Think Again: America's Image

For me, I think Obama is still doing a pretty good job in the office..lets see if he still can improve a lot..

besides.. he doesnt even have fear in public speaking

American standing improved in 2007-8 because the impending jettison of Bush was clear and unmistakable. We all looked forward to the incoming improvement, no matter who won. Considering the devastation of the Bush Regime, anyone would have been some improvement (did I say that?) While it was clear that more of the same with McCain was obvious, the specter of his demise in office was gloomily overshadowed by the bizarre notion the Palin could actually see Russia from The White House. these jokesters are gone now for the most part, save for the media's fascination with thier afterlives. Thankfully, the rest of us are well past that nightmare.While many republicants and thier blind followers still regale the ressurection of the now deceased notion of right wing leadership, the rest of go about the work of rebuilding America in the wake of thier outrageous bumbling in world politics. Obama has shown himself to be the only viable person in America with the intestinal fortitude to take on the ravages of republicantism, and they can't handle the truth. His pragmatism will prevail as it is steadily remaking the face of this shamed nation.

The excellent APSA report on this topic willynilly demonstrates a reason, which the report neglects to treat, why it is hard to repair our image. The passage in question runs like this.

>...The legacy of Iranian hostility towards the United States has roots in >America's 1953 overthrow of populist leader Mohammed Mosaddeq and >support for the shah despite the U.S.'s professed adherence to the >principles of self-determination and liberal democracy.....

It takes for granted a version of Mossadeq's removal that makes of the shah an anti-democratic villain and Mossadeq a liberal hero. Such was not the case.

The Pahlevi dynasty in 1923 installed itself by para-military means as a progressive nationalist force. At the time its nationalist fervor was directed against the Soviets . Shah Reza's young regime was quetly supported by the British and later financially tutored and aided by the United States. But both the British and the Americans then ran into trouble with the Iranians. As a consequence, by the time of the outbreak of WWII , theyhad come to favor a close relationship with the Germans. That caused the Soviets and the British. to jointly oust the shah., as wartime supply lines to the Soviet Union ran through Iran.

Reza Khan's son, Mohammed Reza, was permitted by the powers to follow his father on the throne--and into turbulent times. In these
a Shiite firebrand, Mullah Kashani, and an extreme nationalist, Mohammed Mossadeq, rose to prominence. Their rise was propelled by the Iranians' quarrle with the Britih over possision of their oil and disappointment at what they held to be too little American economic aid. That sent Mossadeq clamoring for an alternate source of money, namely the nationalization of the oil industry. This ploy eventually gained him ipower suffiicient to oust the shah who then went into exile. He was returned from it when British and American intelligence managed to inspirit and guide the Iranian armed froces to topple Mossadeq. Involved in all this was the Iranian parlianment which consisted of parties representing grandee Iranian landowners and the wealthy middle class. This set-up was in turn toppled by Mulla Kashani's ideological successor, Khomenei.

The AOSA report offers guidance on what may need to be done to keep America both at the top as well as popular. It might have recommended
a better job at explaining persuasivekly our policies.

You stand with your allies; you don't stand with your enemies. You let people know where you stand. You will be respected. But you must never expect love. The powerful are rarely loved. The powerless are never loved. The former can protect themselves.

when the US was firmly anti communist, it was respected, although during much of that time, the US was not living up to its values, in terms of civil rights in the US. But that did not stop people from being US allies. It was in their interest to stop communists and they understood that the US was on their side and would not abandon them.

Even as western europeans derided the US they relied on it. The US took on the responsibility of arming itself, thus freeing europeans to be lax with their own defense.

This article assumes that it is normal for nations to like each other and that the desire for power is unusual and that it is somehow the fault of the US that nations want power. What is normal is that nations follow their interest. They are not interested in human rights or torture or hypocrisy or values. These things become weapons when a nation dislikes the US for other reasons. China wants to expand its power. So does Russia. For this to happen the US must have less power. These nations do not care if the US is nice to the prisoners at guantanamo bay. It has always been like this between nations. The notion that the US must be loved and if it is not loved, it is because it is bad and deserves opprobrium is nonsense.

The US has a certain system. Many don't like it. It does not follow that they are superior to the US or that the US is bad.

If one's enemy gets a leader that appears to be weak and not have its national interest at heart, that naturally delights the enemy. The enemy then may have a feeling of warmth towards one.

The more people appear worried about US power and hypocrisy and values, the less they worry about what goes on in other nations. People are very worried about three people who were waterboarded. However, no one worries about China, Russia, North Korea, or Venezuela, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Sudan and just about every non western nation. Some will insist that the US is worse than all these places. Others will say, in effect, since they don't have the same values, these other nations have no obligation re human rights. That is an argument for giving up the values that the US has, assuming that one admits the US has them to begin with. This article makes it seem as if the problem is the possession of values. Give up the values and then the world will expect nothing of you and like you, the authors are saying.

When has China shown the least desire for morality in its conduct or playing by rules? Yet we do not see people marching in the streets to show support for Tibet. What promises have the Russians lived up to? As we see plainly, their former satellites are terrified of Russia, with good reason. Russia has made it plain it would like nothing better than to recapture these nations. Yet, no one accuses Russia of arrogrance.

I could go on. The fact is this article is not realistic. No nation can have values that so pure than it cannot defend itself. One does not increase in other nation's estimation by abandoning allies, like the eastern europeans. That is the sort of thing that makes people feel the US can't be trusted.

Excellent article. Did anyone fax it to Obama? What makes me upset with U.S.' current standing is that human rights and democracy -- our fundamental values -- seem to be widely ignored and mild tone adopted on abuses by the Obama administration. And that's much worse than Iran hating us for double standards, it's the whole world (or particularly freedom-loving part of it) who will be deeply disappointed.