Which Foreign Policy Model do you prefer?

[Farnan]

Definitions

True Neo-Conservatism/Classical Liberalism - An idealistic foreign policy which focuses on spreading Democracy and Human Rights throughout the world, using military resources and unilateral action when neccessary, though military force will not be the first option. Belief that universal Democracy and freedom will lead to word peace.

Wilsonian - An idealistic foreign policy which is based on using the UN (or in Wilson's case the LON) in order to pursue the goals of freedom and human rights, and to preserve world peace.

RealPolitik - The foreign policy based nearly completely on pragmatism, looking for the most pratical solution to a problem, even if its not the ideal, or even moral, solution. Tries to work towards advancing the standing of the nation. One example would be helping a cruel dictator because he counters out a greater threat in that part of the world (I know the US did this in the Cold War).

Pratical Isolationism - The country should not worry much about what is happening in the world unless it directly affects its interests. Would like every nation to mind its own bussiness

Pure Isolationism - Pull everything back to the country and not really worry about the outside world.

Imperialism - Your country should be focused on increasing its size and holdings througout the world.

Missionary - Your country should be focused on spreading its religion.

[Ahiga]

Pratical Isolationism - To be honest, the changes I would do in terms of military and foreign actions would be so based on the specifics that it's hard to really choose, because if I said 'a varying foreign policy', the choice would fall on Congress and the President, who may or may not act in the way I wish.

Pratical Isolationism fits the closest to my wishes, of reserved interference in world politics. For examples sake, what I would see as rightful for us to break our isolation would be WW2, Afganistan, WW1, Korea (Assistance of the UN), Gulf War (Assistance of the UN) the threat of the USSR, and what I would see as not rightful for us to break isolation would be Iraq second time around, Vietnam, and some others.

The reason I said yes in cases of the UN is more than just pussyfooting. It's the fact that we would have our view shared by the rest of the world and thus, be more likely to be hopefully 'correct', and if not..then at least we wouldn't be going at it alone. I'd rather my nation have less men killed than be seen as headstrong, warmongering, and aggressive (Because let's face it, nobody's going to comment we were courageous to march in and bulldoze the feeble Republican Iraqi Army)

[Major.Stupidity]

I personally prefer Realism aka Real Politik. I know I just made you cringe Farnan, but in a world given the rise Islamic radicalism, I find it prudent to not go and free the world to death. Americans, given Vietnam and Korea, do not like nation building and wars with out an end in sight.

Also, given the failure in Vietnam to build a nation in which the people rejected the South Vietnamese government, it is my strong belief that the US must choose wisely when it comes to troop deployments over seas. I also believe personally that when it comes to spreading liberal democracy that it is utopian to the core and given the past, is hard to full off. Also given the nature of the Middle East - see Hama rules, I think it is a fools errand to try and change the history of a region which has historically rejected democracy and its deeply tribal nature of various factions throughout the Middle East.

Sorry if it’s kind of rambling, I'm kind of distracted by this whole thing at HA

[vikingsiddhu]

I really can't believe so many people would vote for isolationism.
Wow. The absolute ignorance still present in people. History has proved, with a great cost of lives, the consequences of isolationism.
Wow, the millions of dead Jews, Soviets, Sudans(At Darfur), Tutsis, Armenians and others don't mean anything to you?

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I really can't believe so many people would vote for isolationism.
Wow. The absolute ignorance still present in people. History has proved, with a great cost of lives, the consequences of isolationism.
Wow, the millions of dead Jews, Soviets, Sudans(At Darfur), Tutsis, Armenians and others don't mean anything to you?

Ah, but you forget about all the victims of overbearing interventionism: Iraq and Vietnam just to name a few of America's examples.

People are going to die. It's a fact of life. It takes wisdom to choose where you will put yourself in danger to save others lives. To be headstrong is often to throw away more life than you would save.

[vikingsiddhu]

I never said anything about being an "Evil-NeoCon", I simply said that isolationism doesn't work. Find a medium somewhere else.

How many lives did we throw away in Iraq? Not be rude, but only less than 3000. How many could we have saved? More perhaps, only time can say. Remember no one thought Hitler was going to be a world threat

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I never said anything about being an "Evil-NeoCon", I simply said that isolationism doesn't work. Find a medium somewhere else.

I never said you were. I was just pointing out that interventionism has just as many pitfalls as isolationism. And, if you hadn't noticed, people seem to be picking 'practical' as opposed to 'total' isolationism. Read Farnan's definitions. Practical means it's not total isolation. I would argue that America had this foreign policy mindset in the very era you are using to prove that isolationism doesn't work.

[vikingsiddhu]

I'd have to disagree. Look at the bolded words carefully.

Pratical Isolationism - The country should not worry much about what is happening in the world unless it directly affects its interests. Would like every nation to mind its own bussiness

According to your ideology, the US should ignore Darfur.

[Legio XX Valeria Victrix]

I'd have to disagree. Look at the bolded words carefully.

Pratical Isolationism - The country should not worry much about what is happening in the world unless it directly affects its interests. Would like every nation to mind its own bussiness

According to your ideology, the US should ignore Darfur.

You're probably right. And as ashamed as I am to admit that, it sets a dangerous precedent to intervene in those situations. Because, if you intervene in Darfur, then you have to intervene in Kosovo, and then Somalia, and then Vietnam, and look where it gets you. As much as I would like the US to stop the Darfur bloodshed, I think it would be much better settled in a multinational effort, a la the UN. But that's neither here nor there.

The point is, nation's in my mind, are best suited in minding their own business. Unfortunately, not all nations do that, but that's why I say practical. Because then, if a nation or it's interests are threatened, they can respond.

[Major.Stupidity]

You're probably right. And as ashamed as I am to admit that, it sets a dangerous precedent to intervene in those situations. Because, if you intervene in Darfur, then you have to intervene in Kosovo, and then Somalia, and then Vietnam, and look where it gets you. As much as I would like the US to stop the Darfur bloodshed, I think it would be much better settled in a multinational effort, a la the UN. But that's neither here nor there.

The point is, nation's in my mind, are best suited in minding their own business. Unfortunately, not all nations do that, but that's why I say practical. Because then, if a nation or it's interests are threatened, they can respond.

Realism no?

And, has anyone realized the traditional reversal of foreign policy views that the Democrats and Republicans have experienced? The Democrats the traditional promoters of Democracy abroad and the Republicans, the traditional Kessingerians of the world preaching National Security and Economic well being for the US. Now totally flip flopped with the Dems talking spreading the gospel of realism and the Republicans talking about the virtue of Neo-Liberalism/ Liberalism/ Wilsonianism. Such a strange world after 9/11 I tell you!

[Farnan]

Most people fit between these definitions, the idea is to pick the one closest, or if none are close at all then choose other and explain...

[vikingsiddhu]

Of course, practicalities would mean the death of three hundred thousand. I understand that sir, it is the sad day when realities blind us from the idealities of true ethics, and principles.

[over-man]

I voted imperialism.
I mean, this is total war center, isn't it? We could probably take control of the whole world in, like, 10 turns.

[Farnan]

Difference between RealPolitik and Pratical Isolationism, using the ME as an example:

ReakPolitik - Work to keep the Middle East stable in order to maintain the oil supply to the market

Pratical Isolationism - Let them do their thing as long as the oil supply isn't threatened

[Major.Stupidity]

Difference between RealPolitik and Pratical Isolationism, using the ME as an example:

ReakPolitik - Work to keep the Middle East stable in order to maintain the oil supply to the market

Pratical Isolationism - Let them do their thing as long as the oil supply isn't threatened

There really isn't that much of a difference...

No the republicans are not fully neo-liberalistic, but neo-conservative. They are still more attuned to American interests. Why do you think they take no action against Darfur, but do against Iraq. It makes no sense.

The Neo-Conservative movement sees their foreign goals as one in the same with Wilsoniansim, in that a democratic world is best because we all know that democracy's don't go to war - McDonalds/ Dell Theory of conflict prevention, see The World is Flat and The Lexus and the Olive Tree, good reads. And yes you're right, it makes no sense that the US doesn't intervene in Darfur, but that’s American Foreign policy for you.

[Farnan]

There really isn't that much of a difference...

The difference being RealPolitik involves active participation in Global Politics, while Practical Isolationism means kind of keeping to yourself unless someone tries to hurt you directly or indirectly...

[vikingsiddhu]

Yeah I mean, when it comes down to the realities, people who believe in the good effects of drugs are seriously not interested in the fate of people, in general. I mean not even themselves. Why don't we let the people in Darfur live a little.

I'm just joking RZZZA.

Anyway, Faran, this thread, I believe, is not about individual responsibilty to Darfur, but goverment responsibilty. The US has just ignored Darfur, and China will veto any action in the security council to stop the millitia. Ultimitely, Vietnam was a failure due to its conductation and cases. How many people were defending in Vietnam compared to a 20k armed millitia.
All that could be done is a simple air support. There needs to be no war, just as long as we are not self-hogged.

[Farnan]

Yeah I mean, when it comes down to the realities, people who believe in the good effects of drugs are seriously not interested in the fate of people, in general. I mean not even themselves. Why don't we let the people in Darfur live a little.

I'm just joking RZZZA.

Anyway, Faran, this thread, I believe, is not about individual responsibilty to Darfur, but goverment responsibilty. The US has just ignored Darfur, and China will veto any action in the security council to stop the millitia. Ultimitely, Vietnam was a failure due to its conductation and cases. How many people were defending in Vietnam compared to a 20k armed millitia.
All that could be done is a simple air support. There needs to be no war, just as long as we are not self-hogged.

Yea I know, I went off-topic in my own thread...

[danzig]

True neo-con for me, which focuses less on military being a solution and more on diplomacy/behind the scenes stuff...ie speak softly and carry a big stick method (good old Teddy). Spreading democracy = ideal but you dont force it and if you do really its not much different then whole cold war scare of communism. You encourage democracy, you support democracy and democratic movements...we could learn alot for example of Pope John Paul's support for Poland during cold war. It also requires you dont just support democracy where its in your national interest but everywhere. Isolatism is not an option for me at all even 'practical' version of it, the world is too closely tied together and far too dangerous where even small acts can have profound impact on the world.

[Carach]

True neo-con for me, which focuses less on military being a solution and more on diplomacy/behind the scenes stuff...ie speak softly and carry a big stick method (good old Teddy). Spreading democracy = ideal but you dont force it and if you do really its not much different then whole cold war scare of communism. You encourage democracy, you support democracy and democratic movements...we could learn alot for example of Pope John Paul's support for Poland during cold war. It also requires you dont just support democracy where its in your national interest but everywhere. Isolatism is not an option for me at all even 'practical' version of it, the world is too closely tied together and far too dangerous where even small acts can have profound impact on the world.

true, true.

but sometimes a strong head is the way forward - where democracy fails