RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,180949,00.html

Interesting...

One thing that I have learned over the years, is that if you are looking to incite people to revolt, resort to terrorism, etc, then those people have to have some critical things missing from their lives. For example:

- No hope of a better future
- No hope of their children having a better life
- No hope of real justice or protection under the law
- No opportunity for advancement
etc.

When people have lost hope and have no optimism for the future, then it is easy to incite them to riot or resort to terrorism. If people do have hope for the future, a better life for their children, access to education, healthcare, career opportunities, etc, and lead a decent life then it is very difficult to get them to follow you over to the 'dark side'.

That said, it is completely unrealistic to expect a failed state to improve because you want them to. I do think that it is possible to clean up the defense acquisition process (which is a mess), which would be a huge accomplishment by itself and could save a lot of money. But the rest of the world and those who seek power and or wealth by keeping the state failed aren't just going to see everything the way the US of A does (that was a major failing of the Warren Christopher method of diplomacy and why Obama would've probably been better served by a James Baker type Secretary of State).

Calling in the military is one certain way to ensure that *something* is going to happen. However, whenever that happens it is often up for debate whether the outcome is positive or otherwise.

The reality is that judicious and balanced use of both is the better alternative. Be a great friend, and a terrifying adversary.

I'm guessing that the choice between hunkering down in a defensive posture versus "spreading democracy" in an offensive manner is a false choice. True, enlightened diplomacy seems like an oxymoron but it is not. As intimidating as the forces of bureaucracy might be, we cannot view them as insurmountable. You don't need to be a Constitutional scholar to figure out that our Founders had no intention of this country being a "spreader" of democracy. But they did have every intention of this country being a model of democracy. IMHO, democracy demands diplomacy within. That internal diplomacy becomes then the reference for our diplomacy with others. As we became more partisan internally we also became more "unilateral" internationally. Just the election of Obama/Biden seems to have started a possible reversing of the partisanship and unilateralism we've become sadly accustomed to. Instead of preemtive criticisms, how about more ideas on how to avoid the pitfalls of the recent past?

Whoa! I finally agree with Lind for once.

BWF, what partisan and unilateralism do you speak of that has changed so much before PEBO's election.

quote:

Originally posted by yanqui69:
Whoa! I finally agree with Lind for once.

BWF, what partisan and unilateralism do you speak of that has changed so much before PEBO's election.

Not quite getting your question. The partisanship and unilateralism is a matter of open record these past eight years. The critical change point was when the US went from a UN supported, multilateral invasion of Afghanistan to a "coalition of the willing" unilateral adventure into Iraq. Whether or not a few nations joined in seemed secondary.
As to partisanship, just review the years after '94 and especially after Tom DeLay unseated Newt Gingrich through '06. It's slowed a bit since '06 but the momentum continues. We'll see after 1/20/09 if there's a backlash or if bipartisanship is resuscitated. PEBO promised. Let's hold him to it.

quote:

Originally posted by bwf27:

quote:

Originally posted by yanqui69:
Whoa! I finally agree with Lind for once.

BWF, what partisan and unilateralism do you speak of that has changed so much before PEBO's election.

Not quite getting your question. The partisanship and unilateralism is a matter of open record these past eight years. The critical change point was when the US went from a UN supported, multilateral invasion of Afghanistan to a "coalition of the willing" unilateral adventure into Iraq. Whether or not a few nations joined in seemed secondary.
As to partisanship, just review the years after '94 and especially after Tom DeLay unseated Newt Gingrich through '06. It's slowed a bit since '06 but the momentum continues. We'll see after 1/20/09 if there's a backlash or if bipartisanship is resuscitated. PEBO promised. Let's hold him to it.

For all the change Obama promised, nothing has is different. we see the same old people with the same old ideas being nominated for government positions. Where is the change?

Let me remember, Oh that's right!

Cease Fire Agreement 1991 (UN)
No-Fly Zone 1991 (UN)
A flurry of UN Resolutions 1990-2003
A flurry of NATO Resolutions 1990-2003

I guess those are all unilateral...right? I guess the US should have waited for another resolution to be signed...right?

Last 8-years? Is that a reference to the Bush Adminstration? Did you happen to take a look who in Congress and the Senate approved use of force?

PEBO was about one of the only ones that didn't, so I sure hope you voted out those who did if you believe it was wrong.

Do you own or drive a car, motorcycle, boat? Do you live in a house? Well, those all use oil...