be granted a divorce, that gays should be killed, that men should be allowed to have multiple wives, that there shouldn't be free press,

Are these aspects of a society that should or perhaps should not be supported by the US and the West? And by support I mean military support, and/or economic support and/or political support?
From your tone I'd say not.
And yet, for a full 60 years the alliance with KSA has been strong.

Funny where you decided to cut my quote off ...

I'm just saying that you have to be realistic in terms of what you can accomplish in these societies. The notion that rickyp and other like minded progressives can change that world without risking chaos is troublesome. I'm all for reform and I wish the Arab world behaved like Scandinavia, but the West cannot impose change.

You also need to be suspicious of these left (and right) wing bloggers who use any opportunity they can to throw Israel under the bus as if that's the primary cause of the dysfunction.

RickyP,
Yes,what was your motivation for cutting the quote where you did, rather than using the entire context of the sentence?

Inquiring minds want to know...

hacker

Just out of curiosity, would you agree with me, if I said my country's foreign policy in the Middle East, or even the entire world in general, is short-sighted?


Entirely.
Especially if you agree that foundational values should not be abandoned for the sake of expediency.
Rather that ways need to be found that limit compromises on foundation values.
I thought that i had already said that the blogger was similar to your views... I thought you'd be interested to know that your views intersect with that part of the political spectrum

Well thank you, I'm flattered. Sort of. However, can you explain your statement I have quoted above that "ways need to be found that limit compromises on foundation values" ? Care to clarify?

And you have missed my point yet again, by the way. I am talking about my country's lack of diplomatic credibility is due to its inconsistency and lack of continuity.

hacker

And you have missed my point yet again, by the way. I am talking about my country's lack of diplomatic credibility is due to its inconsistency and lack of continuity.

yes it is.
But what is the cause of this inconsistency?
I submit that its the willingness to compromise on espoused values for reasons of expediency.
If the reasons why the US wants to promote democracy in one region or country, aren't the same as another ...(see more below)

ray

Funny where you decided to cut my quote off

I cut it off in matters where the authorities in a region have complete control . Laws.
Most of the rest aren't in the control of the authorities as they represent citizens attitudes and opinions. Unless you believe that societies should control thought and all free speech, I don't see how you can entirely fault a government for the existence of why people hold these attitudes. That's the responsibility of all the participants in the society.(As is the promotion of terrorism, unless there is material support for terrorism. Which by the way there has been by KSA but for which they have not been openly criticized or punished for....because of oil?)
For instance free speech is protected in the US under the Constitution almost regardless of the nature of that speech.
If some crazy mullah in Pakistan wants to preach that Israel is the source of all evil is it th Pakistani governments responsibility to imprison him in order to stop that speech? If he were in the US, that wouldn't happen would it?

ray

I'm just saying that you have to be realistic in terms of what you can accomplish in these societies. The notion that rickyp and other like minded progressives can change that world without risking chaos is troublesome. I'm all for reform and I wish the Arab world behaved like Scandinavia, but the West cannot impose change

.
I agree. However, the West has imposed and sought to impose change through out the history of the Middle East. And sought to impose the status quo if that met the expedient needs of the West.
Nascent democracies were crushed in Egypt, Iran, Syria.
Military support was thrown Saddams way when it was expedient. He was attacked and democracy "imposed" upon Iraq when he became uncontrollable.
The KSA has enjoyed military support despite the way its laws contradict the espoused values of the West.
(At the same time, Israel is given a pass by some on the ways its behaviors in occupation have contradicted International Law....)
Hackers point is that there are endless contradictions that cause the lack of credibility.
You seem to make the point that these contradictions are necessary for reasons of "real politik".
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you on that Ray. I'm simply saying that the more one compromises on foundational values, the less these values have any credence.
Long term, if the promotion and support of democracy, self determination, and human rights is right, and I think it is.... then every time a Saddam or Saud or Mubarek is propped up at the expense of these values the less credence the nations that seek to promote them have.... And eventually this drives people into extreme positions espoused by people like Hezbollah, ISIS and Al Queda.

You cannot ignore the history of the Middle East, including the involvement in the West in attempting to control its politics and governments, and then say

I'm all for reform and I wish the Arab world behaved like Scandinavia, but the West cannot impose change.

Thats magical thinking.
We didn't get to where we are today magically. It has historic roots that include the fact that the West has consistently tried to impose its will. when you say that imposing its will risks chaos.... you ignore the chaos that it has already caused. (Most recently the Iraq war was an attempt to impose "democracy".

ray

You also need to be suspicious of these left (and right) wing bloggers who use any opportunity they can to throw Israel under the bus as if that's the primary cause of the dysfunction

I think you mistake my attitude towards Israel.It isn't a "cause" of dysfunction.
However the inconsistent way of treating the creation of a State for Jews at the expense of indigenous Arabs is ... And that inconsistent behavior is in large part because of reasons of expedient reaction by the West to Arab realities post WWII.
The original sin of treating Palestinian Arabs differently than Jews in the creation of states, is the root cause of the Palestinian problem. and the Palestinian problem has been a convenient way for Arab despots to deflect, distract and maneuver in order to keep their power.

yes it is.
But what is the cause of this inconsistency?
I submit that its the willingness to compromise on espoused values for reasons of expediency.
If the reasons why the US wants to promote democracy in one region or country, aren't the same as another ...

You don't say. Now you asked, what is the cause of the inconsistency, right? Not the specific reasons for adopting a particular foreign policy, but WHY is it inconsistent, that's what you are asking?

While you're pondering over that one:

The original sin of treating Palestinian Arabs differently than Jews in the creation of states, is the root cause of the Palestinian problem. and the Palestinian problem has been a convenient way for Arab despots to deflect, distract and maneuver in order to keep their power.

"The creation of states...." we didn't create Israel. Nor did we issue the Balfour Declaration, opening the Mandate of Palestine to Jewish settlement.

You'll have to take that one up with Danivon and Sassenach.....

You know, the United States was a significant factor in keeping civilization intact in the 20th Century. Without the United States Germany might very well have won WWI and WWII. And then the United States was instrumental in defeating communism in the latter half of the 20th century. The world would be much different if it did not do these things.

Yes , the United States made some mistakes in saving civilization from fascism and communism, yes it supported some unsavory dictators to do so...but that has to be assessed in the context of what was accomplished--the maintenance of liberal, free democracies in the West (and Great Britain deserves its share of credit, too.)

And now we are dealing with Islamic extremism. This makes our support of democracy in the Middle East tentative. We would love for free democracies to flourish in the Middle East, but it just is not going to be that easy. While the current ruling family in Saudia Arabia is deeply flawed, it could and likely would be replaced by something far worse. And Israel has nothing to do with this. I hope Arabs soon find a path to democracy, but until they do the West is going to choose the Saudis over ISIS.

Western culture is more powerful than Arab culture. When Japan was confronted with this fact, it adapted and borrowed from western culture. Other Asian countries have successively adapted as well. The Arabs, or at least a significant number of them, are turning to religion for answers in how to deal with or defeat the West. Not the way to go. And faced with having a stable dictator or anti-western "democracy" that is not free, dominated by religion, and that poses a threat to stability in the Middle East and to western interests ( oil, of course, but also control of terrorism, worries about gaining access to nuclear weapons, etc.) then we're willing to work with the stable dictator.

Well first, can you answer my request for clarification, Ricky (before we get off on a tangent about WWII)?

Now you asked, what is the cause of the inconsistency, right? Not the specific reasons for adopting a particular foreign policy, but WHY is it inconsistent, that's what you are asking?

So what is the cause of the inconsistency in American foreign policy?

hacker

You don't say. Now you asked, what is the cause of the inconsistency, right? Not the specific reasons for adopting a particular foreign policy, but WHY is it inconsistent, that's what you are asking?

I asked rhetorically. Then I answered it. Did you read further? Here...
rickyp
I submit that its the willingness to compromise on espoused values for reasons of expediency.

hacker

"The creation of states...." we didn't create Israel. Nor did we issue the Balfour Declaration, opening the Mandate of Palestine to Jewish settlement

.
Would you mind quoting me where I ascribed this original failure to the US? I didn't and don't.
However, the existence of this original failure has meant that the US and other nations have had to hold diametrically opposed opinions of the Israelis democracy, and the expressions of democracy that have occurred in Palestine. Well, maybe they haven't "had" to. but for reasons of expediency they have either ignored or sought to delegitimize the democratic expressions in Palestine.

Consider that if both a Palestinian democracy and a Jewish democracy had been created as was originally intended how the current situation in the Middle Wast would be...

freeman3

Yes , the United States made some mistakes in saving civilization from fascism and communism, yes it supported some unsavory dictators to do so...but that has to be assessed in the context of what was accomplished--the maintenance of liberal, free democracies in the West (and Great Britain deserves its share of credit, too.)

Did they have to support unsavory dictators to do so?
Did the CIA have to be involved in ending the Syrian democracy? The Iranian Democracy? The Egyptian democracy? Without those interventions are you sure that communism would have triumphed?
I doubt it.
If you want to take that discussion away from just the Middle East you'll have a long list of dictators who were supported over democratic governments, mostly for commercial reasons. (see Latin America)

freeman3

And now we are dealing with Islamic extremism. This makes our support of democracy in the Middle East tentative. We would love for free democracies to flourish in the Middle East, but it just is not going to be that easy. While the current ruling family in Saudia Arabia is deeply flawed, it could and likely would be replaced by something far worse. And Israel has nothing to do with this. I hope Arabs soon find a path to democracy, but until they do the West is going to choose the Saudis over ISIS

ISIS became an option for Syrians and Iraqis because the incredibly corrupt regimes in both nations were unbearable. As extreme as ISIS is, there were no other options offering any hope of change. In the case of Iraq, the government was installed by the US. Without US support the Shiite majority might have had to adopt a more conciliatory arrangement that would have better accommodated Sunni and Kurdish aspirations . If Saddam had fallen to an internal revolt, the government might have had more legitimacy.
Our problem (the west's Freeman) is the great conceit that our culture is more powerful and therefore better for everyone.
What we fail to recognize is that the aspects of western culture that are attractive to ordinary men, freedoms and liberties, is actually the opposite of what the dictators and theocrats require to ensure their continuity. And with their continuity "stability" that we prize. And by stability don't we mean security for commercial ventures?
The situation we're in right now is one where the Wests (not just the US) involvement in the region has seldom been beneficial to any but the elite ruling classes. Even when the coalition freed Kuwait from Saddam all that we did was restore a monarchy. Even when the US freed Iraq from Saddam after propping him up against Iran for decades, a political solution could not be imposed upon its citizens. Because the very creation of Iraq was flawed and imposed.

Today is a result of decades of history and right now, the best thing we can do is what we are doing. Providing a military contribution sufficient to allow the region's governments to resist ISIS. Over time, ISIS will collapse because those in its regions will come to realize that as an alternative they deliver nothing they've promised.They are as corrupt as those they seek to replace.
But long term, for those first world countries that can free themselves from Saudi oil, it is time to make moral choices about the source of their energy purchases. And long term its better to walk away from military support that can be used against those citizens who rise up seeking greater liberty. Saudi tanks, purchased from the US were used to end the Bahraini protests. It would be better they weren't.
US tanks rolled against Egyptian protesters. It would be better they didn't.

I agree with you that eventually the advantages of liberal democracies will be spread to those in the Middle East. Usually, this happens from within a nation because the ruling option has failed to meet the aspirations of the populace. In this past this has meant periods of chaos some times. (The French and American Revolutions were chaotic.) That's what the Middle East is going through.
We screwed things up so much in the past that limited involvement seems to me to be the best course.

hacker

You don't say. Now you asked, what is the cause of the inconsistency, right? Not the specific reasons for adopting a particular foreign policy, but WHY is it inconsistent, that's what you are asking?


I asked rhetorically. Then I answered it. Did you read further? Here...
rickyp
I submit that its the willingness to compromise on espoused values for reasons of expediency.

Very well. I understand. And I'll tell you why I disagree with that statement (if one wishes to put such an epistemological burden upon the English language via the application of the term "statement" to most communications originating from Ricky). I mean no offense, Ricky, but you tend to hedge your statements in nearly-inexplicable twaddle, masquerading as enlightened language. I admit I am not always the most direct person on Redscape, nor the resident intellectual myself, but....hell, I at least try to get to the damn point instead of seeing how many people I can fool using clever language. Don't be offended, you are obviously very smart and I respect your viewpoints even if I think some of them as just as shortsighted as my own country's foreign policy.

Anyway...that matter aside: So (you say) we're compromising our values (freedom and democracy and...etc) by reasons of expediency (that which is correct at the moment, but not necessarily correct in the long run). Yes, we are, but that is not the cause of the inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy.

I have already covered above the "political attention span" that the American Government has with the rest of the world; though I did not put it in those precise terms. We do not think in terms of decades or even centuries; as do older and more patient societies such as China, or Japan, or....[name a place]. We think in terms of the "next fiscal quarter" or "the next midterm elections", or---even worse---the end of the present administration. The following [totally hypothetical] statement demonstrates how the American Government thinks vis-a-vis foreign policy (and by the way, "The American Government" can mean a lot of things in this case):

The agreement reached with Kuwait on the President's recent visit to the Middle East will protect our interests from Iranian threats for at least the next five years.

The following [also totally hypothetical] statement is how societies think & act, which have longer political attention spans than the American Government:

Our recent agreement with India will ensure gradual economic growth an cooperation over the next half-century.

The immense dichotomy between the attitudes inherent in the two sentences in italics above ought to illustrate my point. And before you say "it's because of our dysfunctional Congress", may I point out that there is more to "the American Government" than just the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court: more people work in Washington than those 545. What's more, some of those other people have a greater say in foreign policy than the President or the Secretary of State, and are there and have been there just as presidents and elected politicians come and go in Washington.

Therefore, every new administration feels no obligation whatsoever to continue the policies of their predecessor(s). As I alluded to above, the rest of the world does not see U.S. history in those discrete, 4 to 8-year periods of specific presidential administrations. They might think that "Obama made a better President than Bush" but, if you are an Iraqi villager, whose son or daughter died in an American drone-strike, does it alleviate your grief that President Such-and-Such ordered the strike, and not President So-and-So? It befuddles people when America talks democracy and topples Saddam, but does not intervene in any way in Syria (where chemical weapons WERE actually used). And before anybody (especially an American) protests that Iraq was the fault of W, not Obama, my reply would resemble what I have said so far about American short-sightedness. The rest of the world may have their opinions of one American president or another, but to much of the rest of the world, AMERICA invaded Iraq in 2003, and AMERICA refused to help the Syrians or the Ukrainians, presently. With neither Obama, nor W, (nor any U.S. president for quite a while for that matter) bound to any sort of general, long-term strategy applicable to both his predecessors and his successors, we will never, ever have a consistent foreign policy, and we will continue to look like (and act like) hypocrites or cowards.

However, if, as you have insisted, sacrificing one's core values on the altar of geopolitical expediency automatically results in inconsistent foreign policy, then EVERY sovereign nation-state on this planet would have the exact same problem as the Americans, and would act just as shortsightedly. Because like it or not, Ricky, I do see where you're going here, but if you are looking for a lack of hypocrisy in international relations, or looking for a country whose foreign policy is consistently in keeping with its [usually democratic] values, you're going to be looking for a LONG time. You can search the World from Laos to Liechtenstein, and you will never find a single country which does not have the same problem: so many international commitments and not all of them are reconcilable to its "values"....or, at the very least, to all of its "interests".

Consider that if both a Palestinian democracy and a Jewish democracy had been created as was originally intended how the current situation in the Middle Wast would be...

Yes, the 1947 partition plan was supposed to create two states: the Jewish State (AKA The State of Israel) and the Arab State, in Palestine; yes that part is true. But you are aware of why it did not happen, aren't you?

Six or so Arab states invading the former Mandate of Palestine to make sure NEITHER the State or Israel, nor the Arab Republic of Palestine, would possibly take place. They were actually partially successful in that they prevented one of those two republics from coming into being: the Arab one. Transjordan seized some of that territory: but did it pull out its troops and allow the West Bank to become the Arab Republic of Palestine? No: they took it for themselves (hence the name change). Ditto with Egypt and the Gaza strip.

I know you did not say this Ricky, but I must say it anyway whether this was your point or not: where the Arab governments are concerned, they must realize that screwing Israel is not necessarily the same thing as helping or liberating Palestine.

When Tony Blair was first elected his government made a big deal about how they were going to pursue an 'ethical foreign policy'. Five or six years later he was invading Iraq. I don't think this was what he had in mind back in 1997 but events have a way of catching up on you.

hacker

Very well. I understand

If you understood it this time, and its written exactly the same way, then the original lack of comprehension is your problem.

sass

When Tony Blair was first elected his government made a big deal about how they were going to pursue an 'ethical foreign policy'. Five or six years later he was invading Iraq. I don't think this was what he had in mind back in 1997 but events have a way of catching up on you.

An ethical foreign policy could have kept the UK out of the mess. It wasn't impossible to be ethical in that choice. Only a handful of nations followed Bush into Iraq.

hacker

Anyway...that matter aside: So (you say) we're compromising our values (freedom and democracy and...etc) by reasons of expediency (that which is correct at the moment, but not necessarily correct in the long run). Yes, we are, but that is not the cause of the inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy

Despite the constant changes in American government, the core values that are espoused by american governments have rarely altered . Each and every government has espoused the benefits of liberties that the US Constitution encoded, and this document has been a model for many other liberal democracies... Between the UK traditions and the US constitution the virtuous circle of liberty that is liberal democracy has always had guidance.
Your right that most US governments have failed to apply those values when it came to other people in other nations. If they did, it wouldn't matter that your nations' governance changes so often. It wouldn't matter that commercial enterprises might not prosper as much when despots rule nations in which they do business , because a constant application of these values would see the American government in charge promote liberty over the US commercial interests...

It is very simple Hacker. An ethical foreign policy is pretty much like the Golden Rule.
You can find all kinds of reasons for not treating people in the manner you'd want to be treated...
i.e. The Eisenhower Doctrine said "We must protect our sources of oil". If Eisenhower had concerned himself with the Arab citizens of the nations where that oil came from, perhaps the Doctrine would have been different.
And if the nature of the problem is that the options don't allow a completely ethical choice immediately then policy should be followed that promotes the creation of more options.
In the case of Middle East Oil some of those things have been accomplished.
- the Middle East is less important as a producer than it was for decades.
- alternative energy sources to oil and efficiency drives have lessened the requirement, and lessened the importance.

We're still not at the point yet where there isn't a need. So I support a limited military involvement that ensures the current situation continues. In part because it is also hurting Russia who have been guilty of sponsoring a civil war in Ukraine.
I also suggest that Turkey must be pressed into greater action. Right now it does little to interdict travelers into the region seeking to join ISIS, still allows oil to flow from the region when it is funding ISIS, and has done nothing much to attack ISIS militarily. What practical reasons stop the West from insisting for more from Turkey?