Is the United States' Credibility in Tatters?

[Cormac]

Yes. The military serves the people. That is precisely what has happened in Egypt.

Considering there were million person protests against Morsi before the Egyptian military intervened, that's exactly what happened.

That doesn't disprove your imperialism argument, though, since the U.S. opposed that intervention.

It is just that the military in Egypt has a long history of deposing governments when they don't like them. Democratically elected or not.

When the people speak through democratic elections and elect a government - and the military overthrow that government not long afterwards - there is something wrong somewhere.

Indeed. And "somewhere" is exactly where the Morsi government repudiated the constitution under which it was elected, thus invalidating its own election.

There's a problem in the first instance of a government can change the constitution without reference to the people for approval.

[Coito ergo sum]

The US is caught between having to support an anti-democratic coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and the fact that the government in question was the Muslim Brotherhood.

You're aiming at the wrong act. Removal of Mubarek was just as much a coup as removal of Morsi. If anything, the average person in Egypt faults the U.S. for its support of Morsi, rather than the opposite.

Perhaps.

Another view would be that this latest political tournabout is merely the latest round of a dynamic that has been in play since the fall their the Ottoman Empire.

...and the US does get blamed.

The consequence of the game of Realpolitik.

Yes, ex post facto, we even get blamed for the fall of the Ottoman Empire, even though we had only an indirect involvement in that, insofar as any nation fighting on the side of the Brits in WW1 helped them win. Europe's hands are all over the middle east for the last century or two, and the US gets blamed.

[Coito ergo sum]

When you're reading my reply - please note that I'm simply responding to your rejection of the idea that the USA can be characterised as an Empire. I am not at all blind to the failings, machievellianism, criminality, and imperial ambitions of other countries - not least of which is the EU (not a country yet), France, Britain (once again), and so on and so on.

I'm simply talking about the US and whether or not it can be characterised as an Empire.

Sure, and you used as an example the American involvement in the Mossadegh incident, which hardly expanded US territory or brought Iran under US hegemony. It brought Iran under British hegemony to protect British interests. The US interest was in preventing it from going Soviet.

Does that make it less of an Imperial act?

Yes, of course. If it was an imperial act on anyone's behalf it was an imperial act by the British Empire to hold onto its property in Iran. The US had no such property, and was mostly looking to stop the Soviets from adding another client nation.

Clearly, the US acts in its interests. Britain used to act unilaterally in its own interest. Now it sees that its interests are inherently bound up with US interests, so it falls into line.

The US does not act independently anymore either. Whether the US or UK or anyone else does something depends on a variety of interests and factors. It's not pure self-interest only, however, as nations often seek to assist their allies on principle in order to preserve alliances long term, even if near term self-interest is not served.

Now - in response:

They didn't conquer ALL their possessions through force of arms, as it happens. Some leaders simply gave themselves to Rome in a kind of "Surrender and Regrant" scenario.

Very few -- the Caesar conquered Gaul and claimed to have killed 1,000,000 Gauls. They conquered Iberia from the Carthaginians, and they conquered North Africa from Carthage as well. They conquered the Levant with Roman soldiers. They conquered Egypt militarily and the threat of military force and they conquered the Baltics and Dacia by force. The bulk of the Roman Empire was conquered and held by force of arms.

By contrast, the US has Puerto Rico, which can vote anytime to be its own country. And, we have uninhabited islands, or barely inhabited islands like Guam and the Northern Marianas.

And a string of other territories that the US rules through client governments - such as once was Saddam Hussein - and as you mentioned, Pinochet.

Nonsense, relative to Saddam Hussein. The suggestion that the US ruled Iraq through a client government under Saddam Hussein is ludicrous, and is belied by the fact that he did what he wanted to the detriment of US interests. I mentioned Pinochet because it was close. But, Chile was nothing like real "client states" -- like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. were to the Soviet Union. Or India, Kenya and a host of other countries were to Britain.

Neither did the Europeans ALWAYS conquer by force of arms.

They did a lot, and enough to be Empires in fact, and they, in fact, called themselves Empires. That was when being an Empire was cool.

In fact, Egypt and several others were conquered by the British and French because they allowed themselves to be treated like Fois Gras Geese, and they collaborated in their own diet of debt. They took on more and more debt to attempt to modernise and keep up with Europe that they bankrupted themselves - and in waltzed the despicable European Empires.

The British fought a war against Egypt in like 1880 which resulted in British control. They did a whole naval bombardment of Alexandria. They didn't leave for 70 years, until the Revolution in Egypt in the 50s. REvolution against British rule....

Even with economic influences, the African countries were held by force of arms, and the Brits set up colonial governments run by Brit governors, like the French and the others. That's empire behavior. Setting up a functioning democracy that doesn't have to listen to the "empire" is not the same thing.

1. There wasn't a tide that rose and stayed you know. The tide of imperial control went in and out - and not all conquering was initiated or achieved militarily.

2. I'm not an apologist for European Imperialism. My country suffered under it for long enough.

3. What functioning democracy has America set up? (setting aside Europe after World War 2 - which was pretty good - in many ways).

The use backed and supported western European countries after World War II (Italy, Spain, Portugal, West Germany....), Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Phillipines, Iraq since 2003, Afghanistan since 2001. Israel after its formation (led by Great Britain under UN auspices). Etc.

As regards the Shah and Britain's involvement - I've said that many times on this very forum. Britain was the initiator of that particular coup in order to protect their interest in Gulf Oil - now known as BP (of Deepwater infamy). CIA took over when it was clear that Britain were no longer able to carry off the coup.

Your description of the coup is pretty good - except that the installation of the Shah by the CIA was not the same as the earlier installation. The later installation put him into supreme power, and coincidentally, retained foreign control of Iran's oil.

There wasn't an installation of the Shah when Operation Boot/Ajax occcurred in 1953. The Shah was the Shah and Mossadegh was his prime minister. The Shah participated in the coup because the Brits and Merkins twisted his arm, and he was told if he opposed them, then he would go too. The Shah stayed in power as he had been from 1941 on when he was installed to replace his dad.

Nonetheless, he ruled autocratically after that, in a way that he hadn't been able to during Mossadeq's government. He was installed during the coup.

Not really. He had the same autocratic powers he had before. He had the constitutional authority to remove Mossadeq by fiat, and he even tried to do so, but Mossadegh's allies forced him under threat to bring Mossadegh back.

Right now, (as far as I am aware) the US has not officially recognised the current coup in Egypt as a coup "officially". This is because it would force the US to stop providing assistance to Egypt. So, there is de facto support for the coup in Egypt.

There is, as the OP of the thread relates, a waffley policy on the part of the US. We don't want to withdraw aid, but we don't want to support either side. We're trying to walk a tightrope. I'm sure withdrawal of aid is "tacit" support for something.

Yep. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The US is caught between having to support an anti-democratic coup that overthrew a democratically elected government, and the fact that the government in question was the Muslim Brotherhood.

But the US has never hesitated to overthrow democratically elected governments in order to replace them with totalitarian military dictatorships. Pinochet being a good example. Hussein being another.

The US did not "install" Hussein. And, the US actually pushed Pinochet out. The US has typically preferred democratically elected governments, but when the choice is to have a bastard in power, like Franklin D. Roosevelt said once, "He may be a bastard. But, he's our bastard."

You'll find that most of the "democratically elected" folks were these communist "democracy once" dickheads, that cry "democracy" for themselves, but after that, democracy is gone. Castro is a prime example. In power now without a real election for 54 years. Take the US support of the overthrow of the "democratically elected" government of Guatemala under Arbenz. Arbenz was elected without a secret ballot. He then enacted "land reform" which was ruled unconstitutional by the Guatemalan Supreme Court. So, then he then purged the Supreme Court by fiat. He also received arms from the Soviet bloc, and he killed several hundred thousand political opponents. But, what's the headline? "US overthrows democratically elected government of Guatemala."

I know the US has done it's share of no-nos. But, sometimes we lose the real story when details are left out.

(Incidentally - the EU is similarly avoiding the issue, as are pretty much all EU member states - to their shame).

Sure, the Europeans give aid to Egypt and Egypt was riled up when the EU mentioned it might "review" its aid to Egypt.

This is one of the reasons that I detest the amount of sovereignty that has been granted to the EU. Ireland is a neutral country, but we are now, perforce, involved in the Imperial adventures of other EU states. (In my view, our involvement is a breach of our constitution).

Constitution smonstitution. These are archaic things and we ought not "worship" at the altar of the constitution. That's what we Americans are told, though. You're a member state of the EU. Do your fair share, dammit!

Edit - oh, and yes, the Chagos Islands are de facto British possessions (although the courts have ruled that Britain cannot legally prevent the return of the Chagos Islanders to their home - a ruling that the British Government is contendedly ignoring - in breach of their own laws). However, Britain is a client state of the USA. Therefore, it often acts to further its joint strategic interests with the USA.

The UK is a "client state" of the US? I've never heard that seriously contemplated. It's a misuse of the term "client state" just as "empire" is being misused. A client state would be like, Egypt after 1922 and Iraq after 1932 -- they remained "client states" of the UK. It's where local rulers and governors are "clients." And, places like Nigeria and Malaya were indirectly ruled by Britain. The closest thing the US would have had to client states would be like Cuba until Castro's revolution or Chile under Pinochet, where the US exerted a lot of influence, but we never had the kind of indirect rule or client rulers that the European countries had.

I note how quickly and eagerly Tony jumped for George.

Indirect rule is as indirect rule does.

[/quote][/quote]

Tony Blair jumped to the side of the United States in 2001 because at that time the US had suffered an horrific attack against civilians and government infrastructure and personnel. The UK was one of the US's closest allies, and I remember being personally moved when Tony Blair stood up and said -- not that the UK would support the US or back us up or help us out -- no no -- he chose his words carefully, and he said that the UK would "stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States."

I was heading toward middle age, if not already there, in 2001, so I view those events as an adult, and as if they were almost yesterday. I can watch the footage of that morning and I feel as if they are happening again. Many younger folks don't remember that, and view 2001 as almost ancient history or as something vaguely recollected. However, the context of what Tony Blair and the UK's policy was in 2001 was much deeper than just "Tony Blair is George Bush's lap dog."

Moreover, there was historical British policy in play. The Brits have been in the Middle East for 150 years. It was the British Mandate after WW1 that saw the creation of Israel, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, current borders of Egypt, Turkey, Iran, etc. This was all a function of british policy in the first half of the 20th century. Britain remained, in the second half of the 20th century an active player in the world, with one of the best militaries (albeit not the biggest) on the planet.

Britain did not, I daresay, act as a lapdog in 2001. Britain acted according to what it perceived as its duty as a close ally and friend of the US. It was a time where Colin Powell -- you know, the good guy that the evil empire pushed out -- Colin Powell was saying that countries needed to "pick a side." It was a time when the US moved into a "war footing." It was a time when people were of a mind that this was it - no more bullshit. "You want to dance, let's dance."

The message delivered to the Russians, for example, in 2001 was delivered in person by Richard Armitage and Cofer Black Armitage and Black. They flew to Moscow to seek help from top Russian diplomatic and intelligence officials. "We're in a war. We're coming. Regardless of what you do, we're coming anyway." The Russians indicated they would help and certainly not obstruct. They warned Armitage and Black that Afghanistan was ambush heaven, where the guerrilla fighters had demolished the Russian army. The Russians said that the US would get the "hell kicked out of you". Cofer Black looked the Russians in the eyes and said - "We're going to kill them. We're going to put their heads on sticks. We're going to rock their world."

That's a taste of the tone, the tenor the feeling of the autumn of 2001. If Tony Blair standing up and saying we're with you 100% and we'll fight by your side makes him a "client" of the US, then I'll eat my hat. I think it makes him and the UK a friend. And, it puts him and the UK on the side of right, in that instance.

[Coito ergo sum]

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... ge-w-bush/

George W. Bush was widely mocked by the Left during the Iraq War, with liberals jeering at the “coalition of the willing,” which included in its ranks some minnows such as Moldova and Kazkhstan. Michael Moore, in his rather silly documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, went to great lengths to lampoon the Iraq War alliance. But the coalition also contained, as I pointed out in Congressional testimony back in 2007, Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, and 16 members of the NATO alliance, as well as Japan and South Korea. In Europe, France and Germany were the only large-scale countries that sat the war out, with 12 of the 25 members of the European Union represented. The coalition, swelled to roughly 40 countries, and was one of the largest military coalitions ever assembled.

As it stands, President Obama’s proposed military coalition on Syria has a grand total of two members – the US and France. And the French, as we know from Iraq, simply can’t be relied on, and have very limited military capability. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs when Paris, at best a fair weather friend, is your only partner. John Kerry tried to put a brave face on it at his press conference today, by referring to France “as our oldest ally,” but the fact remains that his administration is looking painfully isolated.

There can be no doubt that David Cameron’s defeat in the House of Commons was a huge blow to President Obama, and has dominated the US news networks this morning. The absence of Britain in any American-led military action significantly weakens Obama’s position on the world stage, and dramatically undercuts the Obama administration. The vote reflected not only a lack of confidence in the Commons in the prime minister’s Syria strategy, it also demonstrated a striking lack of confidence in Barack Obama and US leadership.

[JimC]

The OP is not really saying anything about credibility - simply that the players in the middle east are so totally filled with mutual antagonism, that anyone (US, EU, UN) attempting to promote peaceful solutions vis diplomacy has no serious chance at all, and therefore will always appear weak and ineffective.

[Warren Dew]

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... ge-w-bush/

Low blow!

True, though.

[JimC]

Even if the MB got 60%, the other 40% hate them. That's enough to cause serious problems, and oh. The army hates the MB too, which is why you have the situation we have. I think the army would have eventually tried to over throw the MB and the protests gave them a popular excuse. Perhaps you noticed the army only shot pro-MB protestors

It seems that way...

[Coito ergo sum]

My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line and America and Congress's credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

When those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage, how can this happen in this modern world.

Well, it happened because a Government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.

So, the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.

The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.

I do think that we have to act because if we don't we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity and those international norms begin to erode.

– PRESIDENT OBAMA

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-09- ... -the-line/

[Ian]

What's funny? I think most of the world ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[Audley Strange]

What's funny? I think most of the world ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Yes. Also the "coalition of the willing" happened after terrorists flew planes into American buildings, No one really gives a fuck about Syrian internal politics. You can't compare the two. If Bush had started clamping down on Endtime militias which had escalated into a civil war, then gassed some people, no one would give a fuck. It's only when you kill foreigners that the international community cares.

[klr]

What's funny? I think most of the world ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Indeed. why should it always be left up to the USA? It gets criticised for wanting to be the world's policeman, but the closest thing we have to one (the UN) plainly isn't up to the job.

What's funny? I think most of the world ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Yes. Also the "coalition of the willing" happened after terrorists flew planes into American buildings, No one really gives a fuck about Syrian internal politics. You can't compare the two. If Bush had started clamping down on Endtime militias which had escalated into a civil war, then gassed some people, no one would give a fuck. It's only when you kill foreigners that the international community cares.

By "foreigners", do you mean "anyone who is not American", or "anyone being killed by some country other than their own"?

[Cormac]

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... ge-w-bush/

George W. Bush was widely mocked by the Left during the Iraq War, with liberals jeering at the “coalition of the willing,” which included in its ranks some minnows such as Moldova and Kazkhstan. Michael Moore, in his rather silly documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, went to great lengths to lampoon the Iraq War alliance. But the coalition also contained, as I pointed out in Congressional testimony back in 2007, Great Britain, Australia, Spain, Italy, Poland, and 16 members of the NATO alliance, as well as Japan and South Korea. In Europe, France and Germany were the only large-scale countries that sat the war out, with 12 of the 25 members of the European Union represented. The coalition, swelled to roughly 40 countries, and was one of the largest military coalitions ever assembled.

As it stands, President Obama’s proposed military coalition on Syria has a grand total of two members – the US and France. And the French, as we know from Iraq, simply can’t be relied on, and have very limited military capability. It is a truly embarrassing state of affairs when Paris, at best a fair weather friend, is your only partner. John Kerry tried to put a brave face on it at his press conference today, by referring to France “as our oldest ally,” but the fact remains that his administration is looking painfully isolated.

There can be no doubt that David Cameron’s defeat in the House of Commons was a huge blow to President Obama, and has dominated the US news networks this morning. The absence of Britain in any American-led military action significantly weakens Obama’s position on the world stage, and dramatically undercuts the Obama administration. The vote reflected not only a lack of confidence in the Commons in the prime minister’s Syria strategy, it also demonstrated a striking lack of confidence in Barack Obama and US leadership.

In fairness, it is not a comparable position.

Jets have not flown into tall buildings lately in the USA. There isn't a mass scare that Syria has attacked or intends to attack the USA. Hence,

[pErvinalia]

My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line and America and Congress's credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

When those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage, how can this happen in this modern world.

Well, it happened because a Government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.

So, the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.

The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.

I do think that we have to act because if we don't we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity and those international norms begin to erode.

– PRESIDENT OBAMA

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-09- ... -the-line/

I don't know how politicians say this shit without dying of shame. This stuff has now become like Seth's rants on socialism, to me. It's so ludicrous I can't even get worked up over it any more.

[Coito ergo sum]

What's funny? I think most of the world ought to be ashamed of themselves.

For what? Not intervening in a humanitarian crisis or when some rogue dictator massacred his own people?

I think they should be ashamed of themselves too. I simply recognize that should have been ashamed of themselves in 2003, too.

[Coito ergo sum]

What's funny? I think most of the world ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Indeed. why should it always be left up to the USA? It gets criticised for wanting to be the world's policeman, but the closest thing we have to one (the UN) plainly isn't up to the job.

But, looking at the record from 2001 to 2008, what ought the UN do? Is there an "imminent threat" to the US or UK, or France or such? Syria "never attacked us." They have no "connection to 9/11" or to "Al Qaeta" -- in fact, Syria is fighting Al Qaeta. If the UN intervenes in Syria on humanitarian grounds, then what of the dozen other humanitarian crises that are left unaddressed? Are we going to invade every country where some crackpot dictator commits atrocities?

Remember those arguments? Are they not applicable anymore?