Here's an ET take on the Kissinger interview. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
I plan to be a regular now :) Kyle Atwell
I would announce that we are not ever going to torture anyone held in American custody.
Anyone remember "America doesn't torture?" The plural of anecdote is bullshit.
I suspect McCain will be getter on limiting US use of torture than Bush has been, especially given his legislation on torture from 2005 and his verbal commitment to close Guantanamo. However, his vote last week opposing legislation that would put limits on the interrogation techniques the CIA can use, including waterboarding, is suspect... it is interesting because his original 2005 legislation would have banned torture techniques by all US personnel, but then he had to get an exemption for the CIA in order for Bush to sign it... I wonder if McCain really wanted to support extending this ban to the CIA, but decided instead to honor a deal with Bush that he made in 2005? Kyle Atwell
Just because a husband and wife fight, it does not mean they should divorce.
Not necessarily, but if the husband starts saying things like "Western Europe, you're such an old bitch! The hot new chick down the block, Eastern Europe, she knows how to treat a man right!", at the very least a couple of therapy sessions might be in order. Or a slap in the face.
Anyway, I would expect a certain honeymoon period for the next president, but whether he or she can restore American credibility to pre-Bush levels remains to be seen. One would think the lesson learned from the past eight years is that placing so much power into the hands of so few people is a recipe for disaster. It's not so much about the best person to occupy that office, as it is about the worst person to occupy it. What are we all gonna do when Jeb Bush defeats a Carterised Obama four years from now?
As for McCain and Europe...he has all but promised that "there will be more wars", a point of view that's not like to go over well with...well, anyone. He may be against torture, but it seems he's essentially in agreement with the central tenets of the Bush doctrine. If he's the president, I wouldn't want "reconciliation". "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
Not sure what you mean by "Carterised Obama"?
As for McCain and Europe...he has all but promised that "there will be more wars"
I agree... McCain is a little too trigger happy for my comfort. I mean, it is one thing to say that you will support a strike against Iran if it manages to develop nuclear weapons or is imminently close. But what kind of idiot sings a song going, "bomb bomb Iran"? Kyle Atwell
I am interested by your suggestion that the US would be the abusive husband.
Daily Kos: US Foreign policy: Coke-Republicans vs Pepsi-Democrats?
The hubris of the Bush/Cheney administration has brought such a maelstrom of failures, corruption and crimes, it has lead the world so close to a global disaster (it could still happen...) that, in comparison, any other administration will look like angels come on earth to save us. But I don't believe in angels.While I reasonably (optimistically?) trust the Democrats for restoring democracy and civil liberties, implementing (slightly) more responsible socio-economic policies and promoting environmental awareness within the United States, I still wonder if they will bring any change to the United States foreign policy doctrine. So far, I have little hope.My doubts have been nurtured by Tony Smith's editorial in the March 11 issue of the Washington Post
While I reasonably (optimistically?) trust the Democrats for restoring democracy and civil liberties, implementing (slightly) more responsible socio-economic policies and promoting environmental awareness within the United States, I still wonder if they will bring any change to the United States foreign policy doctrine. So far, I have little hope.
My doubts have been nurtured by Tony Smith's editorial in the March 11 issue of the Washington Post
It is a good point that the Democrats don't seem to have agreed on what position America should take in the world, but it is an overstatement to say that they are not different from the Bush-Cheney doctrine.
Bush-Cheney embody the neo-conservative belief that US power is omnipotent and the US military can be used globally without restraint. This has led to a belief that the US can extend its military resources extensively abroad without concern for failure. This leads people like McCain to think we can stay in Iraq 100 years, maintain a war in Afghanistan, attack Iran, and possibly maintain "other wars" as well.
The Democrats seem to have a better grip on the reality that US power has its limits. They accept that unilateral action is acceptable in the face of imminent danger, but also realize that for the problems of today cannot be solved by one country alone. They recognize that record defense budgets (save WWII era) are not sustainable (although there has been some debate about whether Dems will actually decrease budgets at AR recently). They seem more open to talking with countries like Iran, where the Bush administration has been recalcitrant.
These seem like major differences from the Bush-Cheney years--US "hubris" will decline if a Democrat is elected president. Kyle Atwell
Waving Goodbye to Hegemony
Turn on the TV today, and you could be forgiven for thinking it's 1999. Democrats and Republicans are bickering about where and how to intervene, whether to do it alone or with allies and what kind of world America should lead. Democrats believe they can hit a reset button, and Republicans believe muscular moralism is the way to go. It's as if the first decade of the 21st century didn't happen -- and almost as if history itself doesn't happen. But the distribution of power in the world has fundamentally altered over the two presidential terms of George W. Bush, both because of his policies and, more significant, despite them...
There are a couple problems with Khanna's view of transatlantic relations: First, fumbling at nation building is just as much a European activity as it is an American one. Several European countries are involved in or are leading major nation building projects - in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, etc. If anything, a more powerful and centralized EU would benefit the United States because it could contribute more effectively to these operations. Instead, the US is working with a hodge-podge of allies, each with varying levels of commitment and each demanding their own say at the table. What a pain. Furthermore, Europe "locking peripheral countries into its orbit" does not hurt the United States. If anything, the higher human rights and rule of law standards required to join the EU makes these countries more stable, and therefore better strategic and economic partners for the United States. Overall, Khanna has described a zero-sum relationship between the United States and Europe that is overstated.
First, fumbling at nation building is just as much a European activity as it is an American one. Several European countries are involved in or are leading major nation building projects - in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, etc. If anything, a more powerful and centralized EU would benefit the United States because it could contribute more effectively to these operations. Instead, the US is working with a hodge-podge of allies, each with varying levels of commitment and each demanding their own say at the table. What a pain.
Furthermore, Europe "locking peripheral countries into its orbit" does not hurt the United States. If anything, the higher human rights and rule of law standards required to join the EU makes these countries more stable, and therefore better strategic and economic partners for the United States.
Overall, Khanna has described a zero-sum relationship between the United States and Europe that is overstated.
Curious choice of words coming from a public figure whose reputation as regards humanity (and crimes there against) is anything but pristine; one would think Kissinger the last person in America to be giving out moral lessons to anybody. But then, I suppose, nothing Kissinger says should be taken at face value.
The reality is, and I suspect the cited Doctor sees this clearly enough, European and US interests intersect less and less. The arch of US power is in its descent, and so Chancellor Schmidt's fond wish is a bit like James Ivory cinema: a very polished, well ornamented nostalgia piece.
Europe trains our mastery of the sort of soft power skills at which other rising powers (like China) also are beginning to excel, while the US can afford less and less the sort of hard power it has grown to depend on over the past three or four decades, especially the past two as sole world "hyperpower".
Unfortunately, hard power is not an aspect of a flowering society, but at best one nearing the end of its universal state, heading towards decline.
As a European, I fear that a generation on, we might be worried about nuclear bombs getting loose from US missile installations and into the hands of unsavory characters in much the same way worries were once expressed of the same sort for installations across the former Soviet Union. And as an American, I can but put my hands over my eyes as I watch that country walk in slow motion towards what appears to be a coming hard fall.
Atlanticism will mean something quite different to my children, I suspect, than it does to me. Much as what it means to me is quite different than what it means to Chancellor Schmidt. "C'est un scandale !"
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" -- Matthew 7:3
America's quite a ways from perfect, but so are the various countries in the EU...
