dagblog - Comments for "How Foreign Policy People and Presidents Think"

A liberal world order, like

Elusive Trope — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:12:01 +0000

In reply to How Foreign Policy People and Presidents Think

A liberal world order, like any world order, is something that is imposed, and as much as we in the West might wish it to be imposed by superior virtue, it is generally imposed by superior power.

I would agree that it is imposed, but not all imposing are created equal, that is, do not necessarily utilize the same strategies and tactics in order to impose what would be considered a liberal world order.

As an example, I would point to UN Women: United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. If there was a liberal agenda this is definitely one of the key platforms.

I recently blogged about the stoning (using bricks) of a 25 year old Pakistani woman, but at the same time, three girls in India were not only gang raped and murdered, but lynched from trees. Does one turn away and say that is how that society is, or do we collectively, globally attempt to impose some new paradigm where such behavior, such thoughts that this is even remotely acceptable.

Do we bring many of the cultures kicking and dragging in resistance to traditional "values" and "ways" into the 21st Century based on this liberal agenda? How far should we go to impose what we consider basic human rights, whether for women or whatever marginalized group happens to be the target of the "old way of thinking"?

I would point to firestorm

Elusive Trope — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:00:04 +0000

In reply to I don't claim any particular

I would point to firestorm bombing of Tokyo during the Pacific Campaign for those who want to look beyond the dropping of the big bombs later.

I don't claim any particular

Verified Atheist — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:14:02 +0000

In reply to How Foreign Policy People and Presidents Think

I don't claim any particular knowledge to world affairs, but when he says that "[there] has been no transformation in human behavior or in international relations", it truly puzzles me. Sure, terrorists such as Boko Haram and al Qaeda have little problem with deliberately killing civilians to achieve their goals, but I feel that most of the world has evolved on that position over the last 70 years. Although many still defend our acts of dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I have a hard time believing that the US would do that again, even given the exact same circumstances. Somewhat less drastically (arguably), I believe we have much more careful in the damage we are willing to commit than when we bombed Dresden, Berlin, etc. Naturally, much of this is because we can afford to be more careful, but it seems inarguable to me that we are far less willing to condone the killing of large numbers of innocent civilians than we once were. Sure, one can point to drone strikes and the inevitable civilian casualties caused by them, and I don't want to pretend those strikes these aren't serious broaches of that contract, but that there are many, many politicians who have an issue with the civilian damages caused by drone strikes speaks volumes to how much we've changed since WWII. (Or, possibly, my knowledge of WWII history is deficient, which is a real possibility.)