With President Obama’s inauguration today it is a good time
to think about where the president’s term is heading and what issues should be
top priority. This article provided by
Brookings Foreign Policy discusses the strategic steps President Obama should
be taking in terms of foreign policy.
The article presents a map of the world and tags high priority locations
as “big bet” areas and low priority spots as “black swans.” What do you guys think about how the areas
where tagged? What areas of the world do you believe the United States should be
focusing on building connections with?
This article is advising that we stray away from war zones and conflicts like that. That seems to go along with the proposed cutting down on extraneous military spending. It will be interesting to see if we do stay away from these conflicts.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article. I enjoyed the visual of all our global interests. Its nice to see the big picture. I do think we need to continue to keep a strong presence militarily around the globe. As the African proverb states: "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."
ReplyDeleteI think we need to keep troops in areas that need it the most. We can still cut military spending and keep the same number of troops in conflict areas that are still dangerous. The article also places big bets on free trade in Asia and South America. That could also be beneficial to the road of recovery for America.
ReplyDeleteWhile most of these placements i agree with, seeing a black swan on Great Britain did not sit well with me. I am not a huge fan of Europe but I do think that maintaining interest in Europe would do us some good because it will help pull our economy out of its woes.
ReplyDelete"In the next four years, President Obama has a choice about whether to make democracy building and a liberal world order key tenets of his foreign policy plan." and "Will America launch a new effort to strengthen and extend the liberal world order?" are the sentences that most caught my attention. First, it is interesting how the article still refers to America as United States when America is a continent. This terminology expresses the mistakes in the geopolitical terms. Then, I do not know if it is too late, but one should analyze that the globalization and humankind have changed. Therefore, it is hard to say that the United States has the same role as it had after the Second World War. Around the world, the US's model is characterized by uncertainty and instability. In Latin America, for instance, will be hard to implement policies like the big stick. Although it is a moment of opportunities, I do not think that is time for US instead is time for the emerged economies like Brazil, India, China. I would dare to say that it is time for the BRICS.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the term democracy sounds a rhetoric. It looks like an excuse to intervene in countries that do not apply this democracy system.
I am puzzled with this article. It is a paradox. United States promotes liberty, but at the same time want to intervene to "help" or "support" countries to improve its model as guardian angel. In my opinion, when you are planning how to "help" or "support" another countries to implement your own model, you are limited their liberty. Probably, I am wrong or we have different meaning of what liberty is.
I remember in class when we looks at the proposed cuts on military and how that would affect ours troops. If were to limit the amount of military spending cuts, I think it would help, but not to the point that we saw in class. I also found the "big bet" area of strengthening our bilateral relationship with China while "continuing to provide reassurances to allies and partners of U.S. staying power in the region," pretty interesting. Taking advantage of the new leadership in China and starting to eliminate the taking sides aspect, improve the U.S.-China relationship and therefore enhance our positioning in Asia and hopefully cause the rebalancing-strategy a long-term success.
ReplyDeleteAnyone that believes the US should be completely out of the US, should watch the 'Black Swan' segment of this clip. Lupe Fiasco and his anti-Obama/ anti-war tirade during the Inaugural Concert--Could certainly could use this wake-up call. If the Middle East falls victim to extremist, jihadist groups in the next 4 years, it could drastically affect the agendas of their overall government(s). The Muslim brotherhood currently rule over Egypt in many ways already. Sharia Law and sectarian governance are not the way to handle foreign relations, with so many other religions nearby.
ReplyDeleteMohamad Morsi's comments about Israel and their people are a warning sign of things to come if extremist Islamic ideologies overtake the Middle East. "Nearly three years ago, this leader of the Muslim Brotherhood delivered a speech urging Egyptians to “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” for Jews and Zionists. In a television interview months later, Morsi described Zionists as “these bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.”
If these Middle Eastern powers unite against Israel...the US will most certainly find themselves entangled in the conflict.
Anyone advocate for the complete removal of US troops from the Middle East must bear this in mind.
The economic quantitative reasoning behind a decision can always be analyzed. However, who can evaluate the risk of a decision, not taken?
I liked this article alot. It was very interesting to see Obamas keys to fixing the economy, put in this way. It lays it all out their on a global stage. I agree that we need to cut military spending while still maintaning a military prescence in the key areas around the globe.
ReplyDeleteI came across this video a while back and found it pretty fascinating -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY -- It's a time-lapse of every nuclear explosion from 1945-1998. In response to the New START treaty, I believe this discussion is something that we need to have. Nuclear arms control will aid in foreign relations (ostensibly) and cut defense costs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David. While I am not well versed in foreign relations, it does seem as though international nuclear arms treaties could go a long way in reducing the necessity for certain defense costs. In addition, improving foreign could increase the potential for trade.
ReplyDeleteI believe that foreign policy is very important and I agree with Joe's two points. Treaties can ease the pressure of over-spending on defense. Trade policies can also come as a result of treaties and lead to a potential economic growth.
ReplyDeleteThis article gave me a better understanding of what needs to be done and I think cutting military spending and focusing our efforts on foreign relations seem to be high on the list.
ReplyDelete