When America was intelligent in foreign policy

[Patrick Degan]

Recently, I've been reading several tomes in naval history, research for a project of mine. One book I've just finished was Fletcher Pratt's Preble's Boys; the story of the officers who shaped the early U.S. Navy through the first four wars fought by the then-fledgling republic. While ploughing through one of the later chapters, I came across a most fascinating account of how the United States once creatively settled its foreign problems. It is an instructive tale which says much of how we have changed as a nation in nearly two centuries.

In 1833, Commodore Daniel Patterson was appointed to command the Mediterranean Squadron and charged by President Andrew Jackson to collect monies owed as an indemnity to the U.S. by the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies —resulting from depredations suffered by American citizens during the Napoleonic Wars. Negotiation had finally yielded the concession from Sicily's ruling tyrant, Ferdinando II, that the claim was just along with a pledge in 1832 to settle and a show of good faith in the form of a token payment. But the next year Ferdinando announced he would not turn over another cent. Force could not be employed as a first resort because Sicily would most likely receive diplomatic support from France and Spain and American hostility would have provided a perfect pretext for the Neapolitans to abrogate the earlier agreement in toto. So Commodore Patterson devised a rather creative approach to the problem; one that would have done Sun-Tzu proud.

It was May 7 1834 when the 52-gun frigate USS Brandywine sailed into Napoli harbour and anchored. The ship's acting captain, Master-Commandant Matthew C. Perry, went ashore, sought an audience at the royal palace, and presented the claim for the indemnity owed to America. Perry was rebuffed, but he took the rebuff amiably, graciously bowed, and took his leave. However, not only didn't the Brandywine set sail, four days later a second 52-gun frigate, the United States, entered the harbour and anchored right behind the Brandywine. Again, Capt. Perry went ashore, requested Sicily's payment, and was again rebuffed. Again, Capt. Perry graciously withdrew, and invited the court chamberlain to dinner that evening aboard the Brandywine. Arriving for his dinner date, the chamberlain couldn't help noticing as he was being ushered to the captain's cabin that the frigate's decks were cleared for action. Capt. Perry played the ideal host at dinner.

Another four days passed before a third ship arrived —this being the 26-gun sloop-of-war Concorde which anchored in line with the frigates. Once again, Capt. Perry presented his request for Sicily's indemnity, was again refused, and again courteously withdrew. To and from the palace, Perry's escort pointed out the harbour fort, where new guns were being mounted, but Perry appeared to take no special notice of these preparations.

Two days later, another 26-gun sloop-of-war, the John Adams, sailed in to the harbour and took her place in the line of warships at anchor. Perry made his trip to the palace to request Sicily's indemnity payment only to again be refused and to again withdraw courteously. The next day after that, a third sloop, the Boston, sailed in and took her place at anchor in the line. Once more, Perry made his trip ashore, made his request at the palace, took the refusal and withdrew amiably.

The next day after that, Commodore Patterson himself pulled in with the line-battleship Independence; mounting 86 guns and bringing the total firepower of the American force to 268 guns. Capt. Perry went ashore once more, and presented the request that the Neapolitans pay the indemnity owed to America.

When the squadron weighed anchor and sailed from Naples, it was with the money safely locked up in Commodore Patterson's cabin aboard the Independence. Through the whole incident, Perry never once voiced a threat against Naples and showed nothing less than perfect diplomatic courtesy in all his dealings with the intrangisent tyrant and his courtiers. Sicily paid $2 million and not a shot was fired nor an angry word uttered.

So how is it that we have degenerated from this sort of intelligent dealing in foreign policy which was once the hallmark of the American character to the mindlessly brutal, Soviet-style thuggery which is the trademark of this present-day maladministration?

[Darth Wong]

If I had to crystallize the problems with modern American foreign policy into a single thought, it would be overconfidence. After all, the example you give is one of prudence, which is sadly lacking in American foreign policy nowadays. And prudence, of course, happens to be the opposite of overconfidence.

American foreign policy directives reek of overconfidence. They assume that their plans will work as advertised, with no real fallback position. They feel no need to build international consensus because their attitude is simply that with the world's most powerful military, they don't need consensus. They even expected the people of Iraq to follow plans and schedules drawn up in Washington DC, and to be happy doing it. The dust is barely settled from the Taliban's collapse in Afghanistan before they assume that the job is done and they can go waltzing off to the next target.

What they need is humility. Bush mentions it often, but when Bush speaks of humility, he speaks of humility before his personal God, and only before his personal God. To his fellow Man, he displays only arrogance.

[MKSheppard]

American foreign policy directives reek of overconfidence. They assume that their plans will work as advertised, with no real fallback position.

Well, that does fit right in with the American managerial practice of chaos
theory. We rarely think things through, just jump right in and somehow
muddle our way through to the end

[MKSheppard]

They feel no need to build international consensus because their attitude is simply that with the world's most powerful military, they don't need consensus.

That comes from the hard fact that noone ever wants to do anything
internationally unless the Americans are there to bail their ass out
of the fire. Europe could have stopped 1 shitload of bloodletting in
Yugoslavia and the Balkans, but sat on their ass until the big bad americans
said, Ok OK we'll help.

[Darth Wong]

They feel no need to build international consensus because their attitude is simply that with the world's most powerful military, they don't need consensus.

That comes from the hard fact that noone ever wants to do anything internationally unless the Americans are there to bail their ass out of the fire. Europe could have stopped 1 shitload of bloodletting in Yugoslavia and the Balkans, but sat on their ass until the big bad americans said, Ok OK we'll help.

So ... because the rest of the UN will not act without your participation, you should act without their participation? I'm sorry, but I don't see how that follows.

[Montcalm]

I would add its also Arrogance from the part of the American government,their attitude US is the strongest and all that crap,GWB and some of his predecessors had the profile of the school bullies.

[MKSheppard]

So ... because the rest of the UN will not act without your participation, you should act without their participation? I'm sorry, but I don't see how that follows.

The UN is just a country club for dictators. Let's not forget how Kofi Annan's
family was profiting majorly from that Iraq Oil For Food Deal. I mean shit, the last time anything really memorable happened in the UN was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, what with us bitchslapping the Commies around in
front of the entire world.

[MKSheppard]

I'd consider the G-8 Summits to be far more impoerant
than the UN nowadays. Those countries are the real leaders
of the world, not 1 shitload of tinpot dictators from Africa's
envoys tying up parking spaces in NYC and refusing to pay
their parking tickets.

[Darth Wong]

So ... because the rest of the UN will not act without your participation, you should act without their participation? I'm sorry, but I don't see how that follows.

The UN is just a country club for dictators. Let's not forget how Kofi Annan's family was profiting majorly from that Iraq Oil For Food Deal. I mean shit, the last time anything really memorable happened in the UN was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, what with us bitchslapping the Commies around in front of the entire world.

I still don't see how these facts logically lead to US unilateralism. Are you suggesting that the UN is useless? Even if it is, the fact remains that its participation would dampen the concerns of American imperialism, and the perception of American imperialism is undeniably a major impediment to the success of the Iraq invasion in achieving its long-term objectives.

This is a bit like saying that if the voters are stupid or immoral, you can ignore them. There is a principle here (ie- democracy) which is supposedly being "spread" by this invasion and which is ironically being ignored at its outset.

[Darth Wong]

I'd consider the G-8 Summits to be far more impoerant than the UN nowadays.

You have a point, but I didn't see much evidence that the G-8 was solidly behind this invasion either.

[MKSheppard]

Even if it is, the fact remains that its participation would dampen the concerns of American imperialism, and the perception of American imperialism is undeniably a major impediment to the success of the Iraq invasion in achieving its long-term objectives.

Imperialism how? I mean, could you clarify how exactly we're being
imperalists? By the fact that we're running Iraq for the time being? (of
course, we did blow the shit out of the former government and we're
putting pieces back together still).

The worst the world has to fear from American impoeralism is being
buried under a mountain of Coca-Cola cans or dying in the Pepsi wars.

[Darth Wong]

Even if it is, the fact remains that its participation would dampen the concerns of American imperialism, and the perception of American imperialism is undeniably a major impediment to the success of the Iraq invasion in achieving its long-term objectives.

Imperialism how? I mean, could you clarify how exactly we're being imperalists? By the fact that we're running Iraq for the time being? (of course, we did blow the shit out of the former government and we're putting pieces back together still).

The worst the world has to fear from American impoeralism is being buried under a mountain of Coca-Cola cans or dying in the Pepsi wars.

I said "PERCEPTION of American imperialism", Shep. It looks imperialist because you're basically controlling the country and not letting others (including the Iraqis themselves) have much of a say in what's happening. If the UN were in charge, it wouldn't look that way.

[MKSheppard]

If the UN were in charge, it wouldn't look that way.

Yeah, Half the money would be going to line Kofi's family pockets, the
other 40% would be going to various bribes in Iraq, and the last ten
percent would be actually spent.

[Darth Wong]

If the UN were in charge, it wouldn't look that way.

Yeah, Half the money would be going to line Kofi's family pockets, the other 40% would be going to various bribes in Iraq, and the last ten percent would be actually spent.

Shep, you can angrily attack the UN and knee-jerk defend everything the US does until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that virtually everyone outside the US disagrees with your foreign policy, and the rosy outcomes that the Bush Administration hoped to use as proof of their wisdom do not appear to be forthcoming.

[MKSheppard]

Seriously, rebuilding Iraq is going to take five years at least. We have to issue
contracts, get bids, then lay out the specificiations, order the equipment,
and then install it, which takes time....I'm working down in the Alexandria
wastewater treatment facility's major expansion program, and it's
simply huuuuuuge...There's so much crap on there that has to be put in,
tightened, welded, etc.....we're still a year away from finishing that job.

[MKSheppard]

Shep, you can angrily attack the UN

It isn't an attack if the head boss of the UN's family was making a lot
of nice cash from those Iraqi Oil Contracts, and said head boss was
strenuously objecting to the war, trying to stall it as much as possible.....

You know, I'd call that a nice conflict of interest

[MKSheppard]

Secondly, the UN does not exactly have a stellar track record of
peacekeeping and reconstruction. The last real reconstructions that
worked in the last century or so were effectively imperalaist reconstructions
that ran along the lines of what we're doing in Iraq now.

[Darth Wong]

Shep, you're still doing it. Blast the UN all you like, but if you think this somehow proves that US policy on Iraq was well-conceived, you're kidding yourself.

[MKSheppard]

Shep, you're still doing it. Blast the UN all you like, but if you think this somehow proves that US policy on Iraq was well-conceived, you're kidding yourself.

It's too late, and we don't have working time machines, so who gives a damn if it was ill concieved or what. What matters now is doing the job right and
making a long term committment to stick around no matter the cost so
that we can finally bitchslap the rest of the fundie states in the Middle east
around......they're afraid of an actual Arab democracy, and with good reason.

[Darth Wong]

It's too late, and we don't have working time machines, so who gives a damn if it was ill concieved or what.

Since that was the subject of this thread, I would say that you should give a damn, unless you're basically admitting that you were trying to hijack the thread.

What matters now is doing the job right and making a long term committment to stick around no matter the cost so that we can finally bitchslap the rest of the fundie states in the Middle east around......they're afraid of an actual Arab democracy, and with good reason.

I'll let you in on a little secret about democracy, Shep: it's only as good as the voters. Contemplate that fact.

[MKSheppard]

I'll let you in on a little secret about democracy, Shep: it's only as good as the voters. Contemplate that fact.

I will; when Bush wins Re-Election.

Seriously, all the tyrants are scared pissless of this, Syria and Iran are
sending their own operatives into Iraq to help destabilize it; they have
status quos to preserve; they were all happy with Saddam in power;
and they don't want their people to be getting those strange ideas
from those whacky Iraqis.

[MKSheppard]

I just thought this up; Iraq must be special forces / spook central right now,
everyone's running around like the good old days of MACV/SOG, doing
black bag jobs, etc.

[Darth Wong]

I'll let you in on a little secret about democracy, Shep: it's only as good as the voters. Contemplate that fact.

I will; when Bush wins Re-Election.

Seriously, all the tyrants are scared pissless of this, Syria and Iran are sending their own operatives into Iraq to help destabilize it; they have status quos to preserve; they were all happy with Saddam in power; and they don't want their people to be getting those strange ideas from those whacky Iraqis.

Strange ideas like "I'm beginning to really hate Americans?" No, those ideas are already quite familiar to the people in Syria and Iran.

[Montcalm]

I'll let you in on a little secret about democracy, Shep: it's only as good as the voters. Contemplate that fact.

I will; when Bush wins Re-Election.

If that happen the world will be doomed,Bush is deffinitly not the right choice for US presidency,he's nothing more than an asshole who wants the world oil.

[Meest]

It isn't an attack if the head boss of the UN's family was making a lot of nice cash from those Iraqi Oil Contracts, and said head boss was strenuously objecting to the war, trying to stall it as much as possible.....

You know, I'd call that a nice conflict of interest

Yet when the exact same can be said of Cheney/Bush and their cronies making billions at the same time? Conflicting isn't it. Hold the same standards you place on the UN as the US then talk about conflict of interest.