The More Things Change
Robert Kagan, writing in the Washington Post, reminds America and the world not of the differences between our political parties, but about the actually quite astounding continuity of American foreign policy over the years. There is much in that policy that changes only incrementally, whoever is in power.
BRUSSELS — Here in Europe, people ask hopefully if a Democratic victory in the congressional elections will finally shift the direction of American foreign policy in a more benign direction. But congressional elections rarely affect the broad direction of American foreign policy. A notable exception was when Congress cut funding for American military operations in support of South Vietnam in 1973. Yet it's unlikely that a Democratic House would cut off funds for the war in Iraq in the next two years.
Indeed, the preferred European scenario — "Bush hobbled" — is less likely than the alternative: "Bush unbound." Neither the president nor his vice president is running for office in 2008. That is what usually prevents high-stakes foreign policy moves in the last two years of a president's term. In 1988 Ronald Reagan had negotiated a clever agreement to get the dictator Manuel Noriega peacefully out of Panama, but Vice President George H.W. Bush and his advisers feared the domestic political repercussions of cutting a deal with a drug lord at the height of the "war on drugs," so they nixed the plan. The result was that Bush had to invade Panama the very next year to remove Noriega — but he did get elected.
….
This tendency toward continuity is particularly striking on the issue that most divides Americans from Europeans today: the use of military force in international affairs. Americans of both parties simply have more belief in the utility and even justice of military action than do most other peoples around the world. The German Marshall Fund commissions an annual poll that asks Europeans and Americans, among other things, whether they agree with the following statement: "Under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice." Europeans disagree, and by a 2 to 1 margin. But Americans overwhelmingly support the idea that war may be necessary to obtain justice. Even this year, with disapproval of the Iraq war high, 78 percent of American respondents agreed with the statement.
This broad bipartisan conviction is reflected in U.S. policies. Between 1989 and 2003, the United States engaged in significant military actions overseas on nine occasions under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II: Panama in 1989, Somalia in 1992, Haiti in 1994, Bosnia in 1995-96, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq three times — 1991, 1998 and 2003, an average of one major military action every year and a half.
The reasons for this prolific use of military force have to do with the nation's history — Americans have been fighting what they considered just and moral wars since the Revolution and the Civil War. And it has to do with Americans' relative power. It is no accident that the United States began to use force more frequently after the fall of the Soviet Union.
It is important to remember that the anti-war voices to the far left are a very, very small minority in America. They are inordinately loud, but they are few in number. There are many more who favor military intervention when it is necessary. Read the whole thing, it's quite an interesting view.
Other Links to this Post
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Posting A Warning — Friday, 3 November , 2006 @ 8:58 am
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Thursday, 2 November , 2006 @ 11:50 am
“But congressional elections rarely affect the broad direction of American foreign policy. A notable exception was when Congress cut funding for American military operations in support of South Vietnam in 1973. Yet it’s unlikely that a Democratic House would cut off funds for the war in Iraq in the next two years.”
Where this writer was sitting when arrived at that last sentence’s idea–based on Charlie “Ways and Means Chair” Rangel’s public pronouncements–must have a sky the color of rainbows and clouds made of cotton candy.
By Gaius, Thursday, 2 November , 2006 @ 12:00 pm
Rangel will if he can, I think. But a lot depends on not just taking control but by taking effective control (enough seats) and he would get stymied if the Senate does not change hands.
But Rangel will if he can. That’s a given, by his own admission.
By TC@LeatherPenguin, Thursday, 2 November , 2006 @ 12:07 pm
I’ve lived in NYC too long to ever bet against Charlie. If he gets a toe in, he’ll plant his foot.