Ghost of BiB Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 If anyone wants to discuss it. This colors everything going on, and should affect the next set of elections. Should the US act aggressively and proactively to affect things in other parts of the world? (Not necessarily military) or, should we be observers and react to things we don't like? I think we should stick with the proactive approach, including military action when needed. That said, I don't want ANYONE lifting a finger without a decent at least 5 year plan, including plan B, C, and D if A doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Is this where I insert a snappy one liner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 If anyone wants to discuss it. This colors everything going on, and should affect the next set of elections. Should the US act aggressively and proactively to affect things in other parts of the world? (Not necessarily military) or, should we be observers and react to things we don't like? I think we should stick with the proactive approach, including military action when needed. That said, I don't want ANYONE lifting a finger without a decent at least 5 year plan, including plan B, C, and D if A doesn't work. 612504[/snapback] I think it's artificially constraining to lable foreign policy in general as "proactive" or "reactive". Committing to one to exclusion to the other limits your options unnecessarily in situations where "the other" might be more applicable. The key point, I think, has to be that your foreign policy goals shouldn't be reactive. If they are, the effect is a "no foreign policy" foreign policy. Clinton's administration is, again, a perfect example of this: whether the execution of policy was proactive or reactive, the foreign policy goals were largely, maybe even universally, reactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 I think it's artificially constraining to lable foreign policy in general as "proactive" or "reactive". Committing to one to exclusion to the other limits your options unnecessarily in situations where "the other" might be more applicable. The key point, I think, has to be that your foreign policy goals shouldn't be reactive. If they are, the effect is a "no foreign policy" foreign policy. Clinton's administration is, again, a perfect example of this: whether the execution of policy was proactive or reactive, the foreign policy goals were largely, maybe even universally, reactive. 612529[/snapback] Yeah, better way of saying it. I chose 5 years as I think too much changes by then to initially go further. I would look hard at likely results of certain courses of action, and at least have an idea for a plan for things past the 5 year point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I think it's artificially constraining to lable foreign policy in general as "proactive" or "reactive". Committing to one to exclusion to the other limits your options unnecessarily in situations where "the other" might be more applicable. 612529[/snapback] I fully agree. No two situations require the same solutions. This is what troubled me the most when the Iraq discussions were ramping up. Opponents kept saying "why not invade North Korea?" Different situation. Diplomacy was and is still working in North Korea. It failed miserably in Iraq. Different problems. Different solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I think it's artificially constraining to lable foreign policy in general as "proactive" or "reactive". Committing to one to exclusion to the other limits your options unnecessarily in situations where "the other" might be more applicable. The key point, I think, has to be that your foreign policy goals shouldn't be reactive. If they are, the effect is a "no foreign policy" foreign policy. Clinton's administration is, again, a perfect example of this: whether the execution of policy was proactive or reactive, the foreign policy goals were largely, maybe even universally, reactive. 612529[/snapback] Actually, IMHO Foriegn Policy Goals have to be both proactive and reactive just as Foriegn Policy Actions have to be both proactive and reactive. The reality is that the geo-political climate often changes based on circumstances that our elected leaders have little to no control over, i.e. 9/11. BiB makes a very good point in the planning area. Plan A needs a defined set of perameters, as does Plan B, and C etc. The choice of which plan to pursue then becomes a matter of matching the current situation to the defined goals. Yes I know it's impossible to have every contingency mapped out, but a list of the top 5 or 10 for each goal should at least theoretically be achievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I think it's artificially constraining to lable foreign policy in general as "proactive" or "reactive". Committing to one to exclusion to the other limits your options unnecessarily in situations where "the other" might be more applicable. The key point, I think, has to be that your foreign policy goals shouldn't be reactive. If they are, the effect is a "no foreign policy" foreign policy. Clinton's administration is, again, a perfect example of this: whether the execution of policy was proactive or reactive, the foreign policy goals were largely, maybe even universally, reactive. 612529[/snapback] I would tend to agree with this view, but have questions about the actual implementation of foreign policy. (The questions are actually tangential to this discussion and I apologize for such.) From an outsider's perspective, it APPEARS that a lot of the career staffers in the departments/agencies that affect foreign policy (State Department, CIA, etc.) seem to have a "status quo" mentality. They seem to oftentimes favor / work towards policies that support the current players and only seek minor / incremental changes in the way the world operates. For example, they seemed to favor Clinton's NK policies rather than Bush's. (This is the impression I get from various news sources, as I stated, I don't know that this is reality but it is my perception.) If this is the case, can effective proactive foreign policy truly be implemented? If it can't be implemented, can the status quo within these departments be changed (proactively, of course!) to allow for proactive implementation of goals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 I would tend to agree with this view, but have questions about the actual implementation of foreign policy. (The questions are actually tangential to this discussion and I apologize for such.) From an outsider's perspective, it APPEARS that a lot of the career staffers in the departments/agencies that affect foreign policy (State Department, CIA, etc.) seem to have a "status quo" mentality. They seem to oftentimes favor / work towards policies that support the current players and only seek minor / incremental changes in the way the world operates. For example, they seemed to favor Clinton's NK policies rather than Bush's. (This is the impression I get from various news sources, as I stated, I don't know that this is reality but it is my perception.) If this is the case, can effective proactive foreign policy truly be implemented? If it can't be implemented, can the status quo within these departments be changed (proactively, of course!) to allow for proactive implementation of goals? 612737[/snapback] You've read my book? I do a lot of jumping up and down screaming pretty much that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 You've read my book? I do a lot of jumping up and down screaming pretty much that. 612750[/snapback] Unfortunately I haven't read that one; didn't think I had the right clearances to access it. Could you provide a Cliff's Notes version? Can the status quo mindset be changed or are we doomed to dither while China, India, and others supplant the US on the world stage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I think it's artificially constraining to lable foreign policy in general as "proactive" or "reactive". Committing to one to exclusion to the other limits your options unnecessarily in situations where "the other" might be more applicable. The key point, I think, has to be that your foreign policy goals shouldn't be reactive. If they are, the effect is a "no foreign policy" foreign policy. Clinton's administration is, again, a perfect example of this: whether the execution of policy was proactive or reactive, the foreign policy goals were largely, maybe even universally, reactive. 612529[/snapback] Oh the partisan shot... As a Clinton opologist... his foreign policies were both, reactive and proactive, proactively he worked on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, he reacted and then became proactive in the former Yugoslavia. But aside from my irritation at your quick Clinton bash, I agree that no policy of ours can be limited to one or the other, also one could argue that Bush has been too proactive. I don't necessarily agree with that assessment either, it is more a question of chosing those things to be active on and setting up workable plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I would tend to agree with this view, but have questions about the actual implementation of foreign policy. (The questions are actually tangential to this discussion and I apologize for such.) From an outsider's perspective, it APPEARS that a lot of the career staffers in the departments/agencies that affect foreign policy (State Department, CIA, etc.) seem to have a "status quo" mentality. They seem to oftentimes favor / work towards policies that support the current players and only seek minor / incremental changes in the way the world operates. For example, they seemed to favor Clinton's NK policies rather than Bush's. (This is the impression I get from various news sources, as I stated, I don't know that this is reality but it is my perception.) If this is the case, can effective proactive foreign policy truly be implemented? If it can't be implemented, can the status quo within these departments be changed (proactively, of course!) to allow for proactive implementation of goals? 612737[/snapback] The reality there is the fact that when administrations change the Government's world-view is altered, sometimes subtly (Regan to Bush) sometimes drastically (Clinton to Bush) but the people pounding the metaphorical pavements to implement the policies stay the same. Those people have blood sweat and tears invested in the methods and ideologies currently in use but are being ordered to "Change Horses in Mid-Stream." Some resistance is to be expected but to a greater degree the daunting task those people face is to make the ordered changes without blowing up the process! It's far easier to discuss it than it is to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 You've read my book? I do a lot of jumping up and down screaming pretty much that. 612750[/snapback] Yeh, so has every admin since Kennedy. That is as far back as I go. Still, I think the State Department's role of diplomacy is crucial, it just shouldn't drive any foreign policy decisions and maybe it should be reduced to sub-cabinet status, i.e., back to the old diplomatic corps framework, maybe put it under hah!...Homeland Security! Seriously, not sure which Dept. to make it a sub of, maybe Commerce... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Unfortunately I haven't read that one; didn't think I had the right clearances to access it. Could you provide a Cliff's Notes version? Can the status quo mindset be changed or are we doomed to dither while China, India, and others supplant the US on the world stage? 612784[/snapback] Cute. Nice shot. Cliff notes are that our overall foreign policy/national security apparatus is geared towards a cold war mentality that existed 20 years ago. I'm speaking of the mechanisms at the "working level". Current geo-political dynamics, not to mention published strategy call for a synergizing of all elements of our national power to address the current world. Military, diplomatic, economic, informational, etc. I don't think we have a single table where everyone sits down and looks at a problem collectively as knowledgeable people in their areas. I think we sit down and put the knowledgeable people together at the point where decisions have already been made, and the only use for the knowledge is to deconflict the principals agenda. Right or wrong. I also think a whole lot of people see this, but it takes a while, a long while to implement new systems within government to effect that. There's a lot of reference out there, maybe start with "Beyond Goldwater-Nichols" by the NDU as a basis point. The Clinton administration had a clue with with PDD-56, complex contingency operations, but never followed through with the mechanism to think about stuff ahead of time, rather than organize ad-hoc to address a problem as it occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Cute. Nice shot. Cliff notes are that our overall foreign policy/national security apparatus is geared towards a cold war mentality that existed 20 years ago. I'm speaking of the mechanisms at the "working level". Current geo-political dynamics, not to mention published strategy call for a synergizing of all elements of our national power to address the current world. Military, diplomatic, economic, informational, etc. I don't think we have a single table where everyone sits down and looks at a problem collectively as knowledgeable people in their areas. I think we sit down and put the knowledgeable people together at the point where decisions have already been made, and the only use for the knowledge is to deconflict the principals agenda. Right or wrong. I also think a whole lot of people see this, but it takes a while, a long while to implement new systems within government to effect that. There's a lot of reference out there, maybe start with "Beyond Goldwater-Nichols" by the NDU as a basis point. The Clinton administration had a clue with with PDD-56, complex contingency operations, but never followed through with the mechanism to think about stuff ahead of time, rather than organize ad-hoc to address a problem as it occurred. 612810[/snapback] Thanks for the BGN info. I downloaded the Phase 2 report and will try to read through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 If anyone wants to discuss it. This colors everything going on, and should affect the next set of elections. Should the US act aggressively and proactively to affect things in other parts of the world? (Not necessarily military) or, should we be observers and react to things we don't like? I think we should stick with the proactive approach, including military action when needed. That said, I don't want ANYONE lifting a finger without a decent at least 5 year plan, including plan B, C, and D if A doesn't work. 612504[/snapback] I am more of a pragmatist. I don't like one size fits all policies. Where bold action seems like it will work, great. Where bold action appears to lead to disaster, we should shun bold action. A healthy and realistic understanding of what is possible and what is not would be a good start. Sort of an "anti-hubris" policy. I don't like boldness for the sake of being bold. There are times however, where boldness is just the ticket. That is why I shy away from idealouges. See, I can't even spell "idealouges", that is how much I hate them, Ir egfusel two spill ix rigt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Oh the partisan shot... As a Clinton opologist... his foreign policies were both, reactive and proactive, proactively he worked on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, he reacted and then became proactive in the former Yugoslavia. But aside from my irritation at your quick Clinton bash, I agree that no policy of ours can be limited to one or the other, also one could argue that Bush has been too proactive. I don't necessarily agree with that assessment either, it is more a question of chosing those things to be active on and setting up workable plans. 612804[/snapback] I didn't mean it as a Clinton "bash" per se (a Clinton foreign policy bash, certainly - but I hasten to point out that I hate Clinton's foreign policy record on its face, not because it's Clintons)...it was just the example of reactive foreign policy goals I'm most familiar with. While he was certainly proactive and reactive in execution - your example of Israel and Palestine being a good example of proactive, his Afghanistan policy being an even better one of being reactive - I haven't yet seen anyone quote a proactive foreign policy goal of Clinton's foreign policy. I mean, I pretty much know what Bush is trying to accomplish...what was Clinton trying to accomplish? Again, not meant to bash Clinton per se...and I have strong disagreements with the execution of Bush's foreign policy. But the contrast between the two does serve to illustrate the difference between proactive and reactive policy goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Yeh, so has every admin since Kennedy. That is as far back as I go. Still, I think the State Department's role of diplomacy is crucial, it just shouldn't drive any foreign policy decisions and maybe it should be reduced to sub-cabinet status, i.e., back to the old diplomatic corps framework, maybe put it under hah!...Homeland Security! 612808[/snapback] Or we could always subordinate it to the Secretary of Defense, like this administration seemed to during the Iraq crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 The reality there is the fact that when administrations change the Government's world-view is altered, sometimes subtly (Regan to Bush) sometimes drastically (Clinton to Bush) but the people pounding the metaphorical pavements to implement the policies stay the same. Those people have blood sweat and tears invested in the methods and ideologies currently in use but are being ordered to "Change Horses in Mid-Stream." Some resistance is to be expected but to a greater degree the daunting task those people face is to make the ordered changes without blowing up the process! It's far easier to discuss it than it is to do it. 612805[/snapback] I definitely agree with your final point and see your point in the 1st paragraph. However, it seems to me (again as an outsider going off what I see / hear) that while there is a certain level of trying to not completely upend the apple cart, there is also a great deal of "realism" (of the Brent Scowcroft variety) that colors their views and influences their actions. It appears to me that this attitude that certain things should not, will not, or could not happen tends to keep individuals persuing their own agendas at the expense of the stated policies that are supposed to be implemented. (Agendas is probably too strong a word but I am having trouble right now coming up with a word that more precisely means what I am trying to state.) The "realism", to me, tends to work against proactive policies as it seems to favor status quo and views change as necessarily bad as the ripple effects of change are not only unpredictable but predictably bad. If the people that are necessary to implement a "proactive" policy are not on board with it, can there ever truly BE a "proactive foreign policy"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I definitely agree with your final point and see your point in the 1st paragraph. However, it seems to me (again as an outsider going off what I see / hear) that while there is a certain level of trying to not completely upend the apple cart, there is also a great deal of "realism" (of the Brent Scowcroft variety) that colors their views and influences their actions. It appears to me that this attitude that certain things should not, will not, or could not happen tends to keep individuals persuing their own agendas at the expense of the stated policies that are supposed to be implemented. (Agendas is probably too strong a word but I am having trouble right now coming up with a word that more precisely means what I am trying to state.) The "realism", to me, tends to work against proactive policies as it seems to favor status quo and views change as necessarily bad as the ripple effects of change are not only unpredictable but predictably bad. If the people that are necessary to implement a "proactive" policy are not on board with it, can there ever truly BE a "proactive foreign policy"? 612887[/snapback] To answer the last question first, no. No policy can succeed if the people implementing the policy don't believe in it. Of course the implementation of policy changes is the responsibility of the top level of management so that becomes problematic in and of itself. See the recent flap on loyalty oaths. The policy changes must be "sold" as workable to the people who are responsible for guiding and shaping the implementation of the policy changes down the chain of command. They then become responsible for ensuring that their operatives on each level understand the reasoning behind the changes, the expected effects of the changes, and how to ensure that the changes are implemented in a manner that produces the desired results. Any administration's policies can quickly become mired in a mass of bureaucratic infighting if there is a serious disconnect between the policy makers and the people who implement the policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I wonder how many people who would support the government's acting proactively outside the US take the time and trouble to do so in their own communities? As in, for example, working on planning boards etc. instead of merely reacting when stuff they don't like gets pushed through. Not trolling, just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts