Reply With Quote
as long as we keep our nose into other countries internal affairs.....we are wrong.
speaking the truth....
The Myth of America's Unpopularity
By Michael Gerson
WASHINGTON -- The one goal that unites and explains the Democratic approach to foreign policy is this: America must try -- urgently and desperately -- to be more popular in the world.
"The world was with us after 9/11," explains Hillary Clinton. "We have so squandered that good will and we've got to rebuild it." Barack Obama has said that the "single most important issue" of the current election is picking a leader who can "repair all the damage that's been done to America's reputation overseas."
This argument depends on three premises -- all of which are questionable.
First, listening to the Democrats, one would assume that America in the Bush era is universally despised. The reality is more complicated.
According to the Pew Global At udes Project, the United States is very popular in sub-Saharan Africa, where President Bush has just finished a triumphant tour. (People in Kenya, the Ivory Coast and Ghana have a more favorable view of America than Americans do.) India and Japan are strongly pro-American. America remains popular in parts of "new Europe," as well as in Mexico, Peru and even Venezuela -- though there has been some erosion in both Latin America and Europe in recent years.
Pew's general conclusion is that anti-Americanism has grown "deeper but not wider." And it is deepest in "old Europe" and the broader Middle East.
The second premise of this Democratic argument is that American popularity in these regions could be increased, easily and permanently, by overturning Bush policies.
It is worth noting that American relations with European governments have rebounded strongly in the last few years with the elections of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France. And the next president, Republican or Democrat, is likely to close Guantanamo and sign legislation to restrict American carbon emissions, mollifying two justified European criticisms.
Yet the tensions between American and European worldviews ultimately have little to do with specific policies. Europe is an increasingly pacifist continent -- which is an improvement upon its bloody history, but a source of inevitable tension with a superpower that must occasionally enforce world order. European governments generally view international ins utions as a way to constrain American power. Any future American president will continue to view those ins utions as a way to amplify our influence in keeping the peace.
And the broader Middle East is an even more difficult case. A close look at the Pew poll shows that appeasing public opinion in this region would require not merely leaving Iraq but also leaving Afghanistan, abandoning the war on terror and ending our support for Israel.
The third premise of the Democratic argument is that global popularity translates directly into global influence. Here the historical evidence is thin.
Few American presidents have enjoyed a warmer embrace than John Kennedy visiting France in June of 1961. French newspapers swooned at the first lady's perfect French and the better Parisian shops sold silk scarves embroidered "Jackie." But President Charles de Gaulle remained more interested in the cultivation of French self-esteem than in trans-Atlantic unity. Having withdrawn the French Mediterranean fleet from NATO in 1959, he later ordered the removal of NATO troops from French soil. President Lyndon Johnson (in one of his finest hours) instructed his secretary of state to ask de Gaulle: "Does your order include the bodies of American soldiers in France's cemeteries?"
Few American presidents have been more reviled in Europe than Ronald Reagan, who responded to the Soviet deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles by deploying Pershing II nuclear missiles. In West Germany, millions of people marched in protest. American soldiers were surrounded by hostile demonstrators shouting, "We don't want you in our country." But Reagan's unpopular "cowboy" determination helped end the Cold War and lift the nuclear threat from Europe.
And we have seen a good example in our time. The January 2007 decision to surge American troops in Iraq was clearly at odds with world opinion. But retreating from Iraq in failure would have earned global contempt for American weakness instead of global popularity. And the turnaround in Iraq has restored at least some of our standing and leverage in the Middle East.
The real lesson in the years since 9/11 is different from what the Democratic candidates imagine: It is easy to be loved when you are a victim. It is harder to be popular when you act decisively to protect yourself and others.
A successful president should strive for America to be liked -- and expect, on occasion, for America to be resented in a good cause.
[email protected]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ot_all_th.html
as long as we keep our nose into other countries internal affairs.....we are wrong.
As long as Israel exists, people in the Middle East will hate the United States.
And if Israel falls, then...
as long as Spain exists, people in the Middle East will hate the United States.
And if Spain falls, then...
Even when that country's internal affairs affect our security?
to summarize: blow hard ignores reality to claim Bush's America is wildly popular around the world, then claims it doesnt matter if we are loved as long as we act decisively and like a bully.
The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea poorly executed.
where all the terrorist at?
are you an idiot? read the paper in context. He's only refuting the myth that america is hated worldwide by pointing the positives.
If you don't think America is hated more today than 7 years ago, you are dumber than what I thought, no matter what that article says.
The hate I'm talking about is incomprehensible to me. And it has nothing to do with education (one would tend to understand the hatred stemming from uneducated groups, given their propensity to being manipulated)
Buddy, Bush has been a trainwreck when it comes to putting out the good name for America outside its borders.
Unfortunately, you, as well as many other Americans, could care less, which compounds the problem.
We are ing gold in Sub Saharan Africa!
If we don't care, there is no "problem" to compound is there?Unfortunately, you, as well as many other Americans, could care less, which compounds the problem.
yes, who are we to with other countries? If we got a REAL security problem, nuke 'em.
So true.
If I close my eyes in order not to see the truck that is coming to hit me at 100 miles per hour, then the truck is probably not there . . .
so, you don't care that our kids are dying over there, that all our money is going over there, that we had to sell our ass to China because of it, and now the people we're trying "to help" are cutting deals with a terrorist state thats helping to kill our kids is " not a problem"?
The article was more nuanced than you give it credit for.
There is a misconception, peddled by Democratic Presidential candidates, that if the U.S. elects a Democrat, we will suddenly be best buddies with countries whose relations with us are bad.
What the article pointed out was that the people who don't like America now didn't like America in 1999 either; their enmity is just deeper now. A Democrat in office won't make them think America is suddenly teh awesome.
It also pointed out that some countries that had poor relations with the U.S., namely Germany and France, have better relations now because they elected more conservative governments. Sarkozy goes so far as to taunt Gordon Brown that France is a better ally to the U.S. than the U.K. is.
The upshot of that is that a large fraction of nations pursuing anti-American agendas do so out of ideological concerns over the implications of American super-power upon their own interests, regardless of what George W. Bush does, and that since the United States will continue to be the capitalist superpower in 2009, those agendas are unlikely to be attenuated to any significant degree.
There is a misconception that the entire Third World is enraged with America. The article points out that actually, sub-Saharan Africa has very positive views of us, in part because the Bush Administration has made relief aid a priority there (doubtless over Cheney's objections).
There also is a misconception that the Arab street is full of urbane, nuanced intellectuals who will nod in agreement should America withdraw from Iraq, and then pursue better relations with a chastened U.S. government more amenable to their coherent socioeconomic concerns, as opposed to a frustrated and ignorant culture trapped in the Middle Ages, looking for a nice conspiratorial reason to explain how the Jews transformed Palestine into a prosperous, lush modern industrial power in a couple of decades, while they, the followers of the True Straight Path, languish in squalor.
In summary, Bush inflamed anti-Americanism, but mostly among those already predisposed to anti-Americanism, and his departure from office in and of itself isn't going to make things that much better.
Pundits will pick and choose what polls they support if it benefits their cause. There will always be people who resent or dislike the USA. That is a simple fact.
You think the Iraq war is why we are "selling our ass" to china?
God damn, you've swallowed the whole damn platform, talking points; you name it, you believe it!
I DON'T care what the average (fill in the name of neo-socialist Western European Utopia here) citizen cares about the United States.
I have no idea what the rest of your rant is addressing. It's off topic.
Damn, there ought to be awards for posts.
I'd nominate that paragraph right there.
so you don't think actions create reactions.
reagan would disagree.God damn, you've swallowed the whole damn platform, talking points; you name it, you believe it!
then count on continued attacks when the world says enough is enough.I DON'T care what the average (fill in the name of neo-socialist Western European Utopia here) citizen cares about the United States.
well, since you drink only from the right-wing bowl, i was hoping you could explain why the country we're trying to "liberate"is cutting deals with a terror state thats been responsible for killing our kids.I have no idea what the rest of your rant is addressing. It's off topic.
Sure, but wrong action/reaction. The U.S. does not spend appreciably more on defense than it ever has; why NOW would that be causing us to mortgage our future to China. Now, since you ARE looking for causality; why don't YOU figure out what is costing MUCH MORE than it used to.
Non-Sequitorreagan would disagree.
So the Swiss are going to start hijacking planes? I don't think so. Regardless, we are NOT just a military super power, we are also THE economic super power, ain't nobody going to get THAT mad at their biggest client. Also, didn't you read the article; "Old" Europe is going pacifist.then count on continued attacks when the world says enough is enough.
They are a free and sovereign country. They can do what they want. They can also suffer the consequences, whatever those might be.well, since you drink only from the right-wing bowl, i was hoping you could explain why the country we're trying to "liberate"is cutting deals with a terror state thats been responsible for killing our kids.
the swiss? you might have left others out, just a guess.
tell that to the parents who are picking up their kid in a box.
what could be worse, making the deals or making the deals without our knowledge. i doubt the latter is true.They can also suffer the consequences, whatever those might be.
Why do American combat deaths mean we need to make Iraq a puppet state? I don't follow.
we don't talk to terrorist states.
what we see in Israel will be focused here.
same thing...
as long as France exists, people in the Middle East will hate the United States.
And if France falls, then who gives a .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
