How has the United States displayed strategic narcissism in foreign policy?
Responses
aaron.smith_434517
One example I can think of is the Afghanistan withdrawal, thinking that exiting the country would be a win for America in ending the war without giving any real thought to the consequences.
Other examples have been our inability to counter Russia and China on the world stage, it seems like China especially has a lot of momentum whereas the US is debating issues that have nothing to do with our standing in the world.
Posted
Mar 14, 2022
cbarnard_433804
The entire Afghanistan war seems to be an example of defining problems as we would like them to be instead of the way they are and in only in relation to ourselves. I understand it was a very complicated situation but after driving the Taliban from power it seemed our mission changed and we believed we could encourage an ancient culture to change and be able to govern themselves in a way we believed they should. We still seemed to be thinking we did it in Japan after World War II, we did it in South Korea we can do it here. At least it seems that way on the surface.
Posted
Mar 14, 2022
I81pi_434539
I'd elect the "strategic narcissism" which was on full display in the United States after the Soviet Union collapsed. Numerous "serious" TV chat shows, such as Charlie Rose, went on at great length about how American companies could capitalize on this collapse and how Russia was just a tad away from becoming a democracy. I recall thinking how arrogant and ignorant all of these "great minds" were. All of this wishful chatter, the result of wishful thinking, was sooner or later going to come to nothing but disappointment. Embarrassing to listen to the "expert" ignorami displaying their ignorance of history. You can see where that got us.
Posted
Mar 14, 2022
Pringencon12
The most stark example I can think of is our belief that dictators like Putin and the CCP would organically defer to our system of capitalism and freedom of citizens just because we thought it was clear that we had the superior system. The irony is that Canada’s Trudeau has bought into Klaus Schwab’s WEF/ NWO concepts that people are to be subjugated and forced to follow what elites tell them to do. The great system that we have has morphed into a mutation of capitalism and communism. A prime example of this is the Covid scam that the US govt has used to institute communistic style tyranny. Without going too out far on a tangent…. Our system was assumed by our leadership of the past, like Reagan, ( who actually had a shred of integrity) to be omnipotent just because it liberated its citizens to be productive and self reliant. We failed so badly that our current Govt is bought and paid for by the CCP.
Posted
Mar 15, 2022
Pringencon12
The most stark example I can think of is our belief that dictators like Putin and the CCP would organically defer to our system of capitalism and freedom of citizens just because we thought it was clear that we had the superior system. The irony is that Canada’s Trudeau has bought into Klaus Schwab’s WEF/ NWO concepts that people are to be subjugated and forced to follow what elites tell them to do. The great system that we have has morphed into a mutation of capitalism and communism. A prime example of this is the Covid scam that the US govt has used to institute communistic style tyranny. Without going too out far on a tangent…. Our system was assumed by our leadership of the past, like Reagan, ( who actually had a shred of integrity) to be omnipotent just because it liberated its citizens to be productive and self reliant. We failed so badly that our current Govt is bought and paid for by the CCP.
Posted
Mar 15, 2022
melken_435142
To me the most errant demeanor causing oversight of the realities that make things work is the way this country over played the benefits from letting China (in particular) dominate the market place. Though I believe that those in power in our government soon noticed that that China was taking all the profit it could get for building a military which now is a serious threat to ours. We ignored the actual disparities that the people and environment was put under for the sake of those profiting from the trade off of imports from them. There was a banker that became a Congressman that suggested early on that we have a tariff on things made in conditions that our law would deem as illegal. Low wages, unsafe environments, and other basic living standards and legal rights our country's laws demand exist. Frankly, I'd add another potential in that "conversation" that would have the funds acquired by the tariff put in a bank and used to help the governments of such entities to retroactively address such concerns. The means of execution need not completely match ours. Though the results should improve (even past matters) and so be supported for doing so.
Posted
Nov 19, 2022
mvillant_435354
One of the most telling examples of strategic narcissism was the War in Iraq. The military objectives for the war were not conducive to the policy objectives. Further, the decision to commit troops and go to war, was done of the basis that diplomacy had failed and thus a coalition of the willing would commit to the war. Further, the U.S.'s intent for the war was based off a U.S. centric narrative. Now looking back, the invasions further destabilized the country and the Middle East region; which continues to present a national security threat today.
Posted
Jan 23, 2023
OutlawX
The United States has exhibited such behavior in its foreign policy in several ways:
Unilateralism: The United States has often pursued its foreign policy objectives unilaterally, without consulting or considering the views of other countries. For example, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was made without the support of many key allies, leading to significant diplomatic fallout.
Exceptionalism: The United States has long viewed itself as an exceptional nation with a unique role to play in the world, often using this as a justification for its actions. This has led to a perception among some countries that the United States believes it is above international norms and standards.
Interventionism: The United States has a history of intervening in the affairs of other countries to advance its own interests, often without regard for the consequences or the wishes of the people affected. This has led to resentment and hostility in many parts of the world.
Ignoring cultural differences: The United States has sometimes failed to take into account the cultural differences and sensitivities of other nations, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. For example, the use of military force or aggressive rhetoric may be perceived very differently in different parts of the world.
Posted
Mar 14, 2023
jonathan.elliottsmith_436110
It seems like whether hubris or not, it's been a response to a unique event at least insofar as US culture (i.e., 09/11) which resulted in a combination of wishful/magical thinking in the form of conflating hoped for objectives with an expectation that it was a foregone conclusion those objectives could be achieved primarily via force or the threat of force. Keeping in mind that at least as far as the populace is concerned, around 09/11 we are mostly stumbling around in the dark insofar as knowledge about the middle east and centuries old middle eastern grudges/conflicts.
However, if you want a more specific case of what I'd at least be calling atrocious stewardship of American taxpayer resources at a minimum, it would be leaving upwards of $50 Billion dollars of military assets in Afghanistan, when the US was ordered to flee Afghanistan like the place was about to freeze over, not to mention the intelligence operators and locals who helped us with translation services and the like to face retribution after the US military was ordered to flee by the current administration. -- I hesitate to assert malice or a lack of character, when incompetence and/or ignorance regarding a specific area, may been the overarching constraint.
The reason being is something I have called the fundamental critical thinking error. In a nutshell, it involves seeing our own mishaps and failures as primarily being driven by the context and the environment, but the mishaps and errors of others as coming to pass due to a lapse of character. Evidently it occurs frequently enough that it is referred to as fundamental. Of course, sometimes poor character does fall into play, or a combination of both too.
Posted
Aug 15, 2024
jonathan.elliottsmith_436110
Sorry, that should have been "heard called" the fundamental critical thinking error, or at least something very close to that. -- It's not a phrase I've coined. I heard it from a clinical psychologist online on his PsycHacks YouTube channel.
Responses
One example I can think of is the Afghanistan withdrawal, thinking that exiting the country would be a win for America in ending the war without giving any real thought to the consequences.
Other examples have been our inability to counter Russia and China on the world stage, it seems like China especially has a lot of momentum whereas the US is debating issues that have nothing to do with our standing in the world.
The entire Afghanistan war seems to be an example of defining problems as we would like them to be instead of the way they are and in only in relation to ourselves. I understand it was a very complicated situation but after driving the Taliban from power it seemed our mission changed and we believed we could encourage an ancient culture to change and be able to govern themselves in a way we believed they should. We still seemed to be thinking we did it in Japan after World War II, we did it in South Korea we can do it here. At least it seems that way on the surface.
I'd elect the "strategic narcissism" which was on full display in the United States after the Soviet Union collapsed. Numerous "serious" TV chat shows, such as Charlie Rose, went on at great length about how American companies could capitalize on this collapse and how Russia was just a tad away from becoming a democracy. I recall thinking how arrogant and ignorant all of these "great minds" were. All of this wishful chatter, the result of wishful thinking, was sooner or later going to come to nothing but disappointment. Embarrassing to listen to the "expert" ignorami displaying their ignorance of history. You can see where that got us.
The most stark example I can think of is our belief that dictators like Putin and the CCP would organically defer to our system of capitalism and freedom of citizens just because we thought it was clear that we had the superior system. The irony is that Canada’s Trudeau has bought into Klaus Schwab’s WEF/ NWO concepts that people are to be subjugated and forced to follow what elites tell them to do. The great system that we have has morphed into a mutation of capitalism and communism. A prime example of this is the Covid scam that the US govt has used to institute communistic style tyranny. Without going too out far on a tangent…. Our system was assumed by our leadership of the past, like Reagan, ( who actually had a shred of integrity) to be omnipotent just because it liberated its citizens to be productive and self reliant. We failed so badly that our current Govt is bought and paid for by the CCP.
The most stark example I can think of is our belief that dictators like Putin and the CCP would organically defer to our system of capitalism and freedom of citizens just because we thought it was clear that we had the superior system. The irony is that Canada’s Trudeau has bought into Klaus Schwab’s WEF/ NWO concepts that people are to be subjugated and forced to follow what elites tell them to do. The great system that we have has morphed into a mutation of capitalism and communism. A prime example of this is the Covid scam that the US govt has used to institute communistic style tyranny. Without going too out far on a tangent…. Our system was assumed by our leadership of the past, like Reagan, ( who actually had a shred of integrity) to be omnipotent just because it liberated its citizens to be productive and self reliant. We failed so badly that our current Govt is bought and paid for by the CCP.
To me the most errant demeanor causing oversight of the realities that make things work is the way this country over played the benefits from letting China (in particular) dominate the market place. Though I believe that those in power in our government soon noticed that that China was taking all the profit it could get for building a military which now is a serious threat to ours. We ignored the actual disparities that the people and environment was put under for the sake of those profiting from the trade off of imports from them. There was a banker that became a Congressman that suggested early on that we have a tariff on things made in conditions that our law would deem as illegal. Low wages, unsafe environments, and other basic living standards and legal rights our country's laws demand exist. Frankly, I'd add another potential in that "conversation" that would have the funds acquired by the tariff put in a bank and used to help the governments of such entities to retroactively address such concerns. The means of execution need not completely match ours. Though the results should improve (even past matters) and so be supported for doing so.
One of the most telling examples of strategic narcissism was the War in Iraq. The military objectives for the war were not conducive to the policy objectives. Further, the decision to commit troops and go to war, was done of the basis that diplomacy had failed and thus a coalition of the willing would commit to the war. Further, the U.S.'s intent for the war was based off a U.S. centric narrative. Now looking back, the invasions further destabilized the country and the Middle East region; which continues to present a national security threat today.
The United States has exhibited such behavior in its foreign policy in several ways:
Unilateralism: The United States has often pursued its foreign policy objectives unilaterally, without consulting or considering the views of other countries. For example, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was made without the support of many key allies, leading to significant diplomatic fallout.
Exceptionalism: The United States has long viewed itself as an exceptional nation with a unique role to play in the world, often using this as a justification for its actions. This has led to a perception among some countries that the United States believes it is above international norms and standards.
Interventionism: The United States has a history of intervening in the affairs of other countries to advance its own interests, often without regard for the consequences or the wishes of the people affected. This has led to resentment and hostility in many parts of the world.
Ignoring cultural differences: The United States has sometimes failed to take into account the cultural differences and sensitivities of other nations, leading to misunderstandings and miscommunications. For example, the use of military force or aggressive rhetoric may be perceived very differently in different parts of the world.
It seems like whether hubris or not, it's been a response to a unique event at least insofar as US culture (i.e., 09/11) which resulted in a combination of wishful/magical thinking in the form of conflating hoped for objectives with an expectation that it was a foregone conclusion those objectives could be achieved primarily via force or the threat of force. Keeping in mind that at least as far as the populace is concerned, around 09/11 we are mostly stumbling around in the dark insofar as knowledge about the middle east and centuries old middle eastern grudges/conflicts.
However, if you want a more specific case of what I'd at least be calling atrocious stewardship of American taxpayer resources at a minimum, it would be leaving upwards of $50 Billion dollars of military assets in Afghanistan, when the US was ordered to flee Afghanistan like the place was about to freeze over, not to mention the intelligence operators and locals who helped us with translation services and the like to face retribution after the US military was ordered to flee by the current administration. -- I hesitate to assert malice or a lack of character, when incompetence and/or ignorance regarding a specific area, may been the overarching constraint.
The reason being is something I have called the fundamental critical thinking error. In a nutshell, it involves seeing our own mishaps and failures as primarily being driven by the context and the environment, but the mishaps and errors of others as coming to pass due to a lapse of character. Evidently it occurs frequently enough that it is referred to as fundamental. Of course, sometimes poor character does fall into play, or a combination of both too.
Sorry, that should have been "heard called" the fundamental critical thinking error, or at least something very close to that. -- It's not a phrase I've coined. I heard it from a clinical psychologist online on his PsycHacks YouTube channel.