Why would relationships between nations be any different than relationships between people? If you have a neighbor that lords his wealth and power over you and shows little regard for your opinion, how do you respond? Do you wish that neighbor well? Or are you quite happy to see him taken down a notch or two? Are you apt to form bonds with other neighbors that share your view of your narcissistic neighbor? Just how successful are a**holes, really? Wouldn't they all be more effective with a good dose of Dale Carnegie?
As the world's preeminent power, we need to leverage our strength multilaterally to move the world in our preferred direction. If we want to spread democracy and the principles of Western Civilization as GWB desired, it will only come through multilateral leadership. We wasted the last eight years on this front, which is particularly painful when considering what might have been after 911.
During the Cold War, we lead with just the principled and constructive leadership that I describe. It was highly successful. We had a moral authority that was far more powerful than our military strength, which was checked by the Soviets.
As President Clinton said, we should be working today to build the world we want to live in when we are no longer the preeminent power.
The same principles that our parents taught us - the Golden Rule, right and wrong, consideration for others also apply to nation states. Observing these rules is enlightened self interest.
1) We are nations, not persons, with rules of law and the responsibility and right to enforce them.
2) We do not need to accommodate lesser neighbors and therefore allow them to "infect" our country.
3) Depends on how you define "A-hole", if that means enforcing your way of life and supporting the rule of law and your culture then "A-hole" away!
4) How can we leverage our power without using it? How can we use our power-if we can't?
5) Implied in your answer, and by the left, if that somehow we brought on 9-11. We did not, and trying to accommodate, as was done by Billy, only hastened the process.
6) The principled leadership you describe during the cold was one of military superiority. Much like the Bush Doctrine, we would not tolerate the spread of communism, which pissed off lots of folks at that time, including the lefties who are again fighting the same battle now.
We cannot trust the left to protect this country, when one of their "kind" M. Moore, describes the war on terror as better conducted as a police action and describes the terrorists as "some guys climbing monkey bars".
Other nations will like us when we win! Those without freedom will always resent us no matter our actions.
The economic interactions of allies and foes alike are much more complicated than "like" and as usual, the left has demagogued and issue to their gain and our country's detriment.
To the extent that we execute your petulant views, we will hasten the end of our preeminence.
We did not have military superiority during the Cold War. We had economic superiority. Where were you?
What do you have against inclusive and principled leadership? Why do you eschew moral authority? Why do you always stand up for a**holes? Professional courtesy?
Does the world deserve whatever Obama hoists upon them? You don't even like the man - why should the rest of the world be subject to whatever he cares to dish out? Would that be honorable? Moral? Effective? We voted for him. The rest of the world did not (though they certainly would have if only they could).
The Europeans are free and democratic and they are the ones - among others - that your inept boy pissed off. Why would you assume free countries would support an overbearing superpower? The Europeans will form cross continent partnerships to bring us to heel, if need be. If we are trying to run the world unilaterally, more power to them.
I don't know any enterprise that would work more effectively the way you propose. Perhaps a prison. Certainly not anything involving free people.
Professional courtesy? That is a funny one coming from a Realtor (actually it was pretty funny)
Look, we went to war over the objections of our allies. If that is what you are referring to then more power to us. They were not attacked, we made a call (supported by you) to enforce a doctrine.
The rest of the stuff is just noise.
A country cannot abdicate its interests to appease its friends.
You are right - I am a Realtor and I know a lot about a**holes and professional courtesy :)
My point is simply that it is in our interest to be liked. If one wants to lead people (including heads of state and government) and persuade them, it certainly helps to have a warm relationship with mutual respect.
Nevermind the Bush years - they were a miserable failure thanks in large part to the advice of Mr Cheney. If GHWB had as much influence on his son, things would have gone far better. He was a giant in foreign relations and our nation benefitted from his international stewardship. You will not win an argument about the efficaciousness of GWB - few will agree with you on the right or left.
This is not a partisan issue. Ronald Reagan had George Schultz running Foggy Bottom and he was no petulant a**hole. He got things done for his country. He was very well regarded in Europe as well as the Middle East. Kissinger was an extremely effective statesman and he will tell you it wasn't from barking orders. Ford and Eisenhower would agree with my position 100%.
Will we ever have material disagreements and damaged relationships? Of course. Sometimes our allies are wrong. But we will need to factor in the importance of the respective relationships and what a breach will mean in the future.
Friendship cultivates influence. That is true of people and states.
I think it is clear that cooperation is a good thing. But, in my opinion, cooperation is not rooted in being liked. I believe that, among nations (and we are talking about nations, not people) cooperation comes from shared interests.
Kissinger was successful not because he liked the Chinese, nor visa versa. He identified common interests the two nations had, such as trade, even though our national cores values are very much opposed.
We have gone to Europe and fought and saved the French twice in a hundred years. We do act on our values and we do fight even when they won't. Would have them control our nation's destiny?
Acting in concert is desirable and sensible, but acting in concert is not the goal. Freedom, liberty and happiness are the goals.
If others lack the courage and/or the will then we should act without them. And we should do so without apologies.
I think "friendship" goes along with cooperation in this context. The Sino-US relationship was indeed based upon mutual interests. It was fostered through expert use of diplomacy including "friendship". It was the not the product of an overbearing power calling the shots.
We'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The disagreements with our traditional allies should be the exception rather than the rule. If our allies are lined up against our proposal, perhaps we need to rethink our position.
Why do the righties always forget that there would not be a USA if it were not for the French? In fact, it is an object lesson. The crucial support that the French gave us bore fruit for them two centuries later.
People make a serious mistake if the do not factor in the human element of international relationships. It makes all the difference and will continue to so long as nations are run by humans.
"History is a series of events that need not have happened."
7 comments:
Why would relationships between nations be any different than relationships between people? If you have a neighbor that lords his wealth and power over you and shows little regard for your opinion, how do you respond? Do you wish that neighbor well? Or are you quite happy to see him taken down a notch or two? Are you apt to form bonds with other neighbors that share your view of your narcissistic neighbor? Just how successful are a**holes, really? Wouldn't they all be more effective with a good dose of Dale Carnegie?
As the world's preeminent power, we need to leverage our strength multilaterally to move the world in our preferred direction. If we want to spread democracy and the principles of Western Civilization as GWB desired, it will only come through multilateral leadership. We wasted the last eight years on this front, which is particularly painful when considering what might have been after 911.
During the Cold War, we lead with just the principled and constructive leadership that I describe. It was highly successful. We had a moral authority that was far more powerful than our military strength, which was checked by the Soviets.
As President Clinton said, we should be working today to build the world we want to live in when we are no longer the preeminent power.
The same principles that our parents taught us - the Golden Rule, right and wrong, consideration for others also apply to nation states. Observing these rules is enlightened self interest.
Wow, unbelievably sillty. But thanks for trying.
Let us count the ways.
1) We are nations, not persons, with rules of law and the responsibility and right to enforce them.
2) We do not need to accommodate lesser neighbors and therefore allow them to "infect" our country.
3) Depends on how you define "A-hole", if that means enforcing your way of life and supporting the rule of law and your culture then "A-hole" away!
4) How can we leverage our power without using it? How can we use our power-if we can't?
5) Implied in your answer, and by the left, if that somehow we brought on 9-11. We did not, and trying to accommodate, as was done by Billy, only hastened the process.
6) The principled leadership you describe during the cold was one of military superiority. Much like the Bush Doctrine, we would not tolerate the spread of communism, which pissed off lots of folks at that time, including the lefties who are again fighting the same battle now.
We cannot trust the left to protect this country, when one of their "kind" M. Moore, describes the war on terror as better conducted as a police action and describes the terrorists as "some guys climbing monkey bars".
Other nations will like us when we win! Those without freedom will always resent us no matter our actions.
The economic interactions of allies and foes alike are much more complicated than "like" and as usual, the left has demagogued and issue to their gain and our country's detriment.
To the extent that we execute your petulant views, we will hasten the end of our preeminence.
We did not have military superiority during the Cold War. We had economic superiority. Where were you?
What do you have against inclusive and principled leadership? Why do you eschew moral authority? Why do you always stand up for a**holes? Professional courtesy?
Does the world deserve whatever Obama hoists upon them? You don't even like the man - why should the rest of the world be subject to whatever he cares to dish out? Would that be honorable? Moral? Effective? We voted for him. The rest of the world did not (though they certainly would have if only they could).
The Europeans are free and democratic and they are the ones - among others - that your inept boy pissed off. Why would you assume free countries would support an overbearing superpower? The Europeans will form cross continent partnerships to bring us to heel, if need be. If we are trying to run the world unilaterally, more power to them.
I don't know any enterprise that would work more effectively the way you propose. Perhaps a prison. Certainly not anything involving free people.
Apparently, enlightened self interest escapes you.
Professional courtesy? That is a funny one coming from a Realtor (actually it was pretty funny)
Look, we went to war over the objections of our allies. If that is what you are referring to then more power to us. They were not attacked, we made a call (supported by you) to enforce a doctrine.
The rest of the stuff is just noise.
A country cannot abdicate its interests to appease its friends.
Jim:
You are right - I am a Realtor and I know a lot about a**holes and professional courtesy :)
My point is simply that it is in our interest to be liked. If one wants to lead people (including heads of state and government) and persuade them, it certainly helps to have a warm relationship with mutual respect.
Nevermind the Bush years - they were a miserable failure thanks in large part to the advice of Mr Cheney. If GHWB had as much influence on his son, things would have gone far better. He was a giant in foreign relations and our nation benefitted from his international stewardship. You will not win an argument about the efficaciousness of GWB - few will agree with you on the right or left.
This is not a partisan issue. Ronald Reagan had George Schultz running Foggy Bottom and he was no petulant a**hole. He got things done for his country. He was very well regarded in Europe as well as the Middle East. Kissinger was an extremely effective statesman and he will tell you it wasn't from barking orders. Ford and Eisenhower would agree with my position 100%.
Will we ever have material disagreements and damaged relationships? Of course. Sometimes our allies are wrong. But we will need to factor in the importance of the respective relationships and what a breach will mean in the future.
Friendship cultivates influence. That is true of people and states.
I think it is clear that cooperation is a good thing. But, in my opinion, cooperation is not rooted in being liked. I believe that, among nations (and we are talking about nations, not people) cooperation comes from shared interests.
Kissinger was successful not because he liked the Chinese, nor visa versa. He identified common interests the two nations had, such as trade, even though our national cores values are very much opposed.
We have gone to Europe and fought and saved the French twice in a hundred years. We do act on our values and we do fight even when they won't. Would have them control our nation's destiny?
Acting in concert is desirable and sensible, but acting in concert is not the goal. Freedom, liberty and happiness are the goals.
If others lack the courage and/or the will then we should act without them. And we should do so without apologies.
Hags:
I think "friendship" goes along with cooperation in this context. The Sino-US relationship was indeed based upon mutual interests. It was fostered through expert use of diplomacy including "friendship". It was the not the product of an overbearing power calling the shots.
We'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The disagreements with our traditional allies should be the exception rather than the rule. If our allies are lined up against our proposal, perhaps we need to rethink our position.
Why do the righties always forget that there would not be a USA if it were not for the French? In fact, it is an object lesson. The crucial support that the French gave us bore fruit for them two centuries later.
People make a serious mistake if the do not factor in the human element of international relationships. It makes all the difference and will continue to so long as nations are run by humans.
"History is a series of events that need not have happened."
Post a Comment