Tweet
Look at the situation in Latin America. In those countries where we poured money, weapons, and military advisors in wars against leftist insurgents -- in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua -- the countries are struggling with the horrific legacy of violence. It's gotten so bad that families are willing to send their children unaccompanied and at great risk to the United States just to avoid early death at home. Here is a case of irresponsible disengagement, for after doing so much to stoke the conflicts, the United States did little to ensure that these countries would thrive in the post-conflict environment.
But in other parts of the region -- Chile, Argentina, Brazil -- the absence of U.S. involvement has allowed societies to prosper. U.S. disengagement from that part of the region, as it turned to focus on other parts of the world, created space for these countries to build up their economies, strengthen their democracies, and create a new web of South-South connections.
Yes, there are radical isolationists in the United States. And there are neocons that want the United States to reestablish some putative golden age of neo-imperial control. The real debate, however, takes place between these poles -- where the United States should critically engage (for instance, to reduce carbon emissions) and responsibly disengage (closing military bases).
The United States is not Atlas, and the U.S. president is not a Helmsman. Atlas is not shrugging; Obama is not nodding.
Instead of these false dichotomies between blundering engagement and irresponsible disengagement, let's have a real debate about where the United States can make a difference given its resources, how President Obama can have a positive impact given his circumscribed influence, and why the American colossus should continue to rein in its unilateralist tendencies, given the declining utility of force and the overriding need for global cooperation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-f...b_5637461.html
I've always told my sons, a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a brilliant man learns from the mistakes of others. We've spent a hundred years cleaning up the messes of Europe's colonialism, and here we have loud voices in America still screaming for America to become a colonial power, and an empire. This article speaks to the myths of American foreign policy, and Obama's part in it:
1) The United States has disengaged from the world.
2) Boots on the ground and bombs from the air are the only way to stabilize an increasingly unstable world.
3) The United States -- and by extension the U.S. president -- can change the facts on the ground at will.
4) U.S. disengagement leaves chaos in its wake.
It's time America tells the loud mouthed idiots like McCain and Krauthammer to just shut the **** up. Their era is dead, and should be buried.
But in other parts of the region -- Chile, Argentina, Brazil -- the absence of U.S. involvement has allowed societies to prosper. U.S. disengagement from that part of the region, as it turned to focus on other parts of the world, created space for these countries to build up their economies, strengthen their democracies, and create a new web of South-South connections.
Yes, there are radical isolationists in the United States. And there are neocons that want the United States to reestablish some putative golden age of neo-imperial control. The real debate, however, takes place between these poles -- where the United States should critically engage (for instance, to reduce carbon emissions) and responsibly disengage (closing military bases).
The United States is not Atlas, and the U.S. president is not a Helmsman. Atlas is not shrugging; Obama is not nodding.
Instead of these false dichotomies between blundering engagement and irresponsible disengagement, let's have a real debate about where the United States can make a difference given its resources, how President Obama can have a positive impact given his circumscribed influence, and why the American colossus should continue to rein in its unilateralist tendencies, given the declining utility of force and the overriding need for global cooperation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-f...b_5637461.html
I've always told my sons, a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a brilliant man learns from the mistakes of others. We've spent a hundred years cleaning up the messes of Europe's colonialism, and here we have loud voices in America still screaming for America to become a colonial power, and an empire. This article speaks to the myths of American foreign policy, and Obama's part in it:
1) The United States has disengaged from the world.
2) Boots on the ground and bombs from the air are the only way to stabilize an increasingly unstable world.
3) The United States -- and by extension the U.S. president -- can change the facts on the ground at will.
4) U.S. disengagement leaves chaos in its wake.
It's time America tells the loud mouthed idiots like McCain and Krauthammer to just shut the **** up. Their era is dead, and should be buried.
Comment