Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy?

Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 11:21:47 AM)
A Truman for our times That George W Bush's foreign policy has been a total failure is now taken for granted by so many people that one usually hears it stated as a simple truth that need not be argued at all. It has happened before. When President Harry S Truman said in March 1952 that he would not seek re-election, most Americans could agree on one thing: that his foreign policy had been a catastrophic failure. In Korea his indecision had invited aggression, and then his incompetence had cost the lives of some 54,000 Americans and millions of Korean civilians in just two years of fighting—on both counts more than ten times the number of casualties in Iraq. Right-wingers reviled Truman for having lost China to communism and for his dismissal of the great General Douglas MacArthur, who had wanted to win it back, with nukes if necessary. Liberals despised Truman because he was the failed shopkeeper who had usurped the patrician Franklin Roosevelt's White House—liberals always were the snobs of US politics. Abroad, Truman was widely hated too. The communist accusation that he had waged "bacteriological warfare" to kill Korean children and destroy Chinese crops was believed by many, and was fully endorsed by a 669-page report issued by a commission chaired by the eminent British biochemist Joseph Needham. Even more people believed that Truman was guilty of having started the cold war by trying to intimidate our brave Soviet ally, or at least that he and Stalin were equally to blame. Very long, detailed and interesting article, for the intellectually curious, and historically inclined. The author seems to think that history will view Bush's foreign policies in a much more favorable light than many people currently do. I have to admit, depending on what happens over the next several years, I'm inclined to agree. I've said several times that most people take much too short a view when it comes to the effects that the Bush Presidency has (and will have) on the world as a whole. This thread, btw, isn't designed to be one of "Bush adoration", or the opportunity for you to display BDS. It is a call for a serious discussion of the long-term view of the US policies in response to Islamic jihadism. Any comments in the "Bush sucks" genre will be ignored as an indication of the poster's inability to engage in rational discussion. Firm

DomKen -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 11:41:55 AM)
The article makes claims against Truman not in evidence. By 1952 the Marshall plan was a clear success. The Russell committee investigation had made public enough details about MacArthur that Truman's dismissal was no longer unpopular. MacArthur's address to the GOP convention in 1952 further convinced Americans that Truman had done the right thing. The claims about how history will judge GWB fails in many ways. Just as the Japanese internment during WWII has been a long term mar on the record of FDR GWB will never escape the spectre of the mass imprisonment and harassment of Arab-Americans. The huge increase in the federal debt will not be forgotten nor forgiven. The unitary executive theory and its eager acceptance by the administartion will be a prominent negative. The stubborn refusal to allow stem cell research and the subsequent loss of that emergent industry to other nations will become a very important point as the biotech revolution accelerates. The cavalier disregard for treaties and the active evasion of basic tenets of international law will be another unforgettable negative. Finally and this is where the verdict of history will be most damning, on 9-12-2001 it was possible to assemble a grand coalition of the nations of the world in opposition to terrorism with the USA at the head and able to use the good will generated by the attack to improve the world and greatly reduce terror against all peoples but GWB squandered it by making the war on terror about something besides going after terrorists and their supporters.

philosophy -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 11:45:53 AM)
.........well, taking the issue of how history sees a leader, similar things were said during Thatcher's rule of the UK. How her reign would be seen in a kinder light in the future. Necessary short term umpleasentness, etc....... We're still finding the time bombs. Some leaders do damage far beyond their term in office. You ask about the long term effects of US policy against Islamic Extremism. Fair question. In my opinion history will point out how US foreign policy was so short term and focussed so solely on its own interests that it made what was a fairly annoying local problem into a much more annoying international one. In short, US policy instead of making Islamic Terrorism less of a threat has effectively prolonged it. Mostly by refusing to examine how it comes about.......

slvemike4u -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 11:53:48 AM)
The article certainly looks at bushie's foreign policy record thru rose colored glasses,especially where it pertains to the ISI in Pakistan.The New York Times just today ran a story on the ISI's troubling ties to militant Islamic factions,the CIA station in Afghanistan has been long sounding the alarm over the far too cozy relationship between the ISI and these militant organizations.Pakistan appears to be double-dealing with us in this area and has been paying lip service to "the war on terror" all along,while asking that anti-terror funds be diverted to upgrading the Pakistani Air Force an arm of their military with no anti-terror role...In my opinion little bushie will never be held in the same regard as Truman a truly great President..

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 12:16:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The author seems to think that history will view Bush's foreign policies in a much more favorable light than many people currently do. I have to admit, depending on what happens over the next several years, I'm inclined to agree. While Bush never created the Islamic terrorist problem, that was done first by Britain's lines in sand and then by US interference for its own self interest in the ME and the US and the west prefering to turn as blind eye to Israeli state terror because of I assume, guilt over the holocaust. However, Bush's foreign policies have been lamentable. The US's allies want to distance themselves from him. He started an unnecessary war, there being no Islamic terrorists in Iraq or WMD. He has incarcerated people without trial, denied people their rights and endorses torture. Hell, the bloke is a leper on the international circuit, no one wants to be photographed with him and if they are, they look embarrassed. It's going to be another President that is going to have to clean up his shit so if anyone can rescue the US's reputation after being handed such a poisoned chalice, they should get the accolades. Descartes said, I think therefore I am. The idea that if you think, you exist. While most of the world think Bush exists, there is no evidence that he thinks so does he really exist? One of life's conundrums.

slvemike4u -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 12:55:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The article makes claims against Truman not in evidence. By 1952 the Marshall plan was a clear success. The Russell committee investigation had made public enough details about MacArthur that Truman's dismissal was no longer unpopular. MacArthur's address to the GOP convention in 1952 further convinced Americans that Truman had done the right thing. The claims about how history will judge GWB fails in many ways. Just as the Japanese internment during WWII has been a long term mar on the record of FDR GWB will never escape the spectre of the mass imprisonment and harassment of Arab-Americans. The huge increase in the federal debt will not be forgotten nor forgiven. The unitary executive theory and its eager acceptance by the administartion will be a prominent negative. The stubborn refusal to allow stem cell research and the subsequent loss of that emergent industry to other nations will become a very important point as the biotech revolution accelerates. The cavalier disregard for treaties and the active evasion of basic tenets of international law will be another unforgettable negative. Finally and this is where the verdict of history will be most damning, on 9-12-2001 it was possible to assemble a grand coalition of the nations of the world in opposition to terrorism with the USA at the head and able to use the good will generated by the attack to improve the world and greatly reduce terror against all peoples but GWB squandered it by making the war on terror about something besides going after terrorists and their supporters. The aticle also implyed Truman's policy's "lost" China a claim most loudly made by all the old China first crowd most notably by Henry Luce of Time magazine ,who not coincidentally would supress any negative stories filed by his own correspondents concerning the actual corruption and malfeasence of Chiang Kai-shek's regime...thus making it easier to blame Truman and his administration for "losing" our erstwhile ally to the communist's

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 1:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy .........well, taking the issue of how history sees a leader, similar things were said during Thatcher's rule of the UK. How her reign would be seen in a kinder light in the future. Necessary short term umpleasentness, etc....... We're still finding the time bombs. Some leaders do damage far beyond their term in office. You ask about the long term effects of US policy against Islamic Extremism. Fair question. In my opinion history will point out how US foreign policy was so short term and focussed so solely on its own interests that it made what was a fairly annoying local problem into a much more annoying international one. In short, US policy instead of making Islamic Terrorism less of a threat has effectively prolonged it. Mostly by refusing to examine how it comes about....... Well, I dunno, philo. Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it? In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it). Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 1:17:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The article certainly looks at bushie's foreign policy record thru rose colored glasses,especially where it pertains to the ISI in Pakistan.The New York Times just today ran a story on the ISI's troubling ties to militant Islamic factions,the CIA station in Afghanistan has been long sounding the alarm over the far too cozy relationship between the ISI and these militant organizations.Pakistan appears to be double-dealing with us in this area and has been paying lip service to "the war on terror" all along,while asking that anti-terror funds be diverted to upgrading the Pakistani Air Force an arm of their military with no anti-terror role...In my opinion little bushie will never be held in the same regard as Truman a truly great President.. In regards to Pakistan's ISI ... do you think their associations and activities since 9/11 have gotten more adverse to US interests, are about the same, or are less adverse to US interests? Firm

DomKen -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 1:25:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it? In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it). One indicator of the coming surge in islamic extremism is the Iraqi refugee issue. Refugees are a prime breeding ground for terrorists.

philosophy -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 1:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy .........well, taking the issue of how history sees a leader, similar things were said during Thatcher's rule of the UK. How her reign would be seen in a kinder light in the future. Necessary short term umpleasentness, etc....... We're still finding the time bombs. Some leaders do damage far beyond their term in office. You ask about the long term effects of US policy against Islamic Extremism. Fair question. In my opinion history will point out how US foreign policy was so short term and focussed so solely on its own interests that it made what was a fairly annoying local problem into a much more annoying international one. In short, US policy instead of making Islamic Terrorism less of a threat has effectively prolonged it. Mostly by refusing to examine how it comes about....... Well, I dunno, philo. Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it? In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it). Firm ....fair question. i'd echo Condoleeza Rice, at least to a point....... "For 60 years, my country – the United States – pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East. And we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1396950.htm ....whether or not the US is fostering democracy is not the point i'm trying to make here. It's that someone who has been the architect of at least some US foreign policy recognises the nature of its failure. As to whether or not she's succeeded in changing the paradigm that led to this failure i'll leave to another discussion. However, as of 2005, Ms Rice appears to agree with me that US foreign policy has concentrated too much on self interest in the middle east. The result is a generation of extremists who feel that the US is plundering the region. such a perception inevitably leads to sophistic, religious justifications. The seeds of 9/11 were planted a generation or more ago. Unless US foreign policy recognises this it will always proceed from false assumptions.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 1:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The article makes claims against Truman not in evidence. By 1952 the Marshall plan was a clear success. The Russell committee investigation had made public enough details about MacArthur that Truman's dismissal was no longer unpopular. MacArthur's address to the GOP convention in 1952 further convinced Americans that Truman had done the right thing. The claims about how history will judge GWB fails in many ways. Just as the Japanese internment during WWII has been a long term mar on the record of FDR GWB will never escape the spectre of the mass imprisonment and harassment of Arab-Americans. The huge increase in the federal debt will not be forgotten nor forgiven. The unitary executive theory and its eager acceptance by the administartion will be a prominent negative. The stubborn refusal to allow stem cell research and the subsequent loss of that emergent industry to other nations will become a very important point as the biotech revolution accelerates. Interesting comments, and probably worth several threads all their own, but not strictly on-topic to this thread, Ken. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The cavalier disregard for treaties and the active evasion of basic tenets of international law will be another unforgettable negative. Finally and this is where the verdict of history will be most damning, on 9-12-2001 it was possible to assemble a grand coalition of the nations of the world in opposition to terrorism with the USA at the head and able to use the good will generated by the attack to improve the world and greatly reduce terror against all peoples but GWB squandered it by making the war on terror about something besides going after terrorists and their supporters. Was the Gulf War "in opposition to terrorism"? I don't think it was so classified at the time, and I've never seen it mentioned as such before. However, I do accept the basic point as a valid question. My answer is that I'm not sure you are comparing apples to apples. I always saw the reason for the successful "Grand Coalition" as more about preventing an example that would threaten the stability of the area (which is why Syria joined, for example) or threaten the oil supplies of the middle east, or that some countries joined because they saw it as an easy, low cost way to participate without actually having much of a burden placed on them, getting "markers" from the US in the process. The Iraq War, as part of the GWOT (hate that name) is/was an entirely different animal in my mind. In this case, I believe the majority of nations were - at worst - indifferent to the adventure. Most of the local countries governments were quietly glad that we took the problem in hand, and most of Europe couldn't do much anyway (most of the ones who could, did), and decided that they could let the US take the pain, and that it was an easy way to show that they could "stand up to" the US to their local citizens, and still get the US to take out Saddam (cause we were obviously going to do it anyway). Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 2:02:54 PM)
[/quote] In regards to Pakistan's ISI ... do you think their associations and activities since 9/11 have gotten more adverse to US interests, are about the same, or are less adverse to US interests? Firm [/quote] Well given the CIA's own concerns I am of the opinion that they have gotten back in bed with the militant's while their government pays lip service to our interest's.Quantifying it beyond that is an exercise in semantics...They are playing us ,the level to which we are being played matters not to me...I don't like being played at any level...

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 2:04:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it? In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it). One indicator of the coming surge in islamic extremism is the Iraqi refugee issue. Refugees are a prime breeding ground for terrorists. Perhaps. But what is your basis for saying this? My understanding is that the majority of the refugees are middle to upper middle class, and primarily Sunni. If the situation in Iraq continues to improve (and all indications are that it will), isn't it likely that they will return? Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 2:16:57 PM)
And how long will they be middle or upper class living in refugee camps or in displaced community's

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 2:37:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u And how long will they be middle or upper class living in refugee camps or in displaced community's Likely not long. They will either immigrate somewhere else that the opportunities are better, or enter the local workforce (if possible) or go home. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 2:38:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: In regards to Pakistan's ISI ... do you think their associations and activities since 9/11 have gotten more adverse to US interests, are about the same, or are less adverse to US interests? Firm Well given the CIA's own concerns I am of the opinion that they have gotten back in bed with the militant's while their government pays lip service to our interest's.Quantifying it beyond that is an exercise in semantics...They are playing us ,the level to which we are being played matters not to me...I don't like being played at any level... So .. in other words ... at worst, no different than prior to 9/11? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 2:41:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy .........well, taking the issue of how history sees a leader, similar things were said during Thatcher's rule of the UK. How her reign would be seen in a kinder light in the future. Necessary short term umpleasentness, etc....... We're still finding the time bombs. Some leaders do damage far beyond their term in office. You ask about the long term effects of US policy against Islamic Extremism. Fair question. In my opinion history will point out how US foreign policy was so short term and focussed so solely on its own interests that it made what was a fairly annoying local problem into a much more annoying international one. In short, US policy instead of making Islamic Terrorism less of a threat has effectively prolonged it. Mostly by refusing to examine how it comes about....... Well, I dunno, philo. Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it? In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it). Firm ....fair question. i'd echo Condoleeza Rice, at least to a point....... "For 60 years, my country – the United States – pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East. And we achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1396950.htm ....whether or not the US is fostering democracy is not the point i'm trying to make here. It's that someone who has been the architect of at least some US foreign policy recognises the nature of its failure. As to whether or not she's succeeded in changing the paradigm that led to this failure i'll leave to another discussion. However, as of 2005, Ms Rice appears to agree with me that US foreign policy has concentrated too much on self interest in the middle east. The result is a generation of extremists who feel that the US is plundering the region. such a perception inevitably leads to sophistic, religious justifications. The seeds of 9/11 were planted a generation or more ago. Unless US foreign policy recognises this it will always proceed from false assumptions. I'm confused philo. You seem to be agreeing with the author's assertion, not disagreeing. Firm

DomKen -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 2:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Do you have any theory, or indication that Islamic Extermism or "jihadism" has increased, or will get worse based on US actions since 9/11? And how does this compare to indications that those actions and policies may have muted it? In other words, what is the basis for this belief (not being confrontational, just interested in your reasoning and anything you had behind it). One indicator of the coming surge in islamic extremism is the Iraqi refugee issue. Refugees are a prime breeding ground for terrorists. Perhaps. But what is your basis for saying this? My understanding is that the majority of the refugees are middle to upper middle class, and primarily Sunni. If the situation in Iraq continues to improve (and all indications are that it will), isn't it likely that they will return? Firm The refugees aren't ever going home. There homes have been ethnically cleansed. At this point large blast proof concret walls have been erected around the few remaining Sunni enclaves in Baghdad and there is still violence against them happening. No matter where the refugees wind up some are not going to do as well as they did in Iraq before the invasion. Those people will have kids who will be reared on talk of the horrible injustice visited upon them. The palestinian refugee camps are proof of how corrosive such sentiments can be. In 20 to 25 years we're going to be seeing a whole new generation of Sunni and Shi'a terrorists coming out of the Iraqi refugee communities thanks entirely to us allowing the ethnic cleansing civil war to run its course the last two and a half years.

slvemike4u -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 3:18:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: In regards to Pakistan's ISI ... do you think their associations and activities since 9/11 have gotten more adverse to US interests, are about the same, or are less adverse to US interests? Firm Well given the CIA's own concerns I am of the opinion that they have gotten back in bed with the militant's while their government pays lip service to our interest's.Quantifying it beyond that is an exercise in semantics...They are playing us ,the level to which we are being played matters not to me...I don't like being played at any level... So .. in other words ... at worst, no different than prior to 9/11? Firm So your okay with and, actually trumpeting as an achievment ,no improvement in the 7 yrs since 9/11....amazing!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush = Truman on Foreign Policy? (7/30/2008 3:23:39 PM)
I respectfully disagree Ken. I don't think you have much to back up your assertion. My thinking is that the refugee problems occur primarily when lower educated people, from the lower parts of a society give up in hopelessness. I don't think the problems in Iraq are as hopeless as you portray, either. There are still millions of Sunni in Iraq, in regions and towns and cities where they are the majority. Firm

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125