What do you think of this foreign policy?

Question

I've seen these as suggested alternatives to Bush's foreign policy. What do you think of each idea?

1. Set up negotiations with Israel and other middle easy countries so they can sign some peace agreements. Work hard at creating diplomacy between Israel and their enemies.
2. Threaten countries that defy UN inspectors (like Iraq did) and give resistance. If necessary, bomb strategic military targets, but don't start a war.
3. Make an agreement with N. Korea to stop weapons programs in exchange give them light-water nuclear plants that can't be used for weapons. Also use sanctions and aid to control them.
4. Create a special unit within the anti-terrorism forces to specifically go after Bin Laden and his allies. Their sole purpose would be to track Bin Laden's intentions to stop more terror plots.

Answer 1

We have done 1, 2, and 3 in the past. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and being surprised when you get the same results. 4 is too narrow in focus. OBL is not running things any more.

How about this for policy. Any country caught developing nuclear tech for weapons will be delivered of a half dozen hydrogen bombs free gratis. They will target all nuclear sites in that country.

Answer 2

1. They can sign all the peace agreements they want. The problem is that people won't stop killing each-other. A piece of paper loses against 5 kilos of Semtex every time.

2. "Bomb strategic military targets" doesn't work in the same sentence as "but don't start a war".

3. Clinton made an agreement like that. The North Koreans took the aid and went on developing nukes anyway. The Chinese are the ones who need to put pressure on N Korea. The Chinese are N. Korea's lifeline.

4. There are special units hunting for bin-laden and trying to stop terror plots. There are special units within special units.

Answer 3

Many of the proposals you are making are already being proposed in negotiations, both in terms of Israel and North Korea.

I do believe pre-emptive military force of any type should be limited to threats to the American state itself. It would be difficult to justify targeted military strikes, heck even the US isn't in favour of them, and Iran has constantly opposed UN inspectors.

I'd like to see a streamlined approach to foreign policy based on fundamental human rights, which is an intrinsic part of American and western culture as a whole, but unfortunately, economic interests always trump human rights these days.

Answer 4

Might work but I'm a cynical person. I think aggressive foreign policy works with doing things that might defy the U.N.'s rules and as longs the outcome benefits us. I like your plan.