Do we have a foreign policy beyond Iraq?

I think not. This is an administration with velcro blinders set firmly in place with one focus and one foreign agenda. Iraq.

Call it what they will - shock an' awe, mission accomplished, operation advancing freedom, spreading democracy - they have no publicly formulated foreign policy that we can claim as our own.

It's all Iraq, all the time. And democracy at the point of a gun is not a foreign policy, imho.

There's a limit. It is a dangerous short sightedness when we ignore our global foreign relations at the expense of our increasingly costly obsession with Iraq.

While we give administrations a lot of leeway in the conduct of our foreign affairs, this administration's extreme bumbling of basic domestic concerns may prove to be a sad benchmark of sorts...namely, incompetence is a deficit we all pay.

In the global arena, minimizing the risks of stateless terrorism is more about global cooperation than invasion and occupation.

(ed for clarity)

with the idea of using permanent bases from there.

here though, is the obvious chucking of international relationships.

I'd lay bet that many countries would buy into an effort to have some influence in the region's gas and oil resources. But cooperative partnerships, including the region's people, have apparently been dropped as a goal on our end.

We are repeating the mistakes of the old British Empire in the region with the troubling overlay of an unspoken evangelicalism of religious ideology.

And as Bush cites 9/11 in every speech he makes, I feel that Iraq is present in every foreign policy decision made at the State Dept.

I miss diplomacy.

didn't you see those nice new military bases immediately adjacent to the new oil pipeline in afghanistan??

and what about "rendition" ... that's the administration's rendition of foreign policy ...

and keep an eye on South America ... it's just possible certain people will be involved in "accidents" or suddenly become seriously ill ...

and then there's sending all the good jobs overseas ... you might sort of consider that a "foreign policy" ...

the profiteers have put their own greedy interests ahead of the American people and have sold out our country to the highest bidders ... that's the foreign policy we currently have ...

The Bush Bunch do. It is that the United States take charge of the world and all its resources. Iran is next; perhaps Korea, even China! And, of course, there's those socialists in the South American countries. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on viewpoint), the all-volunteer army is simply not cooperating at the moment, and the tax base won't stand for it.

For intelligent people, this bunch are oddly ignorant and totally insular. What do they think the rest of the world will be doing while they are on their mission of freedom?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x223


And no, it won't be publicly debated.

:sarcasm:

---------

Great link, thanks for re-posting it.

issues. And it's a doable debate, imo.

Kind of like the difference between a "poll" that asks "Do you agree with the PNAC plan for America?" or "Do you think America should use its military to control oil and gas resources?".

Again, I want to mention that my point is the absence of consideration about foreign policy beyond the Iraq war.

"minimizing the risks of stateless terrorism is more about global cooperation than invasion and occupation.

"

Iran.