Eastern Fronts by Ted Galen Carpenter and Justin Logan While Bush administration officials are obsessed with politics in the Greater Middle East, two dangerous problems are emerging in East Asia: the Taiwan Strait and the 38th Parallel in Korea. The governments of both Taiwan and South Korea have been acting in an increasingly irresponsible manner, in part because of the Bush administration's policy vacuum. Both states are able to act unchecked by their American patron, which works to their political benefit but to the potential peril of the United States. Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's aggressive politics of seeking formal independence has been coupled with a sharp decrease in defense spending. Chen has long been a supporter of Taiwan's formal independence, leading chants on the 2000 campaign trail of his party's slogan, "Long live Taiwan independence!" Chen and other officials of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party publicly refer to Taiwan as an "independent country" and to China as an "enemy state." His government has sought to promote a separate Taiwanese identity in a multitude of ways. Even though Chen's course is risky, Taiwan's defense budget has shrunk to less than $7 billion annually, while the People's Republic of China (PRC) expanded its defense budget to between $50 billion and $70 billion last year. Although the PRC has some catching up to do, it will likely surmount Taiwan's existing qualitative advantage over the next few years. An arms package from the United States of roughly $15 billion is lying fallow in Taiwan's legislature. Taiwan has been able to balk on the arms deal primarily because many Taiwanese believe that Taiwan has a security guarantee from the United States. (If it does, why should Taiwan bother spending for its own defense?) The question of a security guarantee is a serious one, and deserves further exploration. Is the United States legally bound to fight for Taiwan's security? The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (TRA) is often cited as evidence that America is obligated to defend Taiwan, come what may. But the TRA is ambiguous. It merely asserts that "efforts to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, would be a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." Moreover, the TRA replaced an expiring mutual defense treaty (MDT) with Taiwan's government, and a debate ensued around the enactment of the TRA as to whether it should replicate the MDT's security guarantee. A proposal offered in the U.S. House of Representatives to incorporate such a guarantee was rejected by a margin of 221 to 149. To be fair, though, it is not totally unreasonable for the Taiwanese to believe that the United States will defend Taiwan's right to pursue independence. Various members (past and present) of the Bush national-security team have sent Taiwan an array of encouraging signals regarding U.S. views on Taiwan independence. For example, Dan Blumenthal, formerly the country director for China and Taiwan at the Pentagon, declared in a January 2005 National Review Online article that "it is most definitely not the position of the U.S. that Taiwan is part of China." John Bolton, nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, glibly waved off the Chinese in The Weekly Standard in 1999. "The notion," he wrote, "that China would actually respond with force [to U.S. recognition of Taiwan] is a fantasy … ." Given comments like these from administration officials, one could forgive the Taiwanese for believing they have free rein to do what they please under a U.S. security umbrella. China seems increasingly impatient with Chen. The recent anti-secession law not only commits China to preventing an open declaration of independence, it notes that China will also use "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures" even if "possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted." Given the trends on Taiwan, the anti-secession law pushes the window for a peaceful solution a bit further closed. Clearly, the X factor for China is potential U.S. intervention. But China's strategists think they may have the key to overcoming the United States: sinking a U.S. aircraft carrier. Chinese Major General Huang Bin explained the reasoning: "Once we decide to use force against Taiwan, we definitely will consider an intervention by the United States. The United States likes vain glory; if one of its aircraft carriers should be attacked and destroyed, people in the United States would begin to complain and quarrel loudly, and the U.S. president would find the going harder and harder." China has equipped its advanced Sovremenny-class destroyers with Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles -- missiles designed to sink large vessels such as aircraft carriers. The prospect of potentially serious naval losses should elicit an open discussion in the United States about Washington's Taiwan policy. Americans should begin asking themselves how high a cost they are willing to pay in order to provide for Taiwan's independence. At this point, Taiwan's political actions are making a confrontation more likely. If Taiwan's strategy is to act boldly beneath a perceived security guarantee, South Korea's attitude could be characterized as "see no evil, hear no evil." Although its neighbor is ruled by a bizarre, murderous tyrant who by most accounts possesses nuclear weapons, Seoul seems to prefer a combination of ignoring and appeasing Pyongyang rather than preparing for worst-case scenarios: a collapse in the North, or worse yet, an assault on the South. As a result of Seoul's breezy attitude, the United States remains the final guarantor of the South's security. Secured by the "trip wire" of the 32,500 U.S. troops still stationed in South Korea, the South Koreans seem to be working earnestly to undermine U.S. policy on the Korean Peninsula. On the North Korean nuclear standoff, the South remains reluctant to fully align itself with the United States in order to present a unified diplomatic front to Pyongyang. Instead, it continues to provide economic aid to North Korea and opposes referring North Korea to the UN Security Council, undermining U.S. attempts to isolate and pressure Kim Jong-Il's regime. Seoul has also indicated that it has no intention of cooperating with America's regional strategy. South Korean President Roo Moo-hyun pointedly said on March 8, "We will not be embroiled in any conflict in Northeast Asia against our will. This is an absolutely firm principle we cannot yield under any circumstance." That position no doubt rankled the Pentagon, which has been seeking to portray its forces in South Korea as "strategically flexible" -- that is, as forces that could be used in a regional contingency involving Taiwan. South Korea has linked itself closely to China's economic growth and regional leadership, and is unlikely to support a defense of Taiwan. Seoul's policy on the North Korean issue is also closer to Beijing's approach than it is to Washington's strategy. Moreover, South Korea continues to underinvest in its own defense. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies' The Military Balance, South Korea's defense budget in 2003 was $14.6 billion -- a mere 2.8 percent of its gross domestic product. The United States currently spends roughly 3.6 percent of its GDP on defense -- without a crazed neighbor on its border. South Korea is even reducing the size of its military forces. Clearly, Seoul has chosen to rely on its alliance with the United States while diverting military spending to domestic priorities. South Koreans have also developed a strange view of potential threats. A poll last year revealed that while 33 percent of South Koreans believe that the North is the biggest threat to their security, 39 percent believe that the United States is the greatest threat. All these factors considered, South Korea should be told to pay its own way. Its economy is roughly 40 times larger than North Korea's, and its population is more than twice as large. Spending tens of billions per year on a noncompliant ally that can defend itself is a burden U.S. taxpayers should not be asked to shoulder. America's East Asia policy is in dire need of an overhaul. Today's policy-makers would do well to consider the fact that this is 2005, not 1955, and that maintaining Cold War-era protectorates out of bureaucratic inertia is folly. At the very least, officials should be forced to explain how it is that a dramatically changed geostrategic environment demands a U.S. security posture in East Asia almost exactly the same as that required by the Cold War. We now have the worst of all possible situations, as America is responsible for the defense of feckless clients that pursue risky policies that undermine our own interests and security. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of the forthcoming America's Coming War with China: A Collision Course over Taiwan and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea. Justin Logan is a research assistant at the Cato Institute.
I'm all for letting China have Taiwan back in a peaceful Hong Kong type takeoever if the Chinese agree to take out North Korea.
If the US or South Korea want to take out North Korea, I am sure China would not send in troops to support North Korea like in the 1950's. But why would China want to waste resources taking out North Korea?
Wow. This article is exactly the type of mentality differences between the East Asian Countries and the United States. Taiwan/China US makes China out to be a huge threat and Taiwan to be a country trying to declare independence. Not so at all. The people of Taiwan (basically chinese) and the people of china are close and getting closer. Also many polls in Taiwan show that most of the Taiwanese want eventual reunification with China (keyword 'eventual', but still vastly different than the image of a bullied Taiwan that the US constantly portrays). To the taiwanese, China is a big brother who bullies them, but still their brother. Many taiwanese have relatives in China and vice versa obviously. Yet, what does the US expect will happen when China aggressively or non-aggressively unites with Taiwan? Does the US expect China to enslave the Taiwanese and imprison all of them? It seems like it with all the rhetoric they are spewing. However, the real outcome will probably be similar to Hong Kong in 1997. They'll place a governer in charge but not change too much in order to ensure economic stability. Maybe that's why I'm against the US intervening if China does invade. First, it's a China/Taiwan affair. Second, it'll cost far more lives and be far worse if US starts a war than if they just concede Taiwan to China because China won't harm Taiwan (except maybe Chen who always calls for independence). On another note, what would the US do if Texas tried to leave the US? I bet they wouldn't let Texas declare independence... Korea/US Again, the US portrays NK as an evil country and SK as an ally. Yet, how does the average SK think? An average South Korean feels that North Koreans are their cousins, who because of history, were seperated. North Korea is known to have two objectives. Defend against US and reunite with South Korea. South Korea also wants to reunite with North Korea. They probably have brothers and cousins across the border. They view NK as lost people who they want to save. It's no wonder South Korea gives North Korea aid and electricity and more. Conclusion The US plays the same song over and over, "My way or the highway." The US seems to look through a very narrow scope. China = dangerous, taiwan = bullied weakling, North Korea = crazy and evil, South Korean = ally. The US just labels countries as opposed to understanding the dynamics working within each country. But I'm probably giving them too little credit. Now that I think about it, the labels are used just for the average citizen. The US does know all the dynamics occuring the East Asia, but chooses to ignore it. Instead, the US promotes policies (neocon ideology) that are beneficial (in a twisted way) to, obviously, the US, even if it's not the goal or policy of the nations involved. Then, even when the policies aren't the ideal way of promoting peace, the US uses rhetoric about promoting democracy and stability in conjunction with the labels they have created about evil countries such as North Korea and China, it's extremely easy for the US to convince the public they are doing the right thing.
In an effort to be civil, I won't ask you if you're from another planet. If China, who is adding one hundred missles a year aimed at Taiwan, attacks Taiwan to take the island over, you don't think that thousands and thousands of Taiwanese wouldn't die? Please, give us a break! North Korea is run by a lunatic, who's starving millions of his own people, and whose country has a vast amount of weaponry aimed at South Korea's capitol and largest city including, by all accounts, a large amount of chemical and biological weapons, and we should all sit around a campfire and sing kumbaya?? And what does Texas have to do with anything? We had ten years as an independent country, and voted to join the United States, despite being recognized by Great Britain and France. We voted to join the United States... we weren't invaded and forced to do it by anyone. Apples and oranges, my friend. Oh, Hayes... you forgot the link, buddy. I agree with the gist of the column that Taiwan and South Korea are acting in a self-destructive and irresponsible way. Haven't they noticed, with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, that we are stretched damned thin? Are they crazy? Keep D&D Civil!!
Taiwan's president Chen (he gave a bad name to all us Chens ) is not truely interested in starting a war with China. He is just like the current US administration in that anything bad happens politically or when he wants to win an election, he will invoke the independence (9/11) trump card to divert criticism and attention away from his administration.
Well, I think you know what planet I'm from. And to be honest, we are far superior to earthlings. If a war did break out between China/Taiwan, yes some MILITARY people may die, but I doubt China would start bombing Taipai civilians. In fact, I think the point of pointing hundreds to thousands of missles at Taiwan is to AVOID a war. Basically, China wants to say, "you have no hope, just give up and no one will die." China isn't pointing weapons to kill Taiwanese (who are basically chinese immigrants who moved there), but rather China wants to give them no option and to AVOID a war. NK is run by a guy who may be starving his people but his policy is quite clear: reunification and defense against the US. NK doesn't want to kill SK. It's the same as China. North Korea wants reunification. I'm not as clear as to what Kim Jong Il plans to do. I don't want to speculate as to his exact policy. I do see him as overly-paranoid though. And that chemical and biological statement of yours...umm...do you really trust the US intelligence on that? (*cough* Iraq *cough*). About the Texas thing, Taiwan used to be part of China. Now Taiwan supposedly wants independence. China doesn't want to give Taiwan up. Would the US allow Texas to leave? I doubt it. "In 1683, the Qing dynasty formally annexed Taiwan." "Following its defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) in 1895, China was forced to cede Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity" "Following the end of World War II in 1945, under the terms of the Instrument of Surrender of Japan, Japan provisionally accepted the Potsdam Declaration which referenced the never signed Cairo Declaration under which the island was to be transferred to the Republic of China." About Taiwan, I can see both sides. I wouldn't mind Taiwan being independent or China acquiring Taiwan. It just bothers me that the US keeps interfering. A lot of Taiwanese people have voted in polls that they want reunification. Obviously, a lot don't. Why don't we let them decide for themselves. You might reply, "Yea, but China is bullying them." Then I'd reply, "well, China has a claim to Taiwan. The same way US has a claim to Texas and any other state." If Texas ceded from the US, then it's a Texas/US affair. You wouldn't want China to come in and interfere...
The sentiment is more polarized than you portray it to be. Some view China as the only way to sustain their prosperity. They point to the increasing business investments on China as reference. Others hate the Mainlanders and their boorish saber rattling. Most of the Taiwanese just want the current status quo, which Chen is endangering with his shameless boosterisms. Ever since 2001, Taiwan's economy has had its struggles and most people blame Chen for his non-existent policies. How is the US's fault when Taiwan's president has been pushing for renaming Taiwan and declaring themselves an an independent state? You're missing the point of the article.... Again, the American sentiment is deeply divided. Most of the younger population only remember the unfortunate incidents with the garrisoned marines. After the schoolgirl was run over and killed by some marines, tensions were high, but the prime minister asked the US to stay. The older population wants the Americans to stay. Do you have any idea why? North Korea has nuclear weapons and missile technology capable of hitting the west coast. North Kora has a million active soldiers on duty. North Koreans have several thousand artillery shells aimed at devestating Seoul at first strike. Let the South Koreans welcome their brothers, but not on our freaking dime. Do you really think the South Korean government is looking for reunification? North Korea is a third world country that can't feed itself. Its populace has been brainwashed to despise the South Koreans because they have been brainwashed to western values. The amount of aid and welfare needed to rebuild N. Korea pales to the reconstruction of East Germany. When the pustule pops, who will be there to clean it up? Their "brethren" knows. If you had people stationed in Korea and Japan and ships patrolling the East China Sea, you would want to know that your allies, the reason you have personel there, are keeping up their end of the bargain in good faith. Your entire conclusion rests on the circular reasoning that should N. Korea becomes an aggressor or should China start firing missles, the US will be there to clean up. Yes, the US are hypocrites. If you want to pretend that N. Korea and China are equal to Americans, go ahead, but not the expense of our people.
I'm not arguing the point of the article, I'm talking about US mentality versus East Asian mentality. I thought I specifically stated that in my first post. Wow. This article shows exactly the type of mentality differences between the East Asian Countries and the United States. Your comments just add more examples of the complex relationship Taiwan has with China. As opposed to the simplistic ones we hear on US television. I never said it was the US's fault for Taiwan pushing for independence... I don't want US to give a 'dime'. That was my point. Interference. If and when, South Korea asks for the US to stay then they can stay. Currently, South Korea does want the US to stay. If the US is so concerned about how much it spends, maybe the US should give a time-table to pull out and tell the South Koreans to build up their own army. In fact, the US probably should have done that 10 years ago. But the US doesn't want to because it wants people stationed in Southeast Asia so the US can 'influence' countries in that area to follow USA's policies. Hmm, sounds like some comments are contradictory. Now, North Korea can't feed itself and is a poor third world country. Previously you said, North Korea has a large army with a milllion strong men and advanced weaponary and South Korea has a lot to fear. Either the first or the latter statement is an exaggeration... Yes, South Korea does want to reunify with North Korea. Obviously, they want the North to become a capitalist democracy first and then reunite. But South Koreans don't want to kill their brothers. Again, my policy is, let South Korea defend itself. It makes way more money than North Korea and has more people as well. What bargain? Korea and Japan are more than powerful enough to take care of themselves. Heck, I'd take Japan over China in a fight right now. Japan and Korea aren't building up their army BECAUSE USA is still there. It's not because they don't have the ability to. If USA pulled out, they would build up their army. But USA doesn't want to pull out because USA wants to exert influence over the region to ensure countries develop favorably to USA. What? My conclusion states US is acting in US interests, not democracy or peace. When did I say they would clean up anything? What do you mean equal? Expense of what people?
Previous Taiwanese mentality was to buy billion dollar weapons from the US with their own money. They also didn't like missiled lobbed onto their coasts days before an election. The Korean War isn't officially over. It sounds like you're drawing conclusions from what you hear on US television without any previous researching. The US doesn't abandon its traditional allies. We'll leave when they ask us to leave. Even Roh, who capitalized on anti-US sentiment for election, has asked the US to stay. It's their choice. If you have proof of any conspiracy theory, please provide them now. When N. Korea announced their nuclear weapons and intercontinental missile program? The South Koreans were begging us to leave then. Please research some more on the North Koreans before you make more assumptions. It's possibile when the dictator shifts all the country's resources to the military and neglects civilian infrastructure. Why do you think they're trying to blackmail the US, S. Koreans and Japanese? China also sends food and aid. South Koreans do. The younger demographic believes this, despite the random kidnappings and espionage from the North. The government, who would have to handle logistics and funding, doesn't. It's easy to agree in principle. The US pays nothing, and it ends the S. Korean's free lunch on defense expenditures. Kim and his military would make this a bad decision. Kim only wants exclusive talks with the US. He doesn't see the S. Koreans as a threat, and his military is still mobilized. The US wants trade partners. A prolonged weapons buildup between Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan and China and N. Korea would destabilize the region and put the world economy in danger. You can read previous topics regarding Japan acquiring nukes or the situation in N. Korea for starters. So the US's interests is for war? Do you believe that a destabilized region is good for trade? Do you believe the South Koreans are capable of defending themselves unscathed? Do you believe that the marines stationed on S. Korea serve no role as a deterrant for a third world nation bent on reunification and still considers itself at war? Equal in action. Your post implies that US's East Asian allies are better off without US's umbrella under the assumption that N. Korea and China will continue to saber rattle instead showing greater signs for aggression.
i think the united states should mind its own business a bit more often. the united states is like what, 8000-10000 miles away from the East Asian coast. and yeah it interferes a bit too much in other nation's business. i bet you that we wouldn't like it if France/Russia starts to lecture to the U.S. about how to run our government and what policy is best for us, and sticking their noses in domestic u.s. affairs.
previous taiwanese mentality is reunfication with china. and it still is. what they are against is forced reunification.....they want eventual reunification though in the future though. it is president chen that is the dumbass here, some taiwanese voted for him but then much more taiwanese really hate him and call him the biggest traitor to the chinese people and nation of a thousand generations. that way i see it, it is like family members bickering with each other. the taiwanese flag is chinese.....and their picture of their beloved founder is Chinese. i don't know if they have nukes or not, but i do know that their long range missiles truly suck and the media made it "more advanced than it actually is". sometimes the u.s. is interested in war. look at iraq and afghanistan and not to mention dozens of illegal invasions and poking its nose in other nation's affairs by the u.s. in the past century. a destabilized region ain't good for trade but the current u.s. admnistration(bush is an idiot) ain't doing much to help either instead calling North Korea evil and the chinese a strategic competitor. oh heck yes......they have a way more modern and powerful military than the north koreans. not to mention way more money. even if the u.s left south korea, south korea is way more powerful than north korea. south korea can take care of itself. nah north korea can't attack the south.....let alone an invasion. south koreans got way better weapons...in fact they would feel better if the u.s. did not intervene and they get to deal with their south korean brothers only instead. china ain't going to bomb/attack taiwan unless it declares independence, but i don't see it happening. china just had productive talks with taiwan oppositon leaders, and even had good talks with the communist party archrival the KMT. taiwan ain't declaring independence, period. bottom line, the u.s. doesn't need to be in asia. but we are there for certain reasons.....
It was that mentality that pervaded the majority of Americans when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. They were isolationists, in the main. They thought those thousands of miles of ocean could continue to keep the US safe indefinitely. They found out just how mistaken that belief was. We learned from that experience. Keep D&D Civil!!
I couldn't help myself but adding some fuel here. Different news sources do give you different impression over certain topics. That's why multilateral objectives and sources are important for you to obtain the whole picture and maybe build an objective view. Born in China, all I got fed with were one-sided stories, but now I have the opportunities to see stories from other sides. The only conclusion I got is that all sides are biased, intentionally or not, they all twisted the stories in a way to make themselves look better and more rightous. Honestly, I don't see anything absolutely right or wrong. Lots of people in US only see that 30% + Taiwanese who voted Chen and do not have any ties and don't want to reunite with Mainland. So they claim that Taiwanese were bullied, and US ought to help them. However, lots of Chinese see another 60% or some Taiwanese didn't vote or didn't vote for Chen. For those 50% voters who voted different Candidates (Lian and Song), they want to reunite with Mainland. They hate the current CPP government, lots of overseas Chinese or Mainland Chinese don't like the government, but that doesn't mean they don't love China the country. Lian and Song are all supportive in communication with Mainland to approach some acceptable loose union with the other side. Thanks to Lee, after he took over the leadership in Nationalists, he showed his true color. As the president of Taiwan, and chairman of his own party, he smashed the party guide, financially supported Chen and his party, claimed that he's a true Japanese, referring to his experience during Japanese occupation. Can you imagine? The party seperated into two parties, and he announced retirement, and many times, he dissed the party openly, admitted his intention to break it, to achieve independance. That's how Chen won with his 30 some percentage votes. His view is not overwhelmingly supported in Taiwan. But after 4 years, his policy is always to divide Taiwanese into two groups against each other. If you don't support me, you must be a communist in disguise, sounds familiar? If you oppose his policies, why do you hate Taiwan? Again, sounds familiar? I am strongly oppose a millitary takeover from Mainland China. Why? Because I see them all Chinese, not citizens of People's Republic of China, but just Chinese. How could I want somebody to kill his own family? Situation went really bad a couple of years ago, thanks to stupid Mainland policies. When Mainland first opened the door, Taiwanese and HongKongnese and other oversea Chinese were the main investors. Yes, they did make good money, but without their investment, China would be like Russia, waiting for foreign investment, and waiting again. When huge parts in China were flooded, Taiwanese and HongKongnese donated the most. Why? The tie is always there, admitting or not, they feel they are Chinese. Why shouldn't and can't they reunite peacefully? US is not interested in war, but if you say US is interested in absolute stability, you are kidding yourself. If everyone in Asia gets along well, why do they want US army there? if US army is not there, how do they apply their infulences? US only interests in a dynamic balance, where one side you can sell over-priced weapons to Taiwan, and another side, an announcement every now and then that US supports one China policy as a bargaining chip. Nothing wrong with that, every country should act in its interest, but just don't paint yourself as angles. Deploying democracy and freedom? As an end effect in some cases, yes, but it never was the main goal. Japan was defeated in WWII, but as long as they can hold off Russians, the Emporer was exampted from the war cirminal list. US helped Japan in rebuilding. Communists are evil? But when China and Russia had conflicts, as long as US could benefit, nothing wrong to make friends with communist China (at the time, far worse than right now, in every aspects). Again, taking profit isn't something wrong, but what I don't get is, why so shy to admit it? Nobody expects anyone to be an angel, why there are always people to pretend to be one? South Korean don't want to reunite with North Korean? How do you know? Did you watched the clips that they cried over each other's shoulders, just like the scenes when the Berlin Wall fell? How many South Korean have you talked to, to draw that conclusion, or just listened to the "fair and balanced" Fox news? West Germany vs. East Germany, capitalism vs. socialism, but they don't hate each other, they are the same people, just happened to be under different systems, not that they really had a choice. By the way, Reagen didn't end the cold war, Gorbachev did. US is trying to start another cold war now, from those old cold war experts! Superpowers always intervene policies in other countries. It was like that before, it is happening now, and it will continue. They do keep major conflict from happening, but they can't prevent or in certain circumstances even encouraging small crisis and conflicts from others. That's how they achieve the dynamic balance and fulfill their interest. Can they just leave others alone? I don't think it's possible, that's just human nature - maximize your own interest with all the power you have. Is it good or bad? Again, nothing is absolute. In history, there were lots of good examples, but also, there were lots of incidents those policies backfired. In terms of foreign policy, US has been really constant over the years. But I guess Bush administration is just doing the same thing, in a very ugly way.
Invisible Fan: It seems like we are on different wavelengths here. I'm arguing a point and you're arguing another point that you think counters my point but doesn't really counter anything at all. So I'm not going to reply to all your statements. Some other posters here did a good job of refuting or explaining ideas that are similar to mine. So...yea...
So instead the US heads into the other extreme... Instead of isolating themselves, they intervene and interfere with every country's policy to ensure US policy is served.
We currently have a President who, in my opinion, is an extremist, but it wasn't extreme to invade Afghanistan, who's rulers were active supporters of those who were and are a clear and present danger to the United States. In those instances, I am going to be for that intervention ten times out of ten. Iraq was, and is, completely different. And we don't interfere in every country's policy to insure that US policy is served. Sometime we don't when we should. We have a democratically elected President, for good or ill, and we are stuck with him until another is elected who is more moderate and rational in his/her foreign policy. When we get a new President who fits the moderate description, I will still want that President to take forceful action if it is for the safety of my country, and in our vital national interests. I happen to strongly disagree with the current President's views on the subject of foreign policy, except for how he's handled Afghanistan. He hasn't been perfect there, but he's done a pretty good job considering how crazy that country has always been. Keep D&D Civil!!