Response to post #2
Due Friday, 1/20
Please respond to someone's post that commented on a prompt that you didn't comment on for post 2. If you didn't post on post 2 (hint, hint get it together) then you have lots of options. In your response post you should check out their sources as well as use some of your own research. Many of you had brief responses to post #1 and struggled with knowing what to say. My hope is that since you'll be responding to a post on a topic you haven't written on you'll have more to say.
I look forward to reading your posts.
Remember these posts go into a category that is 10% of your grade. Some of you are really shooting yourself in the foot by pretending that theses assignments don't exist when in fact they do.
Labels: foreign policy
posted by Ms. Aby @ 8:57 AM
24 Comments:
Rutger, your post topic is most intriguing.
I'm not going to waste too much time arguing over the nuances of precisely which foreign policy would be best for the United States to pursue. There is a great many of them, and it's difficult to pick out which ones are most beneficial and yet achievable. Certainly, as a long-term goal, space travel is as relevant as any of them. To people who are unconvinced smoke detectors and water filters are an admirable goal for foreign policy(1&2), I will offer a few points. First of all, water filters are in fact an admirable goal when you consider such humanitarian points as hurricanes and droughts in third world countries. Second, I will observe that Stephen Hawking has the right of it. If, say, the Yellowstone supervolcano blows, the human race is as good as gone. But closer to home, global thermonuclear war is an ever present possibility. The human race has nearly exterminated itself several times over since 1950, what odds do you give us for being around by 3012? In the overwhelmingly grand scheme of things, space travel is a serious consideration for most important.
So, on to this actual proposed agency and how it might come about. While it seems unlikely that the United States would be the one leading this charge on space, we are not wholly incapable of doing so. Certainly, if not the United States, other agencies might step up to the plate. Before I get into that, though, I'd like to talk about what would occur to make space once more a priority.
Space is expensive. Rutger said it, I'll say it, I don't think anybody can dispute it. So, there must be corresponding benefits to advancing space programs. I'm going to go ahead and hypothesis that governments, as a rule, only invest in space programs when the already known and preconceived benefits are great enough. That is to say, governments worldwide acknowledge that there are considerable unforeseen technological benefits associated with investing in space, but in absence of guarantees, a government will not risk precious funds on such an expensive and risky venture. So, then, what constitutes such a benefit that can be seen in advance?
The benefit that has the greatest historical past is simple prestige. Governments trying to prove something will seek a strong space program, to demonstrate technological competency. The Russians got prestige with Sputnik, the United States got prestige with the moon landings. This was their goal all along (3). More recently, examine China. They are the third and most recent country to undertake manned space flight. Their reason for space flight most likely lies with an attempt to claim further regional dominance ahead of developed nations like Japan and Korea (South, obviously) and to a lesser extent a desire to demonstrate themselves as a new superpower not unlike the to Cold War juggernauts (4).
There are other benefits that are not as likely to come up. Scientific studies, while acknowledged to be a generally good thing, are altruistic in nature. No national and almost no international agency will want to take a burden for the world, since the world wouldn't do the same for them. Kind of a prisoner's dilemma. Still, if a sufficiently worldwide organization such as the U.N. were to attempt this, they could reasonably
expect to get much of the world to share in the costs and the benefits. Military considerations are another possibility that might coax a government into space. A large part of the Cold War was spent considering military applications of space- just take Reagan's "Star Wars" program, also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (5). Space programs to shoot ICBM's down in flight? Sounds possible. This is unlikely to be international, though, and one nation could not shoulder the expense easily. It is conceivable a closely allied group of nations, such as NATO of the European Union might try it though. These are the main reasons I can think of why a government might decide to invest in the space program. Obviously, there are more benefits than those explicitly listed- but these are the benefits that can both be seen in advance and are sizable enough a government might use them as a reason to go into space.
This is already a fairly long post and I could write ten pages on this topic easily, so I suppose I should try to tie this in and wrap this up quickly. Basically put, getting into space is not a pressing concern to the world or the U.S. in terms of foreign policy, but it should work its way in as a long-term priority. Private companies such as SpaceX can and do advance the human race into space, but they are limited by size constraints. One company is only so big, and companies must demonstrate solid profits reasonably quickly. While I think we can count on private space programs taking up increasing amounts of slack as NASA steps out of the picture, I would not count on them to create important advances in space.
U.S. space policy itself must become increasingly fluid in nature. The United States space program is in a bit of a fix as no one wants to spend government funds on something that is commonly viewed as a bit useless. Private space enterprises must be allowed on the scene more, and the United States should attempt to advance a more international space program. Not a collection of many individual space programs- we've all seen how poorly the International Space Station has done, and we need to learn from those mistakes. Additionally, people will cite a poor worldwide economy as a reason not to invest in space at this particular point in time. I would like to point out that there will always be an issue that makes this time not the perfect time for such an endeavor. We might as well accept this and take the plunge sooner, not later. Also, I'm going to observe that space development opens up a whole new market for materials and expertise. It might take money, but that money will just be flowing back into the economy at other points. Space is surely as good of a worldwide focus as anything, and should not be dismissed out of hand.
(1) http://articles.cnn.com/2007-10-04/living/nasa.everyday_1_detectors-tires-nasa?_s=PM:LIVING
(2) http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/physics-concepts-and-definitions/ten-nasa-inventions10.htm
(3) http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/cold/articles/godwin.html
(4) http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2010-10/25/content_21190948.htm
Yes, this is a Chinese source... However, the author was educated at Oxford University and I will assume that this piece is fairly accurate and not too tinted.
(5) http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml
This comment has been removed by the author.
@Vanessa
I agree that the Obama Administration should wait a little while before involving themselves with North Korea. We need to see how the new leader, Kim Jong-un, will run the country, though it seems to be predictable. On the other hand, the new leader might surprise us and stray from his father’s path of leadership. He no longer has his father’s strong hand of influence, so he might not feel it so necessary to run a similar government. According to New York Times, Kim Jong-un will become a dictator, like his father, and share no power whatsoever [1]. Rather than being a fresh start for the Obama Administration to have better opportunities in foreign policy with North Korea, I believe Jong-un’s military first policy, and his intentions to follow his father’s legacy, will pose a risk to United States foreign policy initiatives [1]. With Kim Jong-un’s intent to continue using the military as a powerful resource in his government, I would have to disagree and say it is quite possible for the foreign policy with the United States will remain the same. It appears as if Kim Jong-un will change little about North Korea’s government after Kim Jong II’s policies. For the past two years, Kim Jong-un has been groomed to become the successor of North Korea [1]. His position as vice chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Workers’ Party and become a four-star general were greatly supervised and most likely dictated by his father [1]. With such a heavy hand in his education, I would assume that Kim Jong-un will follow similar values to his father. Furthermore, Kim Jong-un’s predecessor, Kim Jong II was seeking to build up North Korea’s nuclear arsenal [3]. It is believed that Kim Jong-un will attempt to show his power and authority by using or testing one of these weapons [3]. Due to this, I think the United States should be very cautious when working with him. We do not need threats of a nuclear weapon being dropped on the United States or being involved in another war. Furthermore, it appears as if North Korea and the United States were not in good terms while Kim Jong II was the leader of North Korea. As reported by BBC, Pyongyang called South Korea puppets of the United States [2]. I doubt that these terms between the United States and North Korea will improve if what appears to be a mini Kim Jong II runs the government. In addition, Vanessa, I agree that we should wait for North Korea’s neighboring countries, China and South Korea, react to the new leader. Due to their proximity in location, they are more likely to be effected by the new leadership and any change in policy we attempt. If we do take any action to with our foreign policy with North Korea, we should just try to maintain our diplomatic relationship and leave it at that [4]. From the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, we should have learned our lesson about meddling with other countries [5]. I predict if we decide to try to change our foreign policy with North Korea, such as trying to implement democracy, we will risk a war or a nuclear threat [3]. Overall, the Obama Administration should do little in response to the death of Kim Jong II and the new North Korean leadership of Kim Jong-un will pose a risk for United States foreign policy initiatives.
[1] http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/k/kim_jongun/index.html
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15256929
[3] www.telegraph.co.uk
[4] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm
[5] http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0414-04.htm
@Justin
Opening up negotiations with Korea would be wonderful, and is my personal first choice when dealing with other nations, particularly the insane ones, like North Korea. I predict one of two things occurring in the near future. 1.) The change in regimes will go smoothly and there won’t be any residual conflict with Kim Jong Un and the other government officials. Or 2.) Things won’t go so well and the new regime will be plagued with rebellions and/or the killing off of government officials and military leadership. Ideally, for the U.S., that is, the second will happen leading to a dramatic weakening of the already weak North Korea. This would be fortuitous in that we, meaning the government and military leadership, could sweep in either diplomatically or militarily to clean up the mess, so to speak. Utilizing military force would seem to be the more likely approach if there is no government to negotiate with. My only notable reservation with any form of intervention is the lack of tangible returns. If North Korea collapses, why bother do anything? They won’t convert to communism or a dictatorship or other undesirable system because they are already there. The worst we could do, likely because of decades of negative propaganda, is worsen our own standing in the world. The ability of the U.S. to gift democracy has been clearly seen in Iraq; a long, slow, expensive process that, to some like me, is almost more trouble than it’s worth. Should it come to war, I firmly believe that even a small portion of our expansive military could more than handle North Korea’s.
To Senior Jan,
I usually tend to agree with you and this is no exception to the informal rule. The deficet is most deffinetly a concern that the nation and specifically the Obama admin should focus on. As it is right now china is the boss and the US a willing and enabling servant, with such a high deficet I can think of no better time to cast aside the chains of tyranny. Well at least become less reliant on them for our cheap consumer produts. Your plan to turn back towards manufactuing is a good one but will obviously be hard seeing as we seem to have turned into a coporate nation, as shown on the show the office. Giving manufacturing firms breaks and cuts to encourage them to produce is a good first step the biggest obstacle is still of course cost. Even with the US readily manufacturing goods of all types it will still be a great while before the price of US goods can compete with that of chinease goods especially seeing as our governments are so different. To further encourage the purchase of American products perhaps the government could place import tarrifs on chinease goods. The only problem with this is china would be really mad and this would not be good, not just because of their massive army or nuclear arsenal, but also from an economic stand point. We have become adicted to our cheap products and I deffinetly forsee a withdrawl period. I don't know big problem that needs to be fixed but I have no idea how...maybe ask trusinskey?
@Hannah
I agree with your analysis on the situation in North Korea. The food aid in particular could be a particularly effective tool. While China does supply North Korea with food, it is not enough to prevent shortages (1). It is an area in which they definitely need assistance, and we should be aware of how and when we provide it. However, since the food is primarily needed by the common citizens, we must also be careful not to punish them for the offenses of their government. Of course, we have to make sure that the aid is helping them at all, since, as you mentioned, it has had a tendency in the past to go to the elite rather than the people who need it. Before Kim Jong-il’s death, the Obama administration did agree to send up to 240,000 tons of food to North Korea (2). The United States had planned to take actions to make it less likely to be diverted to the elite, such as sending it in smaller shipments and sending biscuits and vitamin supplements instead of rice, and Pyongyang agreed to monitor the situation to help prevent diversion (2). Kim Jong-il’s death has made those plans more uncertain, but North Korea claims it is still open to the possibility of trading food aid for suspending their uranium enrichment (3). However, even if the aid is sent, it remains to be seen how effective these techniques are. If the original food aid plan or a similar one is used, I think we should see how effective it is and use that to judge whether or not to send future shipments. If it is not helping the people who need help anyway, withholding it could be a less harmful strategy for negotiation.
I also agree that the time to act otherwise has not quite arrived yet. Experts worldwide disagree over whether Kim Jong-un’s policies will be more like those of his father, who focused almost exclusively on the military, or his grandfather Kim Il-sung, who also paid attention to economic issues (4). While much of the evidence seems to come down on the side of him following in Kim Jong-il’s footsteps, it is impossible to say at this early point exactly what he will do, particularly due to his political inexperience (4). However, North Korea has definitely expressed interest in continuing the six-party talks between North Korea, South Korea, the United States, Russia, China, and Japan, and hope that they may start again by February or March (5). The United States does not need to and should not take immediate action before then (or at least before it is determined whether or not they will actually happen), as the future is so uncertain. Until Kim Jong-un’s political motivations and goals are known, it’s hard to say whether or not any particular action will be beneficial. As you said, we should wait to see what actions North Korea and China take before proceeding.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/amid-n-korea-succession-china-makes-push-for-stability/2012/01/04/gIQApZFIaP_story_1.html
2. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/12/116_101055.html
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/us-seeks-new-chapter-in-relations-with-north-korea/
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16607156
5. http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=124604&code=Ne2&category=2
Mr. Justin Hendricks,
I could not agree more with your analysis of the current situation in North Korea. Your suggestions to President Obama are sound, and show great wisdom. As you said, the situation in Korea is indeed “unique.. due to their mysterious nature”. In fact, the very man set to take over the country has been described as a “man of mystery”! (1) The last time America embarked on such an exotic journey into the twilight zone of foreign policy was perhaps when Commodore Perry sailed into Shogunate Japan 160 years ago. The country had been isolated for a period far longer than that of Korea’s separation, and to a much larger degree. When he entered the Bay of Yedo, the shocked inhabitants believed his forces to be hostile, and as a result he withdrew from the area before returning on more peaceful and mutually knowledgeable terms. (2) After a year had passed from his initial encounter, Perry met with the leaders of Japan in a conference at Kanagawa to negotiate. The purpose of this story is to show that your advice for the President has stood the test of time: “to be at the very least cautious” and to “suggest a conference with the new north korean leader” mirrors exactly what the Commodore decided to do on that fateful day, and as a result a workable relationship was established with Japan until late 1941, when things briefly went sour before picking up on a better note a few years later. Hopefully the same will happen in North Korea, minus the speed bump that was WWII.
One of my own personal suggestions for America’s plan of action is as follows: absolutely destroy any 1)thing 2)person or 3)other that is involved in North Korea’s nuclear program and/or army. We have a powerful force of F-22 fighters and B-2 bombers, which respectively cost $300 million and $2 billion a piece. To not utilize these resources when there are people so clearly begging for some devastation is a shame. We spend an unbelievable amount of money building planes and training pilots, why not blow some things up when we have the chance? The only negative consequence is that we will end up with a couple hundred less bombs, missiles, and gallons of fuel in exchange for ending any military threat in North Korea. If left to their own devices, they may bring about the ultimate doomsday (3).
(1)http://www.freep.com/article/20111220/NEWS07/112200392/New-young-leader-of-North-Korea-is-a-man-of-mystery
(2)http://history-world.org/Japan,%20Opening%20of.htm
(3)http://www.infowars.com/north-korea-may-soon-be-able-to-strike-usa-with-ultimate-doomsday-weapon-that-deactivates-nearly-all-electronics/
@Abby
I agree with you that the United States should not enter into war just for the sake of getting what they want, and think that entering into war should be for defense. Although, where do we draw the line between getting what we want, and defense? And how much should the government worry about how it’s viewed by other countries?
Well, for one, I think that the United States should always protect itself, and that the threat that weapons of mass destruction pose can be a good reason to go to war. I agree with everything that you said about the Vietnam war. Though, at the time that we went to war with Iraq, those in power gave out the idea that Iraq had WMDs and that it was a really big threat. (1) They also tried to convey that the best way to go about this was going to war with Iraq. (1) I believe that if both of these things were true, and that the country were really in danger, then the country should have gone to war. I also agree with you though that since our goal of that war was the WMDs, and there were none found, (2) the war was not necessary. I also agree with you that this war became highly unpopular pretty fast. (3) On this point though, towards the beginning of the war, the majority of the public seemed to be on board with the war. In 2003, roughly 72% thought that going to war was the right choice, whereas only about 22% believed it was the wrong decision. (3) I think that the general public’s view is going to reflect what the government tells them, or what information leaks out.
This leads me to my other point. Other countries may think highly or lowly of actions taken by the United States, but how far should the government allow that to have influence on the actions taken? Europe may have referred to the United States as “a nation of warmongers,” (4) but affect the alliance? In 2006, the United States image slipped in the eyes of some close allies (such as Japan) due to the War on Terror. (4) Although their view of the United States has slipped, the alliance is still strong. (4)
Based on these things, I feel that yes, the United States should avoid war if it is solely to get whatever it wants. However, I also feel that it is the government’s responsibility to protect and defend the citizens of the United States. So as for reasons to go to war, at the moment that the reasons are happening they may seem legitimate enough, whereas in retrospect the reasons may not be entirely true or sound, making a very thin line on whether or not to do what the public wants then, or in the future.
1. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1127-20.htm
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/cias-final-report-no-wmd-found-iraq/#.Txi_aW8S2Ah
3. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq-war-five-year-anniversary
4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm
http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/06/13/americas-image-slips-but-allies-share-us-concerns-over-iran-hamas/
HEY WILL. You answered the question about what the next administration should prioritize in terms of foreign policy. You said that we should make nuclear weapons and proliferation the focus for our policies. You’re right about Afghanistan. At this point, it seems like the plans are laid and I think it would be unlikely and politically unpopular for a republican to put MORE troops into Afghanistan and clearly Obama wouldn’t go back on his own policy to continue the war in Afghanistan, which was politically unpopular as it was. Your next argument is that mutually assured destruction has kept the peace among world powers. I think this is definitely true. I would say that ever since the cold war, countries have been very afraid of nuclear weapons (and rightfully so). The theory of deterrence and entangled alliances has kept any one nation from responding to another using nuclear weapons. Countries seem to know that if they get involved in any sort of nuclear conflict, nations like the United States and Russia could step in with thousands of nukes to win the conflict. I am not sure that I think Iran poses a threat to this. I think Iran is clearly unstable, but even unstable countries and governments have a sense of self-preservation. I believe that there is a realist nature to international relations, meaning states will always act in their own best interests. I think there is only a risk of serious nuclear conflict in Iran if something else unsettles the balance in the region and nation beforehand. You are probably right to some extent that our covert actions in Israel deter Iran. I do think, however, that the idea that the United States deserves to have nuclear weapons but other countries do not is probably orientalist in nature. I do not think we are more responsible than any other country, when it comes to nuclear weapons just because we are a democracy. We are, in fact, the only nation that has ever actually launched any. I think it makes sense of course to protect our interests domestically and abroad so you aren’t wrong that we should be hedging out bets against an Iranian attack though. There are those that would argue that the United States is the only one who can actually stand up against Iran, however. “The study concludes that, if all peaceful options have been exhausted and Iran has left no other means to convince it to stop or change its course in pursuing Nuclear Weapons, the U.S. is the only country that can launch a successful Military Strike.” (1) There are options other than a military strike that the US has considered though, in terms of trying to control Iran in some way. “On Nov. 22, the United States and other major Western powers took significant steps to cut Iran off from the international financial system, announcing coordinated sanctions aimed at its central bank and commercial banks.” (2) I am not sure how successful it would be, seeing as it seems that we have tried these types of actions in the past but I think it would be a better place to start. The United States should certainly be concerned with Iran when it comes to its foreign policy, but I am not sure that I think Iran is as immediate of a threat. We also have North Korea to worry about, of course.
1. http://csis.org/publication/options-dealing-iran’-nuclear-program
2.http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html
@Justin Hendricks
I think the Obama administration should be more aggressive in opening relations with the new leadership in North Korea. Opening relations with North Korea would benefit the US for humanitarian reasons as well as economically.
North Korea has been struggling with perpetual food shortages for decades. The World Food Programme (WFP) estimated that 6 million North Koreans needed food aid and a third of children were chronically malnourished or had stunted growth. By contrast, the United Nations says 4 million people face a food crisis in Somalia. In the mid-1990s, the country experienced massive famine that some estimates said killed as many as a million people.
Donating food to the starving people of North Korea would not only be the humanitarian thing to do, but it would also help maintain crop prices for farmers in the US.
North Korea has vast amounts of mineral reserves waiting to be exploited. Some estimates have placed the value of mineral reserves at more than $6 trillion. Extracting these minerals would create jobs for the North Koreans and the money they earned would help purchase food for their families.
Other countries have taken advantage of the United States’ delay in doing business with North Korea. China, in particular, has taken advantage of the strained relations between the US and North Korea. China has invested over $500 million in North Korea’s mineral sector and the Chinese account for $3.5 billion of North Korea’s foreign trade. “The Chinese are storming in there and taking all the opportunities,” says Roger Barrett, managing director of Korea Business Consultants, a Beijing company that advises foreign investors in North Korea.
The US may have a rare opportunity to take advantage of the new leader in North Korea to expand trade with the country and offset China’s influence with the new government. Also, it is not the American thing to do to stand by while millions of people are suffering from malnutrition.
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44808274/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/hunger-crisis-grips-north-korea-food-runs-short/
2. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/north-korea-new-land-of-opportunity-01192012.html
3. http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/01/17/us-says-path-open-for-north-korea-to-return-to-nuke-talks/
Brooke-
I agree that the next administration should prioritize Iran’s nuclear development program as one of the larger issues that the US faces. However, I do not believe that the economic sanctions are necessarily a bad thing, even with the threat of Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz. Obviously the best solution would be to come to some sort of agreement with Iran and the other European countries of interest, and Turkey is making this push to open talks between the nations (1). Although France questions Iran’s commitment to these talks, either way the other nations involved will have an upper-hand. Yes, the Straits are a necessary passage for the world’s oil supply, but you also need to consider how dependent Iran’s economy is on keeping the Straits open. Currently, about half of Iran’s national budget comes from oil and fees associated with the Straits (2). I highly doubt that Iran is willing to risk war, their economy, and their stability just to avoid these sanctions. A second question to consider is whether or not Iran can actually close the Straits. Because many countries hold a stake in this area, many analysts suggest that the military force needed to keep the Straits closed would be too extreme for Iran to maintain. In fact, the US Navy is now reporting that they will do anything and everything to keep the Straits open, referring to a possible blockage as an “intolerable act” (3). In 1958, Iran agreed to “formalized customs”, which stated that they could not block innocent passage through the Straits, which would include the passage of foreign oil vessels (4). These customs only bolster the US and Europe in their abilities to keep the Straits open. The third question is whether or not Iran is simply throwing around empty threats. The United States and Europe continue to emphasize the fact that they will retaliate should the Straits be closed (5). Should Iran close the Straits, they would be faced not only with the sanctions that the US imposed on them, but also the backlash of their own actions. Europe is already conveying to Iran the fact that they can find other oil resources if necessary (5). Iran has threatened to close the Straits many times in the past, but they eventually realize that it is not economically beneficial. I believe that the issue over the Straits will be settled when Iran again sees that closing the waterway would be the stupidest decision they could make. I agree that the sanctions are not currently having the desired effect, but soon Iran will back down. In the long run, the next presidential administration in the US will have to continue to dissuade Iran from nuclear proliferation, and I think that Iran will continue to make empty threats about the Straits regardless of US decisions.
Sources:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/19/turkey-calls-for-resumption-iran-nuclear-talks/
2. http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/12/28/can-iran-close-the-strait-of-hormuz/
3. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-usa-iran-military-idUSTRE8091ZM20120110
4. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/991c6e52-41e7-11e1-a586-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1jwHPk7mu
5. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-13/western-allies-pressure-iran-to-abandon-threats-to-close-strait-of-hormuz.html
6. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/irans-self-destructive-gamble.html
@ McNaughton
I totally agree with you about waiting. I would compare North Korea to a small infant that if pushed in the wrong way could end up being a problem child for a long time. I don’t know if that comparison makes sense but it does in my mind. The thing I don’t agree with you on is the not trying to aid them. If you give a baby a sucker, it’s going to want more (back to the metaphor). This is what the US should do for North Korea. If we aid North Korea, then maybe they will be happy and like the US a little more. Also, it is possible that they would be trading partners with the US if we give them aid now. This would help boost our economy a little bit and improve our foreign relations not only with North Korea but with other countries around the world. At the same time, the US has to be careful not to give them too much because they might be angry if the US doesn’t give them what they want. Back to the baby metaphor, if you always give a baby what they want, then the one time you don’t give them something they will pouty and mad. Basically, the US should foster North Korea and keep good a watch on them.
@ Karma Knutson
Overall, I agree with your assessments regarding the United States’ foreign policy stance over the past several decades. I strongly believe that the United States needs to take more “peaceful” approaches in its dealings with other nations (when at all possible). It is obvious that the U.S. is one of the world’s great powers and is looked upon for guidance and support by other countries in need, however, as you stated our country needs a stronger line in regards to saying “no”. We should definitely do our part in helping the other countries and people of the world, but I feel that it is the responsibility of the world’s as a whole not just ours. I do not believe that all of the recent wars or conflicts that our country has recently decided to become involved with have been in the best interest of the country and its people; although, I feel that our leaders truly meant best in its decisions since they were not making impromptu decisions (they have obviously been thought out, and believed to be in the best interest of the country- at least that is what we all hope). In your post you also make the point that the loss of family, friends, etc. is a reason why you are opposed to America’s foreign policy decisions, which I believed you to be saying that the U.S.’s “jump into wars” strategy is unjustly putting our soldiers into unnecessary situations that could prove to be fatal to them. I find this to be an interesting and valid point, since some of the people most drastically affect are the soldiers and their families, friends, etc. I have great respect for these men and women and know that they are making the choice to defend and serve their country, but I think that we should make sure that it is “truly worth it” before sending them into battle. As in your example, Vietnam was not one of these types of situations. As far as your last point, I definitely agree that it is no longer necessary for us to be fighting in Iraq, which is why I am in 100% agreement with Obama’s decision to withdraw the troops. With this all being said, I would like to say that I am not opposed to war in situations where it is necessary to protect the safety of our country and its people. This is not a point that you brought up in your post, but I think it’s a point that is necessary to address. There are definitely times in which war is necessary, let’s be honest that in this current world it is practically inevitable, but more consideration and thought should be put into it. I understand that it’s hard to draw lines between when it is necessary and when it is not, and that looking back on our history offers a different perspective. What I do know, is that I do not feel that our current foreign policy is the best for our nation at the moment, and in the future I am sure it will reshape its self to better fits its people’s needs. I am by no means an expert on foreign policy, but I find many of the arguments and opinions you offered in your post to be quite compelling.
@ Bob Hendricks
I certainly agree that Iran is one of our primary foreign policy concerns, but I am skeptical of both their willingness and ability to close the Strait of Hormuz. While they have the largest (and possibly most powerful) military in the Middle East (excluding Israel) (1), they probably wouldn't be able to stand up to the massie US military. If the US wants the Strait open, it will most likely stay open.
Now, for how we deal with Iran. While we haven't seen significant results from economic sanctions yet, the new round of restrictions on banks dealing with petroleum may prove to be more fruitful. Because of the significance of the US in international finance, the threat of "no US trade" will most likely drive Iran-friendly nations to cut off trade, further isolating the already contained state.
In the end, however, short of direct military action, Iran will most likely develop a nuclear weapon. The covert campaign conducted by the Mossad has only delayed the project, and it is unlikely that the sporadic attacks and assassinations will ever convince Iran to bring the project to a halt.
How bout them Gophers? That game Saturday was really fun to watch, I stood up and started cursing out Ben Blood when he pulled Rau out of the handshake line. Typcial UND, no respect for the game.
1. http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Favors_Asymmetric_Strategy_In_Joust_With_US_999.html
Julie I'm responding to your post on-- what extent should the US go to war to protect its foreign and domestic interests? Do you believe that America should use its military power to get what it wants?-- I do agree with you that we should not use our military powers simply to get what we want. That is not a reason we should go to war, and I don't believe it would ever be a reason Congress would allow our troops to be sent out. It is true that American society was hurt and very much ripped apart by the Vietnam war. However I think you misunderstand how the fear of communism was actually a pretty big deal in the nuclear age. Yes we did not fight that war tactically well at all and stayed in it longer then needed, but we didn't want Russia, China and Vietnam to all be communist because it would have been their number one goal to destroy us (1). So you could say that we went to war because we wanted to protect ourself. It is a fine line of what is justified as just doing it because we can and if something is dangerous to us. I think its easier to say now that Vietnam wasn't ever going to be a huge threat in the 60's but at the time there was actual fear of being attacked (2). Other then that I do very much agree with your post; the deaths of so many isn't cool, pointless war isn't cool, the country free speech shootings weren't cool. So I would have to say that it makes sense to only go to war to protect from immanent danger, but it is also true that nobody wants to be hit first. I think thats were people start to disagree on this, is it worth keeping with the ideals of an honorable war if we lose innocent lives because we were to slow to react.
1.http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-11-23/india/28078757_1_communist-leader-workers-parties-delhi-declaration
2. http://dougcopp.me/2011/01/23/the-history-of-duck-and-cover-from-a-22nd-century-perspective/
@ Aby!
I agree with all of the points you have made so far, and your opinion on the subject as a whole, but would like to extend your argument slightly further into the realm of crazy hypotheticals. You know me, crazy hypotheticals are the way to go.
For the two wars you mentioned, I agree with all of the reasons you stated for why they were not in reality a legitimate or reasonable object for which to go to war. Vietnam was a, for lack of a better (while still blog post appropriate), total and complete screw-up. Troops were committed to a useless war that turned many other nations against, demoralized us, and wasted vital human and monetary resources. It was a sad day for America. If, in some alternate universe, Vietnam had been an actual important bulwark against the invasion of Communism throughout the world, it would have assuredly been to our nations advantage (if you perceive communism to be evil, which I do not in principle, but as a general rule of thumb for the rest of this article, communism shall be a synonym for a fate worse than death) to invade that country. It might have still ended in a quagmire, with our troops shooting at two-faced ghosts, running away from their own shadows. But, at least it would have moralized the country against a force to be truly reckoned with and opposed to keep our freedom. The best way to decide whether a war, in the opinion of our nation (not my own opinion) is if is comparable in some capacity to fighting Nazis. 99% of the world agrees that fighting and killing Nazis was not a bad thing. If the enemy threatens our nation in such an “In-our-face” manner, we are justified in committing troops to battle. We need heroes, who are saving the people back home. At some level, America is obsessed with our own self-interest. That is why Vietnam was considered so horrible. It offended our national pride, killed our children, and was never actually a direct threat to us. As soon as people began to think it through, they realized how ridiculous it was to assume that a communist take-over in Vietnam would actually threaten lives of Americans, or their glorious ideals of self-preservation and fulfillment.
These arguments come again into play in the war in Iraq. When Americans thought that we were fighting for our freedom, fighting to stay alive, to protect ourselves, it was the glory of war. When we found out we were there for some ungodly, useless, non-self-promoting reason, we lost interest. And as it dragged on the loss of interest rapidly turned into out-and-out opposition and protest to a war that was in every way degrading our principles, taking our hard-earned cash, and wasting lives. The democracy of other nations is something which can be hoped for objectively, but if you are asked personally to donate money to a man with a gun to kill another man without a gun so he can decide exactly how that man’s family is going to live their lives, it is a much less appealing concept. My examples are much overblown from the tales you hear, but not so far from reality.
The use of military force is only ever justified in the eyes of the American people when they directly benefit. Not when the government gains some high political objective, not when the government satisfies some claim to a threat. It is only worthy in the Nazi situation. Only when lives are at stake, to people really care. Anything beyond immediate and short term danger is out of the question. Americans are shortsighted. They want to be safe now, but will only pay when they are in danger. It is a backward system, and one which I have no doubt will come to bite every last one of us, someday, in the butt.
@Julie
I think your opinion on what the United States should do regarding using the military brings up a very interesting point. The struggle between deciding to go to war on the basis of a threat to the nation and invading other countries to impose democracy on them has been seen throughout the country’s history. Incidentally, as you know, Mr. Levinski just brought up this topic in English regarding his step-daughter wanting to start a feminist or women’s group in a part of Africa that is dominated by males. So for answering both parts of these questions, there are so many things to take into account. I think you mostly answered the second question, using the example of the Vietnam War. The United States did send the military into the war to stop the spread of Communism, but not just in Vietnam. It was feared that the Communism spreading there would produce a domino effect, and spread Communism to other countries, including United States allies and/or trading partners (1). Your stance on the first question regarding what extent the U.S. should go to protect its foreign and domestic interests wasn’t completely clear to me, except for that the military shouldn’t just go in to other countries for whatever they want, or to impose democracy on other countries. I agree though, that it wasn’t really the United States’ business to go in to Vietnam when they were not posing a threat to us. It gets a little more difficult to decide when you think about the U.S. trying to keep Communism, something they were especially so against at the time, from spreading to other countries. However, I don’t think it is the United States’ job to be the world police. Our country did lose many people in a war that wasn’t even dealing with us. I completely agree that the Vietnam War had lots of negative effects on the society as a whole, especially as it began to spread later in the war. This war was a good example of how military intervention for reasons other than a threat won’t necessarily be a successful form of solving foreign conflict.
(1) http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
Hey Karma!
I think that, while your analysis is valid, you may be oversimplifying some issues. For example, not all wars fit into those three categories. Defense of our nation is often one of the largest reasons to enter a war. The Vietnam War, which we will return to later, is actually an example of this. The main reason for involvement was not to altruistically protect South Vietnam, or our alliance with them. It was to halt the spread of Communism, which is a form of self-interest, but different from economic self-interest.
I agree that Americans did care about the Vietnam War, and it wasn't very popular toward the end of the war. But for the first few years, a fair portion of the population approved of the war in Vietnam, and it steadily declined as the war progressed [2]. I also think when listing president's involvement, you unnecessarily lump them together. Most Americans approved of Kennedy's policy in Vietnam which, if not cruelly interrupted, would most likely have led to withdrawal of american troops far sooner than actually occured [3]. Moreover, the general consensus is that the most immoral actions taken by a president regarding the Vietnam War were those of Richard M. Nixon, who chose to bomb countries who were in no way complicit with the North Vietnamese. This was part of Kissinger's "Madman" scenario, one of his negotiation tactics used with the government of North Vietnam. In the scenario, Kissinger emphasized Nixon's instability when speaking to representatives of North Vietnam, painting Nixon as a raging "wild card," prone to random mood swings. Several of Nixon's actions gave credence to this scenario, such as the secret bombing of Cambodia [4]. Sorry if that seems irrelevant, I just wanted to provide some more information on Nixon's policy in Vietnam and an example of the secrecy surrounding many of America's war efforts. In general, I agree with the points you made, and appreciate the parallels you made connecting the Vietnam War to the Iraq War.
[1]http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
[2]http://polmeth.wustl.edu/media/Paper/berin01.pdf (page 38)
[3] http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/goldzwig.htm
[4] http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.html
@Sam
Well hello. I am responding to your post addressing the question: “To what extent should the US go to war to protect its foreign and domestic interests? Do you believe that America should use its military power to get what it wants?”
I think that this is a very sensitive and complex question, and I appreciate your in-depth analysis. If I am interpreting your stance on the issue correctly, you believe that the only justifiable reason for the US to go to war would be to defend “any direct threat to the safety of Americans.” In regards to the US using war as a means to get what it wants, you are adamant in your view that “it is not worth the cost.”
In short, I share the views your have on these issues. However, I think that the decision to go to war is one that is based on a very hazy distinction. On one hand, the US does not have the resources to solve all the problems of the world [1]. Some would argue that because of this fact, the US should never go to war over humanitarian or moral reasons. They believe that the US, like may years ago, should adopt an isolationist policy, or one in which war is a purely rational decision, weighed against the opportunity cost. One the other hand, many Americans believe that the US has a moral obligation as one of the leading nations of the free world to help free oppressed peoples. But this policy, when implemented, often spells out high degrees of unpopularity when American soldiers give their lives to what some Americans may see as a far removed and irrelevant cause.
I was particularly struck by the rationality of your argument against trade as a reason for war. You brought up clear points, articulating that if a country refused to trade with the US, and the US went to war with that country, that very act could cripple the other nation’s economy, and thus have very negative impacts on our own.
On close inspection, there is no easy answer to the question of war. Like every decision the leaders of our country must make, it is a difficult one, one in which the “right” thing to do is illusive, and often only glimpsed. I do not envy those that have to make the decision, those with the deaths of many on their shoulders. Personally, I am against the concept of war, but I see no way to ensure that violence and force are not used to solve future conflicts. Perhaps a solution will be found in our lifetimes—I certainly hope so.
[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/12/opinion/la-ed-war-20110312
To: Brooke
Brooke I totally agree with you! And that is exactly what my idea in my post was. I think Iran's development in technology is rapidly growing and that means we have to keep up. We need to put a ton of attention towards Iran's nuclear developments because it seems that the developments are going smoothly as Iran may be creating a second site for nuclear weapons. "Also in January, Iran’s top nuclear official announced defiantly that the country was on the verge of starting production at its second major uranium enrichment site." (1) You talked about how Iran is so close to Israel and can easily launch a missile head there, I think this is interesting because right now there is a big decision on whether we attack Iran or if we just add a little oil pressure. This is one of the GOP candidates bigger issues. Mitt Romney believes we should launch an attack on Iran where as Obama is taking a softer view. “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Romney declared in South Carolina in November. “And if we elect Mitt Romney, they will not have a nuclear weapon.” (2). However, a lot of important people believe that if we attack Iran they will be even more motivated to create a nuclear program. "The Bush administration, General Hayden said at a meeting organized by the Center for the National Interest, had concluded that Iran, after a military strike, would “stop at nothing” to produce nuclear weapons “in secret.” He said the wiser course was to use clandestine methods to slow down the nuclear program." (2). I do agree with the fact that if we almost boycott oil, it might effect the world in a negative way because we depend on oil so much. We use it for almost everything. We cant just take it out, it could hurt us more than Iran. There is no easy way out of this situation.
1.http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html
2.http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/on-foreign-policy-romney-breaks-with-advisers/?ref=nuclearprogram
@Brooke Hendricks
I know that multiple other people have already responded to your post, but I was rather confused by it. You seem to sum up the problem involving Iran, Israel and the Straits quite well, but you only give a sentence for why the problem should be prioritized. I believe that implicit in the question was also a defense of why that issue should be prioritized. That brings us back my initial point, namely that you summarize the events well but don’t extrapolate them or tell us what they mean. For example, although Iran did threated to close the Straits of Hormuz, it does not necessarily follow that either a) the US should prioritize “Iran getting nuclear weapons” or b) they will follow through on their threat. Additionally, your post seems to lack any predictive pattern for what trend line Iran will follow if they are allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Many foreign policy analysts believe that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would be beneficial, as most of their macho-posturing is an effort to obtain said weapons, and after they do obtain them a kind of mutually assured destruction would prevent conflict in the Middle East [1]. Others claim that Iran is an irrational actor who does not care about mutually assured destruction, and that they will use their weapons to intimidate other countries in the general area or will supply terrorists with these deadly weapons. I believe that any post about Iran should analyze what the foreign policy implications of Iran obtaining weapons would be. Furthermore, I think that while you are setting yourself up well to make a statement about why Iran should be prioritized above, say, China, you don’t actually get there.
[1] Victor Asal, Kyle Beadsley, Kenneth Waltz, Jordan Seng, Nuno Monteiro to name a few.
@Hannah
I concur with your examination of the situation in North Korea. Food aid could be a successful implementation. China does contribute food to North Korea, but they do not contribute an ample supply that could impede scarcity (1). This is a sphere where North Korea requires help and we should be mindful of when and how we supply it. But, because the food is essentially necessary to the general populace, we must be cautious not to discipline them as a result of their government’s crimes. Naturally, we must be certain that the aid is assisting the people in a remote way since it does have a tendency to be given to the elite as opposed to those in need. Prior to Kim Jong-Il’s death, our president’s administration did consent to dispatch up to 240,000 tons of food to North Korea (2). The U.S. intended to enact a process that would make the aid less likely to be given to the wealthy, like delivering the food in smaller shipments and sending vitamin supplements and biscuits as opposed to rice. Pyongyang consented to watch the circumstances to assist in the prevention of the rerouting of supplies (2). Kim Jong-Il’s death did weaken the stability and certainty of the plans, but the North Korean government declares the possibility of exchanging food aid for the suspension of their uranium enrichment program is still possible (3). Even so, if the assistance is sent, we still have not seen just how successful this approach is. No matter what food plan is put in place, I believe that our country should wait and see how successful it is to determine whether or not we should continue to send food aid. Holding back the aid could be the least harmful way of negotiating.
I also believe that our time to act in either way has not come yet. Throughout the world, experts have been disagreeing over the possibilities of Kim Jong-Un’s policies and whether or not they will be like his late father’s. Kim Jong-Il centered mainly on military policies and his father (Kim Il-Sung) centered on economic issues (4). Kim Jong-Un seems to be headed in the same direction as Kim Jong-Il, but it is almost too early to say because he is politically “green”. Nevertheless, North Korea has conveyed a curiosity in proceeding the talks between North Korea, the United States, Russia, South Korea, China, and Japan and are hoping that they will being again in the early spring (5). It will interesting to wait and see what happens with North Korea and China in the future, as our country does not have to immediately take action.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/amid-n-korea-succession-china-makes-push-for-stability/2012/01/04/gIQApZFIaP_story_1.html
2. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/12/116_101055.html
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/us-seeks-new-chapter-in-relations-with-north-korea/
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16607156
5. http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=124604&code=Ne2&category=2
@Hannah
I concur with your examination of the situation in North Korea. Food aid could be a successful implementation. China does contribute food to North Korea, but they do not contribute an ample supply that could impede scarcity (1). This is a sphere where North Korea requires help and we should be mindful of when and how we supply it. But, because the food is essentially necessary to the general populace, we must be cautious not to discipline them as a result of their government’s crimes. Naturally, we must be certain that the aid is assisting the people in a remote way since it does have a tendency to be given to the elite as opposed to those in need. Prior to Kim Jong-Il’s death, our president’s administration did consent to dispatch up to 240,000 tons of food to North Korea (2). The U.S. intended to enact a process that would make the aid less likely to be given to the wealthy, like delivering the food in smaller shipments and sending vitamin supplements and biscuits as opposed to rice. Pyongyang consented to watch the circumstances to assist in the prevention of the rerouting of supplies (2). Kim Jong-Il’s death did weaken the stability and certainty of the plans, but the North Korean government declares the possibility of exchanging food aid for the suspension of their uranium enrichment program is still possible (3). Even so, if the assistance is sent, we still have not seen just how successful this approach is. No matter what food plan is put in place, I believe that our country should wait and see how successful it is to determine whether or not we should continue to send food aid. Holding back the aid could be the least harmful way of negotiating.
I also believe that our time to act in either way has not come yet. Throughout the world, experts have been disagreeing over the possibilities of Kim Jong-Un’s policies and whether or not they will be like his late father’s. Kim Jong-Il centered mainly on military policies and his father (Kim Il-Sung) centered on economic issues (4). Kim Jong-Un seems to be headed in the same direction as Kim Jong-Il, but it is almost too early to say because he is politically “green”. Nevertheless, North Korea has conveyed a curiosity in proceeding the talks between North Korea, the United States, Russia, South Korea, China, and Japan and are hoping that they will being again in the early spring (5). It will interesting to wait and see what happens with North Korea and China in the future, as our country does not have to immediately take action.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/amid-n-korea-succession-china-makes-push-for-stability/2012/01/04/gIQApZFIaP_story_1.html
2. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/12/116_101055.html
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/us-seeks-new-chapter-in-relations-with-north-korea/
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16607156
5. http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=124604&code=Ne2&category=2
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home