POLITICAL JEDI
New member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 2
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Who should define American ends today?
"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave the classic formulation of preemption and unilateralism when he said (regarding the Afghan war and the war on terrorism, but the principle is universal), "the mission determines the coalition. We take our friends where we find them, but only in order to help us in accomplishing the mission. The mission comes first, and we decide it."
Alot of people are uncomfortable with this new muscular doctrine put out by the current administration, which just happens to be the worlds only superpower.
"Contrast this with the classic case study of multilateralism at work: the U.S. decision in February 1991 to conclude the Gulf War. As the Iraqi army was fleeing, the first Bush Administration had to decide its final goal: the liberation of Kuwait or regime change in Iraq. It stopped at Kuwait. Why? Because, as Brent Scowcroft has explained, going further would have fractured the coalition, gone against our promises to allies and violated the UN resolutions under which we were acting. "Had we added occupation of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein to those objectives", wrote Scowcroft in the Washington Post on October 16, 2001, "... our Arab allies, refusing to countenance an invasion of an Arab colleague, would have deserted us."
Meanwhile, alot of people think in this case, the mistake was the coalition defined the mission.
This is a question that leads directly to the fundamental question of foreign policy. If the coalition whether NATO, the wider Western alliance, ad hoc outfits such as the Gulf War alliance, the UN, or the "international community" defines America's mission, we have one vision of America's role in the world. If, on the other hand, the mission defines the coalition, we have an entirely different vision. Which brings me back to my original question: Who should define American ends today?
"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave the classic formulation of preemption and unilateralism when he said (regarding the Afghan war and the war on terrorism, but the principle is universal), "the mission determines the coalition. We take our friends where we find them, but only in order to help us in accomplishing the mission. The mission comes first, and we decide it."
Alot of people are uncomfortable with this new muscular doctrine put out by the current administration, which just happens to be the worlds only superpower.
"Contrast this with the classic case study of multilateralism at work: the U.S. decision in February 1991 to conclude the Gulf War. As the Iraqi army was fleeing, the first Bush Administration had to decide its final goal: the liberation of Kuwait or regime change in Iraq. It stopped at Kuwait. Why? Because, as Brent Scowcroft has explained, going further would have fractured the coalition, gone against our promises to allies and violated the UN resolutions under which we were acting. "Had we added occupation of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein to those objectives", wrote Scowcroft in the Washington Post on October 16, 2001, "... our Arab allies, refusing to countenance an invasion of an Arab colleague, would have deserted us."
Meanwhile, alot of people think in this case, the mistake was the coalition defined the mission.
This is a question that leads directly to the fundamental question of foreign policy. If the coalition whether NATO, the wider Western alliance, ad hoc outfits such as the Gulf War alliance, the UN, or the "international community" defines America's mission, we have one vision of America's role in the world. If, on the other hand, the mission defines the coalition, we have an entirely different vision. Which brings me back to my original question: Who should define American ends today?