The American public has way too many mood swings... http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/17/looking.homward.poll.ap/index.html Poll: More Americans want off world stage WASHINGTON (AP) -- The public's belief that the United States should mind its own business internationally has reached levels not seen since after the Cold War ended more than a decade ago, a poll has found. Opinion leaders from various parts of society also are less likely to feel the United States should be the most assertive of the leading nations, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The poll, sponsored this year by Pew and the Council on Foreign Relations, has been conducted by Pew every four years since 1993. Anxiety about the war in Iraq is likely a big reason for the shift in attitudes. "What's striking is the common thread, both the opinion leaders favoring a less assertive role for the United States and the public's isolationist views," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "This particular period of time marks a transition from the post-9/11 era." After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the public's attention to international affairs spiked upward and their worries tilted sharply toward national security and defending against terrorists. The new Pew poll found that 42 percent of the public said the United States should "mind its own business internationally" -- up from 30 percent who felt that way in 2002 and comparable to the mid-1970s after Vietnam, and the early 1990s after the Cold War ended. Among the poll's other findings: The influential Americans were inclined to think spreading democracy around the Middle East is a good idea, but doubt it will work. Both opinion leaders and the public were inclined to view China as a potential problem, but not as an adversary of the United States. In fact many opinion leaders see China as a potential ally in the future. The public was more likely to say the United States should remain the only superpower, but leaders in the fields of religion, academics and science were inclined to say it is OK if another country becomes as powerful as the United States. The poll of 2,006 adults was conducted from Oct. 12-24 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The poll of 520 men and women who are leaders from the news media, foreign affairs, academics, security, the military, religion, science and state and local government was done both by telephone and online from Sept. 5-Oct. 31. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Our economy and security depends on it. As isolationists, we'd be less safe than a reactive hegemon. If we start invading more countries while pissing foreigners off for no reason, that's a different matter....
does it have to be a choice of only between waging an aggressive war OR being an isolationist?? iraq war?
^^ A lot of countries didn't seem to mind Bosnia, Haiti, or Afghanistan when the reason was sound. They even foot at least half the bill and spared personel. Even if we didn't need their troops, it helped eased ethnic tensions.
I guess lots of Americans believe that US involvement in international stage is purly helping others, doing others favours and caring about allies etc etc. They failed to realize that at the same time, those involvement were are in the great interest of US as well. As Americans, they benefited a lot from those activities. Things they enjoy without any appreciation were not granted for free, but as rewards from those involvement.
What a great idea! Let's tank the season less than 15 games into it for an unknown commodity! Not smart.
The problem with that is that as the hegemon we are bound to inspire enmity. Both from either we are seen as throwing our weight around too much and interfering in other people's affairs or we aren't doing enough to help them. A Pax Americana is an untenable situation and one that is bound to inspire hatred of us from one corner or another. The lesson that 9/11 taught me was that America cannot expect to go around doing whatever it wants in other regions of the World and not expect repercussions here at home. I agree with GW Bush that oceans don't protect us except that I have a very different conclusion than he does. Instead of meddling in others affairs or trying to force our values on them we should be minding our own business. This doesn't mean we disengage from the World completely but regional problems should be left to regional actors and when necessary problems should be resolved through multi-lateral action. The model for dealing with regional problems IMO should be how East Timor was resolved with the main regional power Australia taking the lead working closely with the UN and ASEAN rather than having the US come in.
I thought Pax America had another good 20 years in it before Bush... now it probably has a bad 20 years. Sure it has unspoken and detrimental effects on other countries, but this discussion is what American's supposedly want... Under the current system, Americans enjoy an overvalued, overspent, and over invested dollar, a premium on their export media properties, and genuine respect from more than half of the world. Plus it put us with some assurance with the military industrial complex. It's a huge budget, but if that bargaining chip help gets our voice heard without even firing several shots, then it would've been worth it since the economic gains would pay for itself. What made Pax Americana work and was wargely unnoticed was what our diplomats did behind the scenes to assure our allies and put faith in our system. Pax Romana relied on wars and intimidation. Before Bush, wars were mostly coordinated, bases on other countries were mutually agreed upon, and world institutions had credibility despite the fact that it took America's participation through its gigantic military or economy to make it credible. Now what do we have? Bush's Pax America isn't the same as the one before. Sure...the one before has caused bin Ladens, but it wouldn't have made other countries think bin Laden might just be right.
Why does every comment about the US revert back to an argument about the Iraq war? I think we all have our own damn stances on the importance or unimportance of it all, so shall we move on? Last I checked no opinions on the matter were changed. Why beat the same drum, and discuss the topic mentioned above as a whole, not just the Iraq war... we have military personnel all over the globe.
why get tired and furstrated?? don't you want to talk about all the achievements and good the current war has brought to the people of america, iraq, and the world??
I find it funny that the apologists of the no exit strategy president and his little war always want to “move on" and not discuss the war or how we got into it. It's almost like they are now embarrassed to talk about it. No WMDs? "Let's move on" Manipulated intelligence? "Let's move on" Committing a federal offence by outing a CIA spy? "Let's Move on" Too few troops and equipment? "Let's move on" Over 2000 dead Americans? "Let's move on"
That is because the time for debating the war is *long* over. We had the debate, we voted in Congress, and we are currently executing on our plans. People get sick of listening to the libs wanting to dredge up the debate again and again simply because it is too late. We are already there. Now that we are there, we have a mission to complete. How about supporting that mission to ensure success? If the liberals want to get out of Iraq, then that's another debate. Of course, the House just voted on that recently, and last I checked they voted 403-3 to stay the course. Pulling out now hands victory to the terrorists. It shows the world that the mighty American military can be torpedoed by a negative public relations campaign, waged by terrorists and an angry faction of liberals in the United States working to undermine our military's efforts. Pulling out now would embolden al Qaeda. They are desperately seeking an immediate pull out. It's the only way they can win. Why then, are the liberals so eager to give that to them?
Corruption and self -interest are the baser instincts of man. Freedom, equality and individualality are the higher asperations of an evolving civilization. The sparks of civilization that struggle to rise up are precious. They should be nourished and their failings tolerated because they can be guided to their higher purpose. Their only alternative is go backward into the mire where only might makes right, where the alliance of the self-intered few hold the greater good at bay. Our presence on the world stage may be flawed and complicated by the realities of politics but what progress would civilization be making if we weren't willing? Would we rather accept murderous dicators, ehtnic cleansing, cultural revolutions that starve millions, low level conflicts from every disagreing party. Criticism is necessay, dissagreement is given, but I don't see any other course for a blessed nation than to lead the world to be more civilized. (steps down off soapbox)
I see you haven't stopped lying yet. Everyone knows that vote was a smoke screen by the GOP, you and the dittoheads are the only ones pretending that it was a vote of confidence in the president and this misguided war. Stop lying or continue to be derided as a Bush bobble head.
Phew.. good thing you weren't running the country during the Vietnam war. We might still be there today.
This is no Vietnam. These soldiers have *volunteered* to go over there, they weren't drafted. We have a clear mission in Iraq -- establish order and let the Iraqis take over. The only similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is the behavior of the liberals at home -- working to undermine soldier morale and public support for finishing (and winning) the mission. That's it.
I thought the mission was to bring democracy to Iraq? Or was it to get rid of WMDs? Or overthrow Saddam? Doesn't seem too clear to me.
Good post, and I agree for the most part. The major difference between W. and former presidents (including Clintron and Bush Sr., and even Reagan was more 'covert' than people give him credit for) is that W. is conducting an "in your face" unilateral foreign policy (although there are signs that that might be changing, and that the realist school of thought is making a comeback). The real issue here is that most Americans don't understand why organizations such as the UN, World Bank, and the IMF exist, they don't really understand their history very well. They existed for the purpose of furthering our "Liberal Empire", not to restrain it. The genius of these institutions as the bluprint and foundation for American world dominance -- which was laid in the early half of the 20th century -- is incredibly underappreciated. FDR and Truman were no pacifists, Wilson was no pacifist (all liberals), but they understood that there were massive limitations to world dominance when you act alone, and they understood that the best way to exercise and extend American hegemony was through those international institutions, and that America could (for the most part) extend its influence and spread its own "revolution" (which has always been the Open Door and free trade, free market capitalism, not democracy) far more effeciently and effectively than it could acting as a traditional "Old European" empire. The incredible irony was that the people who voiced the loudest opposition to such plans in the post-WWII era (military-industrial complex, etc) were largely conservatives, because by definition a conservative is closer to an isolationist than a neo-liberal (who are for some reason referred to as 'neo-conservatives' today, when the more appropriate term would be neo-liberals); take Pat Buchanan for instance. So I do agree with you, Invisible Fan, it's not really a questions of whether or not the method is right (i.e. constantly 'interfering' everywhere in the world), but rather whether or not the equation has changed since the post-WWII era (are costs outweighing the benefits?); it's a question that requires a complex "cost/benefit" analysis, and requires us to take everything into account. It's undeniable that the costs have gone up to maintain that world dominance that we've always sought, but is it enough to outweigh all the benefits? I think debating that question is the central challenge to American policy-makers of the next decade or two. Will we try our best to be more 'covert' and pick and choose our battles -- at times even sacrificing short-term gains for long-term ones -- or will we continue at the current course and in the process (long-term) undermine our global position as a superpower by alienating our allies worldwide (which is already happening)? The men who have the vision and the prudence to manuever that challenge are going to be remembered in the same breath as the "founding fathers" of modern America in a post-WWII world
