Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
Sorry it's taken me a while to respond. I've had a somewhat agonizing dental problem these past couple of days I've had to deal with.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
For me, as a non-American, a lot of US politics are bewildering. Understanding how the various forces that shape US foreign policy interact is a complicated task. Most accounts in the media tend to tell the story as a clash between 'isolationists' and 'interventionists' a clash that has been happening since WWI. Inside both of these perspectives we are told there are 'hawks' and 'doves'. I've no doubt these kinds of superficial analyses fail to tell anything like the full story. What does emerge clearly is that there is a substantial gap between the way Americans tend to see and understand the world and the ways in which non-Americans see and understand the world and the role of American policies in how that world is shaped.
I think many Americans are equally bewildered by U.S. politics. The problem is due in part to how Americans see the outside world, but also how Americans see themselves.
I don’t think there’s really as much of a clash between isolationists and interventionists, not as much as there was before World War II. After WW2, both major parties were fully in favor of interventionism, so isolationists have been made politically impotent.
Hawks and doves are just two different factions within the interventionist camp, as no such division ever existed among isolationists. Isolationists were never “doves,” but they just believed that America should only fight in wars for America’s benefit, not for the benefit of other nations or global ideologies. Doves are still ideological interventionists and globalists, but they just don’t like seeing anybody get hurt, maimed, or killed. While I consider to be a rather noble and compassionate view to take, it won’t do a damn bit of good until they abandon their globalism and ideological adherence to interventionism and the general idea that America’s role is to “make the world safe for democracy,” which is the interventionists’ creed.
quote:
One example might be that many Americans tend to view US interventions overseas as 'liberations' while the locals often tend to view such interventions as 'invasions' or 'aggressions'. For instance, Iraq is claimed to have been liberated by Bush's intervention, while Arabs tend to see it as an aggressive invasion. That the stated causus belli - WMDs - turned out to be completely false doesn't help.
The whole thing with Iraq really started when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, which triggered the initial U.S. response in the First Gulf War. In that sense, Americans viewed it as a war of liberation, but at the time, few Americans actually bothered to ask why it was up to the U.S. to “liberate” Kuwait (or defend Saudi Arabia) in the first place. We had been interventionist for so long that few people even bothered to question it anymore. (Even the anti-war protesters of the 1960s never really questioned the basic premise behind interventionism and America’s active role in the world. They were just against the methods and premises behind that particular war, but they never really challenged the overall policy which led to our involvement in the first place; which is why all those massive protests only really ended the Vietnam War but did not change the overall policy which we’re still dealing with today.)
I do remember that the Kuwaiti ambassador was on all the TV stations begging America to come to the aid of his country, and no doubt his impassioned pleas and horror stories of atrocities tugged on the heartstrings of more than a few Americans, thus fueling the support for interventionism.
It was also around this same time that I realized just how intransigent and inflexible the interventionists were and how zealously opposed they were to anything remotely close to what they saw as “isolationism.”
As a side note, I would mention that I’ve always considered the term “isolationist” to be a misnomer, since America never advocated isolationism of the kind practiced by North Korea or Albania during the Cold War. America’s position was one of neutrality, similar to Switzerland or Sweden, but there was never any outright “isolationism.” But compared to the policies advocated by the interventionists, I guess neutrality would seem like “isolationism” from their point of view.
quote:
OTOH, this is the nation that gave Europe the visionary Marshall plan to rebuild after the devastation of WWII.
The Marshall Plan was an extension of the same policy, since it still had the basic goal of “making the world safe for democracy.” By pumping all that money to help rebuild Europe, it was felt that we could gain “hearts and minds” (which is another catch-phrase used by interventionists) away from the Soviets.
The main trouble was that Truman concentrated far more on Europe and not enough China and the rest of East Asia. Marshall was sent in to try to act as a mediator between the Chinese Nationalists and the Chinese Communists, but it was too little, too late. As I recall, Marshall was personally disgusted by both sides in that conflict.
quote:
My feeling is that at the core of this discussion is the ideology of American 'exceptionalism' by which I understand the view that the US has a unique 'exceptional' role to play in the world, as the 'leader of the free world' and chief proponent of democracy and 'democratic values' and that no other country can play this role. This privileged position authorises unilateral behaviour, with no accountability to the rest of the world for its actions or their consequences. Obviously this is a perspective that excludes non-Americans while sanitising many of the more controversial actions the US has conducted overseas - actions that US tends to view as 'liberating' the (often 'ungrateful') natives. In this view as I understand it, the relationships between US strategic, geo-political and commercial interests and its military interventions are seen as very much secondary, while many non-Americans tend to feel that the commercial interests often are the prime movers behind those of military interventions.
I think that Americans tend to compare what we’re doing today with what we did 100-200 years ago. For the first 100 years of our existence, America was technically neutral (aka “isolationist”) when it came to European affairs, but we were still very much motivated by commercial interests and expansionism. There were some cross-purposes at the very top, with an ideological/philosophical dispute between the Southern slave owners and the Northern industrialists eventually being dealt with in the Civil War.
The Civil War is obviously an important event in American history for a multitude of reasons, but the key thing to consider is that America’s present identity and and sense of self-awareness was largely established by that war more than the American Revolution. Despite whatever else one may write about that war, along with the somewhat mixed agenda of the Union government, the Abolitionists and many of the rank-and-file Union soldiers really did believe in the cause they were fighting for, to preserve the Union and to free the slaves.
I’m not sure if this is a contributory factor in what is regarded as “American exceptionalism,” but it was felt that, unlike other wars and armies of other countries, they weren’t fighting for King and Country, nor were they fighting for booty or plunder, nor were they even fighting for land or expansionism. They sincerely believed that they were fighting to set other humans free, a cause they believed to be noble and just. I believe this as well, although I realize that much of the cause they fought for was betrayed in the aftermath by the same politics as usual.
Just the same, we still had the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, along with a strong, unified nation, and a new wave of American patriotism and our own form of nationalism taking hold – just as European nations were also experiencing a rise in nationalism. Our sense of identity was already firmly in place. The period after the Civil War helped to solidify this sense of identity and self-awareness Americans had of themselves, both in the positive and the negative.
Of course, the government still seemed primarily concerned with furthering our commercial interests, but there were also liberals, progressives, and other social reformers coming on the scene as well. They pushed for civil rights, gender/racial equality, better labor conditions, ending child labor, better healthcare, education, etc. – pretty much the same things they advocate for today, although they’ve made quite a bit of progress between then and now. Americans’ perceptions of themselves are also strongly rooted in the progression of domestic reforms we’ve seen during our history. Non-Americans may only see how we are from the outside, but from the inside, we’ve seen how we’ve improved ourselves and gotten better than we once were.
As far as being the “leader of the free world” and an active proponent for world-wide democracy, that would come later, but all of what was going on in America between the Civil War and World War I would lead us up to that point. It was clear following the Civil War that the powers that be in America wanted to push for national unity, pro-American patriotism, and our own form of “nationalism” (which wasn’t quite the same as European nationalism which was also on the rise during that period).
In World War I, we were part of the Allied coalition, led by primarily by Britain and France, while the U.S. was more or less a “junior partner.” But part of the problem is that we didn’t really want to be part of a coalition or any permanent alliance system. After the war, the isolationists reigned again and blocked our entry into the League of Nations. I think most Americans (even including those at the top with commercial interests) would have been content with the status quo of the world order at the time, even if it was under Anglo-French hegemony. U.S. hegemony was still somewhat limited at this point.
The turning point likely came around World War II, both in terms of shifting public opinion away from isolationism as well as in elevating our role from “junior partner” to the more predominant role we’ve had ever since, as “leader of the free world,” “arsenal of democracy,” etc. Although many Americans were still reluctant to support permanent alliances, we had already grown used to the idea of fighting wars for ostensibly noble causes, whether it was to free slaves in the Civil War or to make the world safe for democracy.
The circumstances of the war itself likely led Americans to believe that we had to take a more predominant role. France was knocked out early, and Britain was seemingly hanging by a thread. I don’t think anyone really expected Germany to make so many rapid gains in a relatively short period of time, and likewise in the Asian Theater, Japan was making similar gains and threatening European colonies in that region. Since the U.S. had a shared interest in colonial rule in East Asia, Japan’s challenge to that was also deemed a threat to the U.S., which led to U.S. sanctions against Japan, triggering the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. This is when many modern historians and geopolitical strategists consider that America was “shocked” out of isolationism, that it was some gravely important lesson for America to learn.
The general feeling since that time has been that isolationism was mostly foolish and naïve about the world. The prevailing view in the American political consciousness has been one of national regret that we did not join the League of Nations and add our strength to the coalition that could have stopped the Axis before it even got started. America’s staunch support of interventionism since WW2 has been based on a series of hypothetical “what if” questions. Isolationism has been successfully lambasted as dishonorable and selfish, since it favors American national interests over the moral principles of democracy, freedom, and justice.
Even if non-Americans believe that talk of “democracy” and “freedom” is cynical propaganda designed to mask the government’s true intentions, it should still be noted that many Americans do believe it and can have their honor and reputation smeared if they’re seen as against “democracy” and “freedom.” It’s the usual “those who are not with us against us” logic which tends to prevail in most discussions on U.S. foreign policy. “America, love it or leave it.” Those who were against America’s involvement in Vietnam (just as one example) were painted as supporters of the other side: “Communists,” “Pinkos,” etc. I recall similar arguments being used against those who opposed giving aid to the Contras. This is the kind of peer pressure which is exerted upon Americans in order to get people to toe the line.
Similarly, if one questions the honor and reputation of the U.S. government and suggests that there’s any other reason for their military actions other than the stated pretexts relating to “freedom” and “democracy,” then they’re typically isolated and discredited as “conspiracy theorists” and wearers of tinfoil hats. Some Americans will get quite offended if anyone suggests that America’s military interventions are for commercial interests or anything other than “making the world safe for democracy.” It’s this kind of intransigence (along with the argumentative tactic of ridicule and hubris that usually accompanies it) that has to be challenged and overcome in order to bring openness and honesty to the public debate on foreign policy.
I think non-Americans might have difficulty relating to this, since criticizing America from another country is far more comfortable and convenient than it is to do so from within America.
But underlying the process is that “Americanism” has become more of an abstract ideology, not anything directly related to the United States, its people, history, sub-cultures, land, or geography. It’s turned into a political position that people can either support or not support, but those who do not support that political position can be labeled “un-American” (even if they are American by birth). In the minds of many people, “Americanism” is something not unlike a religious belief, and this is probably one of the sacred cows which will have to be challenged.
There are also pro-American apologists who readily acknowledge our history and some of its darker pages, but tend to take the view of “that was then, this is now.” They may acknowledge rogue elements and ulterior motives at the upper echelons of power in this country, but tend to believe that the system still works and that the bad guys will be exposed eventually. And to be sure, there are some scandals that do come to light, so it tends to reinforce the idea that the truth will come out and justice will ultimately prevail (even if it takes decades or even centuries).
I didn’t really mean to go into this long essay, but I think that the underlying issue that leads Americans to support these activities and America’s role in the world is rather complex – a consequence of our history and various competing but overlapping ideologies and schools of thought. It’s not simply a matter of “sheeple” being manipulated by the corporate media, although I wouldn’t deny that as a factor. However, it becomes necessary to look at what the media actually present and the way they present it in the context of what kind of effect it will have on their viewers. Propaganda is most effective when its writers know their audience. Propaganda directed at Americans may not have the same effect on people from other countries, and vice versa.
quote:
One example of how this ideology plays out in practice is the post immediately after yours - post #289. Here the view that the US can act as it pleases is stated in all its ugly arrogance. Any one critical of the US or its allies is motivated by 'hate'. The US can do what it wants and doesn't give two hoots what the rest of the world thinks. This deluded interpretation of the world is mixed liberally with blatant self-serving fiction. The need for US to follow a "balanced policy" is scorned.* This view seems to regard its own ignorance as a positive advantage. It's easy to see why this view creates such antagonism and criticism throughout the world.
To some degree, American perceptions of the world have been shaped by what goes on in it. To put it bluntly, many Americans believe that the World Wars and other turmoil of the world were caused by the fuck-ups, arrogance, and/or aggression of other countries around the world. While I would not argue that America “saved the world” or anything like that, many Americans would perceive that a lot of what we do in the world is try to clean up messes which were left by other nations from previous eras. We came on the scene somewhat late, and every place we’ve been in this world had already been picked over by other colonial powers who were there before us and screwed things up long before we ever got there.
From the American side, some Americans might honestly ask “Well, why do we have to be the ones to do all this stuff?” Even if one is sold on the idea of “making the world safe for democracy,” one might still wonder why it all has to fall on America’s shoulders to act unilaterally and do it all ourselves. The common answer is that “nobody else will do it.”
From an American perception, it might be seen that the reason many Americans don’t care what the rest of the world thinks is because (1) we believe that they’re originally responsible for a lot of the mess and (2) we believe that the other countries of the world are motivated by their own self interests and not necessarily in “doing the right thing” which they often expect America to do.
Also, when one considers that the European way of doing things gave us the Treaty of Versailles, Appeasement, and devastating world wars, Americans may perceive that “what the rest of the world thinks” could lead us to another global catastrophe. Europe might be seen as the “weak sisters” in the Alliance which might lead Americans to disregard what they think. What might be considered a “balanced policy” from one perception might be seen as “Appeasement” in Americans’ eyes, and that’s not something many are inclined to support.
So, when Americans hear criticism from other places in the world (particularly Europe), they might be scornful because they might believe that Europe already had their chance at running the world and fucked it all up. This piece of irony isn’t lost on Americans, so Americans tend to put on certain filters when reading or listening to criticism from the outside world. In all fairness, a lot of criticism of America comes across as far too one-sided and self-serving for whatever country the criticism comes from.
I would also suggest that some criticism of America is somewhat misguided and misdirected, as it tends to present the global situation on more on a national/symbolic basis and ignores the underlying ideologies and philosophies which are evident in many of the nations from which this staunch criticism emanates. There are pro-business elements in most every nation, and they might tend to praise and admire America’s role in the world, since they have benefited from all of this as well. So, to focus on the issue as some kind of “national” problem exclusive to America may actually be missing the mark. That’s probably my main counter-criticism, since I’m not denying that factual criticisms against the U.S. government or our corporate elite. But I think it only tells half the story and tends to paint it more as an “American” problem than anything ideological or political.
quote:
Many non-Americans (including myself) have been and are very critical of US foreign policy. These views are often dismissed by Americans as 'anti-American hatred'. While I have no doubt that this hatred is real in many quarters, it is far from universal. Most people I discuss these issues with are coming from another, far friendlier perspective - we want to like the US, we see many positive aspects to the US but feel that the US makes it very difficult for us to like it. In my experience, this view is as valid for Arabs as any other sector.
I think it depends on which Americans you talk to. Not all Americans are the same. We come from different regions and different sub-cultures – many of which don’t readily see eye-to-eye with each other or the government.
A lot of people have different views on U.S. foreign policy as well. On their face, the different factions believe that they are bound to support U.S. interests and also tend to assume that the U.S. has a leadership role in the world. They don’t really question that the U.S. should be the leader of the free world, but where they seem to differ is in how that leadership should manifest itself. “Isolationism,” in whatever form it might take, is not even considered an option, not at this point. Interventionism seems to be the prevailing view at this point, even if there is disagreement over when and where to exercise that policy (which can often make it seem inconsistent and confusing).
One thing about interventionism is that it was seen as a more moderate and measured response as opposed to all-out warfare with either the Soviet Union or China. Some generals, like Patton and MacArthur, wanted us to go to war with those countries and end the scourge of Communism once and for all. They were overruled and fired by those who favored a policy of containment and interventionism so as to avoid any direct confrontations which could lead to war with either the USSR or China. We were also bound by treaty and international convention to refrain from outright aggressive warfare, so a policy of interventionism and war-by-proxy probably seemed like a “happy medium” at the time, to still maintain Western interests while avoiding another world war.
I don’t really dismiss all criticism of America as anti-American hatred. Some of it may be, but I think it’s just more misdirected than anything else. A lot of it seems to focus more on symbols than the actual meat and potatoes of what makes this country run and what drives our policies.
There are times when criticisms of America seem to come from strange places and attacking certain aspects of America which seem inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Americans get criticized from all corners of the world, from Australia to the UK, from Japan to the Middle East, from Russia, from China, from Latin America – and also from other Americans. We criticize each other quite extensively as well, as exemplified in all the political mudslinging and gridlock we see going on.
So, even looking at this from the most logical and honest point of view we can take, we have to examine each of these criticisms and measure them against criticisms made from other nations, consider what they’re asking for and what they want, while balancing all that with political forces here at home and the potential backlash it could have from other parts of the world. Even if we “do the right thing” according to how some might think America should act, it might have consequences from elsewhere from those who were benefiting from the status quo.
So, even “balance” has to be looked upon with a certain perspective. To try to balance everything so that we can honestly negotiate and compromise so that every nation’s interests can be respected and taken into consideration is a very tricky business. It’ll be next to impossible to keep everyone happy, so there may still be some disgruntled factions in the world even if we do everything in our power to keep things balanced.
US policymakers and their apologists might argue that the U.S. has been trying to maintain that balance in the world. The perception is that a global balance can be maintained and that the family of nations can function adequately within a framework of international law and a free market global economy. At least, that’s the idea, and the belief is that it can actually work, as long as there no rogue nations which could rock the boat and throw things out of balance. The US policymakers might argue that interventionism is an effective tool at keeping these rogue nations and other factions in check, so as to avoid a spread of conflict or the outbreak of a world war.
Some of this also rests within US estimates of the intentions and probable actions of any given regime or rogue leader, which we don’t really know, but we’re inclined to assume the worst.
|
RE: Why Arabs Don't Like the U.S. - 
Profile
* 
It just gets better and better dont it? It was our europroblem for sure. But thanks to the americans we were saved, thanks again!
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread