That is why I am happy to see articles like this that keep America stupid, at least in regards to foreign policy. This article benefits my cause on three levels.First, it plays into the assumption that Republicans are strong on defense and Democrats are weak on defense. According to the article, now that Obama is elected, everyone is calling in their demands. It's as if people can just smell the pansy on him. Reading the article, you would never think that such demands were ever made on Bush. "Lets just make up shit-ass demands and see what we can get away with!" Most of these were already ideas and policies that many people thought should be implemented. Just because Bush perfected the "Fuck You" doesn't mean they were bad demands. It just means that somebody in the White House might actually pick up the phone.
Second, it does nothing to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas. Lots of countries have requests. Some are bat-shit crazy (The Taliban: Please stop bombing us!), others are fine and dandy (Russia: You should not try to piss us off intentionally). Some of them are in our interest (Eurpope: It's a bad idea to piss off Iran intentionally). Just because another country wants us to pursue an issue doesn't mean it's a bad thing. For example, the first three issues they mention are all bad Bush policies that people want extended or ended.
Missile defense with Russia is a stupid idea. Only reckless hawks pursue it. It is wildly costly, it doesn't work ("I know, we'll shoot down their missiles. That's easy to do, right?"), and it pisses off Russia, who had been dismantling and disarming missiles until we started talking about bullshit missile defense issues. Missile defense is normally nothing more than a lame attempt to add another notch to the Reagan history of belligerency. I say, for old times sake, we start re-sponsoring Central American terrorism. Those were the days when you were truly proud to be an American.
Then, the Regime Change policy is also a terrible policy. It largely discredits the US as a beneficial force in the world, violates multitudes of international law and diplomacy precedents, and is an extreme policy that will never have a good outcome (see Iraq, Mossadeq in Iran, Arbenz in Guatamala, Allende in Chile, etc). In regards to Iran, keeping that policy makes future negotiation with them in good faith highly unlikely. "Just because we want to invade you doesn't mean we can't still be friends."
Then, on the same lines, listening to Israel tell us to be tougher on Iran is also a bad idea. Being tough on Iran hasn't gotten us anywhere, except to an angrier and more-armed Iran. By portraying all of these issues as demands, it makes US following any of them look like the actions of a weak-kneed pussy. "We're not going to give into their demands! We're Americans. We make demands." Some of these requests are really just people asking us to stop pursuing stupid policies that hurt both sides.
The third reason this article stupidifies is that it vilifies negotiation and diplomacy. Again, by portraying these issues as demands, or "requests," it automatically makes agreeing to them sound as if the US is coming from a position of weakness. Countries do just call each other to discuss important shit, you know. It isn't a bad thing either. It's actually the only way shit gets done that is beneficial to both sides.
Looks like I've got some bright days ahead of me.
No comments:
Post a Comment