If the Neocons have showed one thing, its that they think long term. One of our hazards is that we have a very unsteady continuum from one administration to the next. The NeoCons attempt to bridge that by being present in the administrations that they can. The problem with that is that it can engender a climate of a back room polity that can nudge the elbows of those that have the reigns of power, if not actual control. The benefit is that we get some consistency of foreign policy.
Unless you were a major ally like the UK, one could find one administration willing to really help your nation with a problem and then after an election and a new president your efforts to deal with a local problem to your nation would leave you out in the cold as that next president left you high and dry and cut off aid, funding or some form of assistance. This Fickle nature has left things tricky when dealing with ally's and has given enemies hope that maybe the next president will be concerned with other issues and will stop bothering you.
The propensity for foreign governments to attempt to influence US elections leaves me quite worried at times. ANY funding of a US politician before or after an election should be what McCain and Feingold should be most concerned with.
The overall strategic thinking and goals as regards Iran are interesting and I'm certain quite deep, which is why in part I saw Syriana and had a response of, ok, nice story, where's the problem? You just portrayed reality and the way we deal with it is bad? It's realistic and it has to happen.
Iran is potentially a great ally in the region. The schism between Sunni and Shia is wide. If we can turn Iraq into a democratic nation ala Japan/Germany then we can shift focus to Iran, get them on the same path and once that's accomplished, we can finally knock the house of Saud out of power as sole controllers of the nation and move them towards a constitutional democracy (trappings of monarchy can be beneficial from a tradition standpoint, but only if there's a legislative body as well).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 04:20 pm (UTC)Unless you were a major ally like the UK, one could find one administration willing to really help your nation with a problem and then after an election and a new president your efforts to deal with a local problem to your nation would leave you out in the cold as that next president left you high and dry and cut off aid, funding or some form of assistance. This Fickle nature has left things tricky when dealing with ally's and has given enemies hope that maybe the next president will be concerned with other issues and will stop bothering you.
The propensity for foreign governments to attempt to influence US elections leaves me quite worried at times. ANY funding of a US politician before or after an election should be what McCain and Feingold should be most concerned with.
The overall strategic thinking and goals as regards Iran are interesting and I'm certain quite deep, which is why in part I saw Syriana and had a response of, ok, nice story, where's the problem? You just portrayed reality and the way we deal with it is bad? It's realistic and it has to happen.
Iran is potentially a great ally in the region. The schism between Sunni and Shia is wide. If we can turn Iraq into a democratic nation ala Japan/Germany then we can shift focus to Iran, get them on the same path and once that's accomplished, we can finally knock the house of Saud out of power as sole controllers of the nation and move them towards a constitutional democracy (trappings of monarchy can be beneficial from a tradition standpoint, but only if there's a legislative body as well).