כותרות TheMarker >>
    page id : 9

    ברוכים הבאים לרשת החברתית TheMarker Café

    כדי להגיב לתכנים המופיעים באתר או לפתוח בו עמוד אישי, נבקש ממך לעבור תהליך הרשמה קצר.

    ההצטרפות לאתר תחבר אותך לעשרות אלפי חברים שגולשים בו מדי יום. לאחר תהליך הרשמה קצר, ניתן להזמין לאתר חברים שלך ולפגוש אנשים חדשים מכל הארץ, בכל הגילאים ומכל תחומי העיסוק.

    אנחנו מזמינים אותך להקים דף אישי ברשת האינטרנט. בדף זה ניתן לספר על עצמך, לכתוב בלוג (יומן רשת) ולהוסיף תמונות וסרטי וידאו. זו הדרך לבטא את עצמך, לקדם רעיונות עסקיים או חברתי

    Rosner's Domain

    www.rosnersdomain.com

    חדשות ודעות מוושינגטון: על פוליטיקה, מדיניות חוץ, ישראל ויהדות ארה\"ב

    מה לקרוא, 5 בנובמבר (אנגלית)

    1 תגובות   יום שני, 5/11/07, 16:16
    America, the closer

    Here is an idea by Justine A. Rosenthal, the executive editor of The National Interest:

    "regional powers certainly have no incentive to solve pressing problems in their own neighborhoods if they believe that the United States will assume the onus for them. If we can buck-pass, why not? Take Russia: Moscow now has the ability to shut down supply lines and blackmail countries in its sphere of influence. Yet this recently reinvigorated state is more likely to be a European problem than an American one for some time to come. It is Europe's gas supplies that Russia controls, not America's. So perhaps we needn't strain our relationship with the Kremlin further by dealing with a continental concern - even if the Georgians keep calling us for help. And Europeans and Japanese still expect the United States to keep the Persian Gulf open for their oil exports. This means sailable sea lanes, pumping pipelines and regime stability, tyrannical or not. On every key issue in the Middle East, from the Israeli-Palestinian impasse to the Iranian nuclear program, the United States is expected to play the leading role. Principal regional actors - Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - those who would be most negatively affected by an Iraqi disaster still want America to be commander-in-chief. And to be the scapegoat if efforts fail.

    The United States need not be the world's teat, particularly when there's so much resentment of our efforts. We've made the mistake of thinking that our unipolar moment is best secured by aggression on the world stage. Falling victim to the "Myths of Empire", the United States is in a moment of overexpansion, believing we have limitless resources to expend and that the more we take on, the more we will be needed by others and the more the rest of the world will buy into the American paradigm.

    a return to the primary American strategy as "the closer" may serve us best. In that position we are both the least threatening and the strongest. U.S. moments of pre-eminence may be best served by holding back, being needed, picking our moment and then making the game-winning play."

    The unfriendly American border

    Andrew Sullivan is right (and for him its much easier, I guess, than it is for someone coming from the Mideast):

    "While the illegal border is still chaotic, the legal border seems to be getting more and more onerous, unwelcoming, bureaucratic and sometimes terrifying. Getting any kind of visa can be a nightmare of bureaucracy; being finger-printed and treated like a criminal is the first actual experience many foreigners have of entering the US, and the process of getting through customs and immigration can be, even in completely incident-free circumstances, frightening. My elderly mother arrived for my wedding and started sobbing in my arms after the rough treatment she had received from airport security. The reputation of the US under Bush is in the toilet. But the experience of actually entering America may be affecting far more. These little anecdotes spread. And, in the end, Americans pay the price - in lost tourism revenue, less trade, forgone taxes, and so on. When Bush goes, the country's reputation will instantly soar (unless he's succeeded by Giuliani, in which case, we're headed for pariah status). But unless we get a grip on the police state atmosphere at the legal border, the opinion of mankind with respect to America will only continue to worsen".

    The PKK and Turkish expectations

    Resolving the Kurdish dilemma will be tricky, write two scholars of the Brookings Institute:

    "The problem is that, while Washington is relevant politically, it will be tough to broker a deal that will meet Turkish expectations. The momentum in Turkey towards a decisive military confrontation is strong. So is the resistance in the Kurdish region of Iraq towards a crackdown on the PKK, which is popular among Kurds along both sides of the border.

    Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice may be tempted to simply soothe tempers and focus on the PKK problem. But all indications are that won't solve much. And a Turkish invasion, even if limited to the Qandil Mountain stronghold of the PKK, could have disastrous consequences. It would destabilize the most successful part of Iraq and further solidify Kurdish nationalism -- rendering compromise over the flashpoint, oil-rich town of Kirkuk even more difficult".

    My take on this issue is here.
    דרג את התוכן:

      תגובות (1)

      נא להתחבר כדי להגיב

      התחברות או הרשמה   

      סדר התגובות :
      ארעה שגיאה בזמן פרסום תגובתך. אנא בדקו את חיבור האינטרנט, או נסו לפרסם את התגובה בזמן מאוחר יותר. אם הבעיה נמשכת, נא צרו קשר עם מנהל באתר.
      /null/cdate#

      /null/text_64k_1#

      RSS
        27/4/11 19:50:

      חבר, בלי להעליב אף אחד כן,

      אבל בהחלט צריך לימודי תואר ראשון באנגלית בשביל לקרוא ולהבין את הפוסטים שלך..

      ארכיון

      תגיות

      פרופיל

      rosner
      1. שלח הודעה
      2. אוף ליין
      3. אוף ליין