4 ms·
Young Americans have never witnessed a functioning foreign policy
- neuroelectron 2mo ago>they see only mistrust between allies https://archive.is/OJyDx https://archive.is/OJyDx
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- 124ahg 2mo agoWhen was the last time it functioned? George Bush Senior? The transition from the Soviet Union collapse was reasonable. The what is the definition of "functioning"? The unlimited NATO expansion began under Clinton, Middle East expansion, wars and regime changes under Bush Junior. All presidents since Dubya continued the containment of Russia policy and the Middle East expansion. The fall of Syria and cooperation with Al Qaeda occurred under Biden, Trump was crazy enough to sign off the Iran special military operation. So it functions in the sense that the US retains energy dominance and keeps the EU, Russia and China down. Or does "functioning" mean "pretending to be nice to allies"? That is the domain of the Democrats.
- wood_spirit 2mo agoI’m not sure about the Biden cooperating with Al Qaeda thing (perhaps you mean not intervening when HTS took over? Biden was backing the Kurds at the time) but it was Trump who did a deal with the Taliban re Afghanistan. The post war Republican Party had been all about building alliances and being nice to allies! The current Republican Party is so different and distant from the stances of the party just 20 years ago.
- Georgelemental 2mo agoCooperating with Al-Qaeda is a decades-old policy—started under Clinton, brief pause after 9/11, then returned in full force in late Bush years (2007 "redirection") and hasn't stopped since.
- jazzpush2 2mo agoCan you say anything specific? If you're going to criticize policy, there are many specific things you can say. 'Keeps China down' is not only incorrect, but meaningless itself.
- Supermancho 2mo agoAs I look back to after the Kuwait defense, the attack on Iraq and forward stopped making sense because US leadership didn't explain the rationale. Politicians didn't want to get caught up in the problematic history of dealing with Iraq and Iran, so the US charged in and pushed out Iraq under the flag of supporting an ally (the US was really serving Saudi Arabia and punishing Saddam). There was an expectation that Iraq's military over-investment would have kept them in economic check for some time. After 9-11 it became obvious that there was a political and economic gold-rush opportunity under Cheney (who was the brains of the Bush admin). The US constructed Operation Iraqi Freedom to finally eliminate the uncontrollable and brutal Saddam family, while satisfying the needs of various parties (eg SA, Israel, Iran, Kuwait). Again the US population got a different narrative and there were no political consequences. This trend of ignoring what the US populace needs to know, doing whatever benefits those that are in power, then constructing a fake narrative continues. The names are different, but the policy is non-existent. The difference in the Trump Administration is that the constructions challenge reality or simply don't exist. The political consequences have been the same. None[1]. Maybe it's always been this way. [1] The primary driver of political consequence in the US seems to be economics, because that's a consequence that's measurable and cannot be rationalized as a patriotic good for some imagined future state of the world.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- jameskilton 2mo agoA few weeks ago I was golfing with a 21-year old wearing a Trump hat. Didn't ask him about it, it could have been ironic, but I realized something: He's never seen a healthy America, probably doesn't even have any concept of how things could be better. It's rough being a Millennial. Came of age at the end of the last time the country was arguably "healthy", then 9/11 happened and it's been downhill from there.
- dude250711 2mo agoMaybe it's just the closest thing to being a rebel (as in going against popular opinion) these days.
- jazzpush2 2mo agoI know someone who shared this sentiment. As if being highly-supported by the largest 'alt' media (Rogan etc.) and traditional media (Fox, etc.) is in any way rebellious. Never mind being a literal billionarie who got away with fucking kids and continues to shill crypto coins.
- seanw444 2mo agoWe have proof he fucked kids now?
- onlypassingthru 2mo agoGhislaine isn't enjoying ClubFed because she's a tax evader.
- harvey9 2mo agoPopular opinion can just be at local scale. Hence Tom Lehrer's joke "It takes a certain amount of courage to get up in a coffee house or a college auditorium and come out in favour of the things everyone else in the room is against like peace and justice and brotherhood and so on"
- 2mo ago
- SwellJoe 2mo agoThey've never witnessed functioning policy on any front. Bin Laden wanted to destroy America, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The current administration is the logical result of fear and ignorance and xenophobia being elevated to our primary motivations, rather than merely being the position of a few embarrassing reactionary cranks. A prerequisite for winning elections in half the country today is that you must be the dumbest and meanest and most corrupt motherfucker the voters have ever seen. If you're not, somebody dumber and meaner and more corrupt will come along to push you out (e.g. Paxton in Texas for a current example, but it's the entirety of the Republican party and a not insignificant part of the Democratic party).
- earth-tattoo 2mo ago[flagged]
- EMIRELADERO 2mo agoNo. A difference of degree is still a difference, and Trump 2 is vastly and openly more corrupt than any other administration, Democratic or Republican.
- lokar 2mo agoI think some 19th century administrations could compete.
- earth-tattoo 2mo agoOpenly? Sure. Vastly? Lol.
- SwellJoe 2mo agoIt's hundreds of billions of dollars in personal self-dealing, so far. So, yes, the corruption of the Trump administration vastly outstrips all prior administrations in scope, and I can't believe I need to point that out. It is, as you've agreed, happening right out in the open.
- Tycho 2mo agoWell under Dubya it was pretty successful. Firstly, there was never a repeat of 9/11. Secondly, they pulled off one of the most overwhelming military victories of all time against Iraq, a full-blown invasion completed in weeks with hardly any losses. This also secured Israel’s long term prospects in the region, which seems to be one of the most sacred directives of American policy. It did also lead ultimately to civil war in Syria and political destabilisation in Germany/Europe (from refugees), but that is no skin off Uncle Sam’s nose. You may not like it, but in the history books that’s what peak foreign policy looks like.
- Georgelemental 2mo ago> This also secured Israel’s long term prospects in the region, which seems to be one of the most sacred directives of American policy. Not really—it massively increased Iran's influence in the area, which is why in 2007 they had to panic, reverse course, and start backing al-Qaeda again ("the redirection").
- Tycho 2mo agoIsrael is currently in the position where it can bomb Tehran, using American tech and logistical support, with complete impunity. This is the golden age of Israel.
- Georgelemental 2mo agoOf course, but the Iraq war didn't cause that.
- Tycho 2mo agoIn the long term I think my did. It meant the US had an interest in the middle east so would be around long term for Israel to lean on.
- aworks 2mo agoHardly any losses except for the violent deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over a decade.
- josefritzishere 2mo agoWe stopped having a coherent foreign policy in 2017. It's only been 9 years. But I suppose tweens don't know any better; but I'd argue that they typically don't anyway.