Reply #7: I think I'm aware of those realities, among others [View All]

[gottaB]

I respectfully disagree.

My position is not grounded in nostalgia, but rather in a sense of responsiblity.

The fact that all nations eventually perish does not warrant taking a fatalistic attitude towards foreign policy.

Imagine, if you will--the historical perspective you're adopting should allow it--, that neither Jimmy Carter nor Bill Clinton had ever been president, that the Bush* regime followed upon 32 years of right wing dominance. What then would we say of his incompetence? How would we percieve his weakening of US influence? Perhaps this crowd is so venomously idiotic, they would be regarded as losers in any case. I suspect, however, that under this imagined scenario, your dim view of the trajectory of US power would be more convincing--not to my point of view, mind you, but generally--and that Bush* would be regarded as less competent than his imediate predecessors, but, from a historical perspective, not remarkably so.

It's wrong to view Clinton's foreign policy successes as mere coldwar leftovers, not because it distorts the historical record, but because it puts blinders on the conduct of our foreign policy at a time when we need to be scanning the horizon and exploring alternative ways to reach our goals.

The emergent multipolar world system, which perhaps we can both agree is a force to be reckoned with in the coming years, is, at present, in no shape to cope with the power vacuum that would be created were the US to abdicate its leadership responsibilities. That to me is the real lesson of Bush*'s foreign policy mistakes.