I see this in the general context of a President who starts to feel the victim of groups of people that he believes he did "everything he could for", but are turning against him all the same. And I believe he is much more responsible for that polarization than he is willing to admit. He could have known that taking federal responsibility for health care would put a lot of I-can-take-care-of-myself America against it (and that is, after all, a very, very, very big part of the country), he could have known that not *immediately* acting upon the Snowden thing competently, prudently and aggressively would lead to months and months of conflict with his allies, he could have known that détente with Iran would have provoked annoyance with countries who have *legitimite* grievances with that country, etc.. He should have known, long story short, that his countless actions - most of which are very understandable - lead to REactions and in all his "Change" rhetoric, he seemed to have factored in the REaction part very poorly.

Does that explain it better?

I see. Well, I think I partially agree and partially didsagree. America has a long (if sporadic) tradition of not caring what the rest of the world thinks, and I have no problem with that. But it's also important that you actually be right, if you're going to do that -- that when somebody complains, you be able to say why you did what you did, that it was right, and then roll your eyes at their obduracy and move on.

The problem here, I think, is that we weren't actually right. You're right that this was cynical of us, but it was cynical of us to be engaging in such a policy in the first place. Do that, and there's not much you can accomplish at the point of responding that can make it un-cynical. So I agree that this is dangerous, but I think not quite for the same reasons as you.

Yes, I *think* so. Thank you.

Certainly I've come to similar thoughts on the domestic front. People can complain all they want about the behavior of the GOP in Congress, and there are definitely legitimate things to complain about, bitterly. But you're not going to win any awards for statesmanship for forcing through a bill that the country hates, which your own party's strongest state defected in order to try to stop, without a single vote from the opposing party, and then complaining for 3 years that they won't work with you.

"America has a long (if sporadic) tradition of not caring what the rest of the world thinks, and I have no problem with that."

America - in my opinion - has a long tradition of not caring what the rest of the world thinks and then finding the opinion of the world flat in their faces even if they don't want to when it's too late, finding that for people to buy Coca-Cola and leave American troops alone they need to have some kind of threshold of tolerance for the country that supplies them.

History is repeating itself.

"No, WWII is none of our problem. Excuse me, what? Pearl what? Airplanes?"

"The revolution in Iran doesn't interest me. Pardon me? Embassy? Students? Could you repeat that?"

+1 for the use of the word obduracy I love that.

Yes, those things have happened. But let's not pretend that it's all been lilies and sweet tea for the countries that do worry about what the rest of the world thinks, either. It's a rough world, and you probably end up with mistakes sometimes.

I don't deny we've made mistakes and suffered for it. A lot of those go back to my point that if you're not going to care what other people think, you'd better be doing the right thing.

"But let's not pretend that it's all been lilies and sweet tea for the countries that do worry about what the rest of the world thinks, either. It's a rough world, and you probably end up with mistakes sometimes."

Absolutely semck, there's absolutely no discussion on this point.

This is why I say about the Kerry thing: rely on good old-fashioned careful and quiet diplomacy, with the "gentleness", "empathy", "forms" etc. that come with it, because even if these concepts seem outdated, I believe if he'd put them front and center in this affair he could have saved a lot of damage that is now done to US-French relations (that will of course, with time, be all nice and dandy).

Certainly. There is no point making somebody angrier than need be over mere laziness. One thing I do think you're completely right about is that this administration has been surprisingly deaf to the fact that countries do have feelings, The feelings of many of their people will be as affected by how they perceive the US* treating their ministers in the niceties as by what might strike a wonk as far more substantive issues.

*Especially the US, perhaps.

Absolutely. Unfortunately for you, this kind of scrutiny falls on democratic superpowers. As Lord John Marbury puts it in "The West Wing": it's the price you pay for being rich, free and alive all at the same time.

To quote President Eden
http://operachic.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c83e69e2017d3cdfb82b970c-popup

:-)

"it's the price you pay for being rich, free and alive all at the same time."

It's cool, at most two of those will last.

And this brings me back to the "wake up" comment: this temporary "fatigue" of the US toward the world will backfire one day. At a moment that it is least convenient. Kissinger writes about the consequences of the US not supporting the UK and France on the Suez conflict (I think they avenge themselves in a very annoying way for that in the 70s during Kissinger's Year of Europe if I'm not mistaken): it will be just like that. You can't spy on your allies and walk away like it's business as usual. You Americans can't recuse yourself. Ever. Sorry.

http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/3609721/telefoon-merkel-afgeluisterd-vs.html

Ow my! A sneer from Kerry to the Germans to "explain" what happened here, perhaps?

Let me write a letter to Obama

"The Audaciousness of Hope (for an Apology)"

So the Europeans are saying the US should have supported the colonial powers in Egypt in '56? Because that would have turned out wonderfully for us how?

What did we get for backing the French in Indochina? Or the Portuguese in Goa?

Europeans are good at dragging America into their messes only to bitch at us about it afterwards.

"For all the pain it caused, the Suez crisis had marked America's ascension into world leadership. With a sigh of relief, American used the occasion of Suez to cut itself loose from allies it had always held accountable for the blight of Realpolitik and for their flawed devotion to the balance of power. But, life being what it is, America would not be permitted to remain pristine. Suez turned out to be America's initiation into the realities of global power, one of the lessons of which is that vacuums always get filled and the that the principal issue is not whether, but by whom.

(p. 548) (...)

America's attempt to dissociate from Europe had landed it in the position of having to assume by itself the burden of protecting every free (that is, noncommunist) nation in every region of the globe. Though during the Suez crisis America was still attempting to deal with the ambiguities of equilibrium in the developing world via the United Nations, within two years American forces would be landing in Lebanon in pursuit of the Eisenhower doctrine. A decade later, America would be grappling with it all alone in Vietnam, most of its allies having dissociated from it by invoking many an argument from the days of Suez as scripted by America itself

(p 549)"

Henry Kissinger in "Diplomacy", 1994, Simon & Schuster, NYC NY US.

*America, not American. I typed it over from my paper version.

"You Americans can't recuse yourself. Ever."

Alright, I'll personally stop spying on Europe, because I've totally been doing that.

Why are you bitching to webDip instead of to the people who are _actually spying_?

Because your leaders should hear it from their own people.

>implying Americans aren't pissed about the NSA already
>implying American politicians give a shit whether Americans _or_ Europeans don't like the NSA

Kissinger is an odd duck. I wonder if he would have had the flexibility to bomb neutral Cambodia to bits if he had to mollify more European participants in the process of warfighting. And citing Kissinger and realpolitik while objecting to secrecy and spying on allies is pretty priceless.

Pissing off Europe had nothing to do with America having to support colonized puppet states around the world against the Soviet Union due to French and British withdrawal. It had everything to do with the burdens of empire being too great for the French and British to handle. America didn't protect every non-communist nation, plenty of non-communist nations, like India, didn't want US "protection". Even friendly non-communist countries like Indonesia would have preferred policing their environs themselves rather than depend on the US.

"implying Americans aren't pissed about the NSA already"
America gets to spy, I'm not complaining about that.

"And citing Kissinger and realpolitik while objecting to secrecy and spying on allies is pretty priceless."
Again, America gets to be secretive and spy, I'm not complaining about that. Or well, it's not my central complaint. semck are you there?

You're not getting my complaint. Me sad.

Red is ticked that when caught, we don't fess up and spill all the beans. Tough shit. We don't have to. Want to send you rpuny army over and try to make us? Be my guest. The entherlands will become the 51st state in short order.

I'm ticked that when you get caught, you act like you're not a friend to begin with.

There's a gracious way of going about not being gracious.

American-Dutch trade, adding imports and exports together, amounted to 67 billion dollars in 2012. It's an interesting partnership.

Which means what? Unless we have a serious trade deficit with you or you are helping counter our trade deficit with others, our trade with you means little. And 67 billin in trade isn't even a blip on the radar screen.

One of the unfortunate things about America is that it is unaware of its own limitations. Although it is clear Draug is joking about making the Netherlands the 51st state, you can't help but feel he genuinely believes the US could do it if it really wanted to :p.

No, you don't have to fess up and spill all the beans. But for the sake of not doing so you lose a lot of valuable good will and gain virtually nothing. It is a chump play. You've been chumps quite a lot recently.

Well, maybe we are tired of being world police and being the butt of the joke even when we try peace overtures so are ready to flip the rest of the world the bird and say "Fuck off dimwitted socialists and communist!"

Redhouse has delusions of grandeur.

What are America's limitations Octavious since you are an expert on the subject?

Little Englanders lecturing America about being nice and polite to Europe, and to the world in general. Now I've seen it all.