Report: US credibility at all time low

Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
3,023
Location
Washington state
This study suggests that US credibility is at an all time low. Many of it's points seem to affirm what some people have been saying for awhile. Maybe someday, diplomacy will stop being referred to as appeasement , and we can once more regain our standing in the world.
US focus on terror sees image hit all-time low: report

Posted 2 hours 47 minutes ago
Updated 2 hours 52 minutes ago

The United States needs to shift from muscle-flexing to alliance-building when it seeks to wield power in the world if it wants to patch up its battered global image, a new American report concludes.

"America's reputation, standing and influence are at all-time lows, and possibly sinking further," the report by a 20-member think-tank commissioned by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said, citing half a dozen opinion polls from around the world.

"The terrorist attacks on 9/11 caused America to become a frightened and angry nation," it said.

"We reacted in ways that alarmed people the world over ... we relied excessively on hard military power to fight the war against terrorists and violent extremists.

"Ultimately this is a battle that will be won by ideas, not bullets. Just like the Cold War, we will prevail when the world chooses the opportunities we defend over the despair offered by our enemies."

The report, which was more than a year in the making, said the United States has focused too much on the 'war on terror' and relied too heavily on military might in its foreign policy.

"The Pentagon is the best-trained and best-resourced arm of the Federal Government ... it tends to fill every void.

"The United States must become a smarter power by investing once again in the global good - providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain in the absence of American leadership."

It called on the next US president to chart a new course towards a "smarter" foreign policy that balances hard power - "wielding carrots and sticks to get what you want" - and soft power - "the ability to attract people to our side without coercion."

By shifting its foreign policy focus from the war on terror to championing the global good, the United States will not only defeat terrorism but will also restore its greatness, the report said.

The commission included former military commander in Iraq Anthony Zinni; ex-US ambassador to the United Nations, Russia and Israel Thomas Pickering; former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor; members of Congress; business leaders; and the heads of non-profit organizations.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/07/2083981.htm
 
Werbung:

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,601
Location
The Golden State
It called on the next US president to chart a new course towards a "smarter" foreign policy that balances hard power - "wielding carrots and sticks to get what you want" - and soft power - "the ability to attract people to our side without coercion."

Maybe the next president, whoever that may be, will be able to have a smarter foreign policy. It's hard to see how there could be a dumber one.

If only we can make it until next January, and if only we can elect someone who can clean up the mess we have now.
 

USMC the Almighty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
2,070
Maybe the next president, whoever that may be, will be able to have a smarter foreign policy. It's hard to see how there could be a dumber one.

If only we can make it until next January, and if only we can elect someone who can clean up the mess we have now.

This is what I don't get. There are 513,000 elected officials in this country. The President is just one (albeit an important one) in this whole system. Maybe for once we should stop looking at solutions to come from the top down but from the bottom up -- the local level. Obviously, foreign policy is one thing but real change is never going to happen if we rely on the President and Congress. There's just way too much bureacracy, way too much self-importance, way too much partisanship, and way too little capacity for big ideas and solutions.

Real change for nationwide solutions, I believe, must come from the bottom up. Simply changing the man in the White House isn't going to do a whole lot. Yeah, some federal buildings might be renamed and there would be some reshuffling around of people in various high-level positions, but on the whole, not much really gets done.
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
Maybe the next president, whoever that may be, will be able to have a smarter foreign policy. It's hard to see how there could be a dumber one.

If only we can make it until next January, and if only we can elect someone who can clean up the mess we have now.

If we can only make it another year...that is the $2 question. I hope so. I am looking forward to election day 08. I just hope Americans wake up and realise we dont want another President because of thier last name. We need real change.

Foreign policy is potentially the greatest trouble for any President. We need a President who is consistent and wants to be friends with those who share similar values.
 

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
This is what I don't get. There are 513,000 elected officials in this country. The President is just one (albeit an important one) in this whole system. Maybe for once we should stop looking at solutions to come from the top down but from the bottom up -- the local level. Obviously, foreign policy is one thing but real change is never going to happen if we rely on the President and Congress. There's just way too much bureacracy, way too much self-importance, way too much partisanship, and way too little capacity for big ideas and solutions.

Real change for nationwide solutions, I believe, must come from the bottom up. Simply changing the man in the White House isn't going to do a whole lot. Yeah, some federal buildings might be renamed and there would be some reshuffling around of people in various high-level positions, but on the whole, not much really gets done.


This would be the ideal situation. Your idea of a less top heavy government goes right along the Ron Paul line of thinking. But that is another discussion.

I am quite active in local politics. Over this time, I have come to realise several things when it concerns the operations of different governments.
Working with DC is a headache. Jarhead, think of a chain of command by committee. Doesnt make much sense does it?

Anytime someone up the chain needs something, they needed it yesterday. When something comes down the chain its at thier leisure, and never enough to do the job.

Small communities can state thier opinions on different things through resolution. When the resolution gets forwarded, it is often overlooked by those up the chain unless they already agreed. It never changes minds based on our opinions.
 
Werbung:

Irishone21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
442
Location
Kingsville
I agree with US completely... but the top must do what it can to change the bottom, just as the bottom must do what it can to change the top, if that makes sense. The top has the capabilities, and the power, enabling them, where as the people have the numbers. And in regards to advanced (soft) power, and primitive (hard power), we need to gradually decrease primitive power, placing more trust and faith in advanced power. Basically, we all need to be leaders and dedicate ourselves to change. I vote for Ron Paul. He restores the Revolution.
 
Top