Thursday, January 15, 2009 - 7:54 PM

Back in December, veteran foreign correspondent William Pfaff asked the right question: how much faith do other states still have in American competence?
Back in 2005, the failed occupation in Iraq and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina led many foreign observers to question whether America's leaders knew what they were doing. The aura of effectiveness matters, because American influence depends in good part on the belief that U.S. leaders (both public and private) are knowledgeable, honest, and above all competent individuals who can figure out what needs to be done and then actually get it implemented. When other governments think U.S. officials can be trusted to make smart choices and deliver them, they are more likely to follow our lead. But if they suspect that our leaders are bunglers, they will keep their own counsel or look elsewhere for guidance.
America's reputation for competence was based on genuine achievements: the Manhattan Project, the Marshall Plan, the moon landings, a broad array of scientific and technical achievements (signified by a steady stream of Nobel Prizes), some remarkable institutions of higher learning, the creation of media and entertainment industry with unprecedented global reach, decades of fairly steady economic growth, a successful melting-pot society, a belated but well-intentioned effort to address the legacy of slavery, and the eventual triumph over the Soviet Union. One might also add iconic examples of accomplishment such as Charles Lindbergh, Fred Astaire, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jonas Salk, Margaret Mead, Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods. Even when events like Vietnam cast doubt on American wisdom, these setbacks did not damage the larger sense that America was a country that worked pretty well.
Today, however, the drip-drip-drip of bad news and the growing sense that malfeasance and moral rot are widespread risks permanent damage to America's global image. Consider what the past eight years has done to our brand name: the fraud-filled "reconstruction" of Iraq and the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina, the dark scar that is Guantanamo, the feckless performance of Alberto Gonzalez, the corruption conviction of Jack Abramoff, and the failure to capture Osama bin Laden. Add to that the Wall Street meltdown, the Madoff scandal, the Blagojevich follies, and the Big 3 automakers' lame pleas, and you have a picture of America that raises more doubts than hopes.
Of course, like many other factors in international politics, confidence in American competence is a relative concept: it's not as if Japan or the Europeans are making consistently smart choices and executing them well. China's Olympics were undeniably impressive, but then there's the melamine scandal and numerous reports of widespread corruption. I guess there's some dubious comfort to be had from the fact that other states have lots of problems too.
Back home, the election of Barack Obama was an electrifying event that has temporarily restored some hope in American ideals and demonstrated our society's still-remarkable capacity to surprise. But the bleeding will resume if the new team does not demonstrate that it has well-designed strategies for dealing with our current problems, and if they don't quickly demonstrate the ability to put those plans into effect and make them work. And let's be honest: despite their ample experience and glittering resumes, the track records of some of his key appointees do not inspire as much confidence as one might like.
HECTOR MATA/AFP PHOTO/Getty Images
EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, BUSH'S LEGACY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
Dennis Ross has a track record that inspires confidence (in Israel). He managed to get the Palestinians not to agree to the best offer they are ever going to get and not to make any counter proposals.
Hillary Clinton at least knows how to look good while doing symbolic visits to foreign countries.
Gates has issues that I've outlined elsewhere, but he seems to be pretty good at what he's doing with regards to unconventional warfare in Iraq. Here's hoping he'll do as well in Afghanistan.
I don't really know enough about Obama's National Security Advisor.
Geithner's a Federal Reserve Establishment Man, for good or for ill.
Daschle isn't bad, at least with regards to promoting ideas - and he has a lot of experience with reluctant legislators.
As Rothkopf pointed out, you've got at least a half-dozen figures and "czars" on Middle East-related issues, so that will lead to lots of advice (if not lots of good decisions, or agreement).
Incompetence and the Zionist Infestation of US Society
[I expanded this column on my blog for Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel. The blog entry is called Zionist Infestation Causes US Incompetence.]
Pfaff's wrote a similar column in September 27, 2005. It was entitled American Incompetence.
While Katrina really was a matter of incompetence. The real issue in Iraq was policy-making by Jewish Zionists.
Zionism is like Slavery in the 1850s the issue that consumes everything else.
Read the article carefully. Pfaff is really using coded language because he knows very well
The problem of Jewish Zionist special interest networking is pervasive throughout US society.
Jewish Zionist academic clods are too numerous to list, but consider that the much lauded Ruth Wisse, who has had Jewish education up that wazoo, has less command of Yiddish idiom of the late 19th and early 20th century than I, who have learned Yiddish while I worked in various NY and NJ neighborhoods where Yiddish was still commonly spoken. See Honoring Wisse, Insulting Walt and Wisse Kokht Kugl Mit Khazershmaltz!. Is it surprising that Peretz paid for Wisse's professorship and that Wisse and Sen. Lieberman are mechutanim?
Would Bill Kristol be where he is in media without his Jewish Zionist connections? He was a moron when I knew him as a graduate student. Charles Sennott was so dumbfounded by Kristol's idiotic performance in several undergraduate class lectures at Harvard College that he broke the rules of academic courtesy and challenged Kristol before the students.
Bernie Madoff used the corrupt Jewish Zionist social, academic, and regulatory networks to run his scam.
The problem of corrupt Jewish networking extends well beyond the US as this comment about Nobel prizes argues.
Yet of all nations the USA has probably been most harmed by corrupt Jewish Zionist networking, and it is hard to take the US seriously in terms of either rationality (especially in issues relating to the ME) or in terms of general competence as long as so many Jewish Zionist clowns are in high positions of authority, scholarship, responsibility or power throughout the USA.
In the ME foreign policy area incompetence is merely a euphemism for racist Jewish Zionism extremism and fanaticism.
Because US ME foreign policy is so severely compromised, Arab and Middle East nations should simply refuse to deal with Jewish Zionist US government officials.
No bigger issue in the USA exists today in US domestic or foreign policy than the role Jewish Zionists are playing in our government.
The foreign secretary, David Miliband, today argues that the use of the "war on terror" as a western rallying cry since the September 11 attacks has been a mistake that may have caused "more harm than good".---the guardian
here's the links for of Miliband article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/15/war-on-terror-miliband
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/15/david-miliband-war-terror
Key appointees' competence , Palestinian negotiators
Christians are not Muslims, FYI Joe Pointing out some things about Joe Klein post where he points out that there is a lack of ethnic balance in Obama's rumored Middle East
Palestinian leadership were incompetent when it really counted -
Krauthammer seizes on the lack of a counter- offer by the 'negotiators'.
Why would any reasonable person pay attention to something Krauthammer says?
If he makes a point of bringing up something that the Palestinians did then that something was a terrible mistake.
Very interesting post. But I think I'd take Mearsheimer's side in this particular debate.
The issue is less perceptions than structure. International perception of the United States has changed in great part because of structural decay.
Levies break, bridges fall, steam pipes and electrical systems explode or catch fire. At some point one begins to wish these were indeed acts of terrorism. These are of course, the tip of the iceberg.
We've gotten very used to talking about 'flexitime' and telecommuting as the wave of the future. But this popular discussion puts a happy face on a problematic reality within this society -- if our trains run, they don't run on time. Whatever the wisdom of the Schlieffen plan, we would struggle to pull it off.
Which suggests one of the points in Obama's favor. During the campaign his 'mash-up' of a scheduled infomercial and a live appearance an impressive display of punctuality and technical competence. The question is whether there is sufficient depth in the bullpen of politically correct foreign policy experts -- a valid concern, I suspect (and perhaps one reason to regret _The Israel Lobby_).
How credible American system is?
That should be the question. How credible the US sytem based on existing out of date Constitution which is full of lies and contradictions? (Don't get offended, the other incirculation constitutions as just a copy of your prototype one;-))
And once you establish credibility then even if you appoint a horse (like Caligula did to test the credibility of the Senate of Rome;-) Playing Roman aren't we?!) in place of donkey or elephant would perform competent;->
Grand Sen~or
Bush Brought Disrepute to Democracy
During those wartime and postwar years when the United States was building a reputation for competence, the country was guided by a managerial and technocratic elite who were conversant with and enthusiastic about cutting-edge science. And American opinion-makers were an intellectually hardier, more skeptical and more worldly lot than their present-day peers, schooled by decades of disillusioning depression and war, with their feet on the philosophical ground. Braying populists and religious fantastics, nursing stubborn and reactionary resentments over the social power of the well-educated, were always abundant, but were mainly kept at bay.
During the Bush administration, the perception must have grown that the inmates are now running the American asylum. The most intellectually backward and reactionary elements of American society were allowed to take major leadership positions in American society, and exercise a profound influence of national policy. Not only was this bad government, it was about the worst possible commercial for democracy, no doubt convincing many of the world's more astute leaders and technocrats in non-democratic nations that democracy only brings intellectual and cultural degeneration. If Obama can reverse these perceptions, it won't just be good for America, it will give democracy a shot in the arm as well.
Well put. I'm not sure I'd entirely blame Bush, but rather an earlier Texan president. Vietnam tore apart the managerial and technical elite that you discuss, such that there have been two competing elites for the past four decades. Moreover, it frayed the loyalties between the elite and the 'hard working' Americans -- leaving the demagogues on both sides with a ample fuel.
US president must be 100 percent AMERICA FIRSTER
AMERICA FIRSTER such as Ike:
34th US President IKE suspended AID TO ISRAEL
“Ike” = Dwight David Eisenhower American general & the 34th President of the United States (1953-1961). As far as WAR & PEACE issues; IKE had the richest experience of all US presidents!
In WWII he was the commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (1943-1945) he launched the invasion of Normandy (June 6, 1944) and oversaw the final defeat of Germany (1945).
Ike cared about the STRATEGIC WELL BEING of Israel because HE was aware that the creation of Israel was the ultimate answer to European anti-Anti-Semitism.
On October 31, 1956 Ike’s presidency was marked by SUSPENSION OF US AID to ISRAEL in protest at its invasion of Egypt in the Suez Crisis.
In an emergency session of the United Nations (UN) November 1-2 1956 General Assembly was called to consider the Suez Crisis. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE John Foster DULLES, ATTACKED the British–French–Israeli ACTION, and the Assembly votes for a cease-fire!
Britain & France complied promptly, but ISRAEL did not; until January 22, 1957 when Israeli forces completed their withdrawal, and peace prevailed for ten more years of NO WAR!
Prompt FOREIGN POLICY saves money and lives! Halelujah..!
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE