What is America’s “Achilles heel”

[CharonY]

I think, one element is a kind of prevalent isolationism, at least when it comes to ideas. Many Americans seem to be used to being the provider of ideas or concepts that they disregard that other relevant viewpoints may exist. At least this is a general feeling I often get. Just a silly example: recently one student (yes, I know my sample population is biased) was pronouncing how the US was taking the lead in going green and added that now there are recycling bins everywhere etc. When I pointed out that in Germany the waste was split into recyclables, organic and general waste for over a decade or so, there was a general air of disbelief among the American students. The foreign students had less problems to accept that.

 

I am not sure whether that qualifies as an Achilles' heel, though.

Edited May 19, 2009 by CharonY

[Phi for All]

I think, one element is a kind of prevalent isolationism, at least when it comes to ideas. Many Americans seem to be used to being the provider of ideas or concepts that they disregard that other relevant viewpoints may exist. At least this is a general feeling I often get. Just a silly example: recently one student (yes, I know my sample population is biased) was pronouncing how the US was taking the lead in going green and added that now there are recycling bins everywhere etc. When I pointed out that in Germany the waste was split into recyclables, organic and general waste for over a decade or so, there was a general air of disbelief among the American students.

I think a lot of our isolationism comes from the media we're exposed to. It hypes violence on the streets while praising our military firepower and never slows to draw any parallels.

 

Germany has a great many ideas I'd like to see the US adopt. Besides recycling and my favorite, their asphalt paving techniques, they have superior emissions equipment for cars. It used to be that a Porsche imported to the US tested better *before* it was retrofitted with US emissions equipment. Many homes I saw in Germany had gutters that led to a single downspout that ended in a series of catch-barrels so you could use rainwater for your lawn, your garden, or anything you wanted. In the US, we have multiple downspouts that all end on a concrete splashpad that takes it away from the foundation onto our lawns only.

 

So I'd say one of our Achilles Heel's is our short-sightedness when it comes to spending a little extra now to save a lot more later. We're too into cheap and convenient.

[CharonY]

That is precisely the feeling that I got as an outsider. Things often tend to be made cheap and for the use of now, only to be replaced cheaply later. This includes homes, for instance. The majority in Arizona appear to be made out of wood and poorly insulated. I am pretty sure that any additional cost for insulation would be easily offset by the money spent on powering the air conditioner.

[SH3RL0CK]

That is precisely the feeling that I got as an outsider. Things often tend to be made cheap and for the use of now, only to be replaced cheaply later. This includes homes, for instance. The majority in Arizona appear to be made out of wood and poorly insulated. I am pretty sure that any additional cost for insulation would be easily offset by the money spent on powering the air conditioner.

 

As an American, I agree. We do tend to want the cheapest quality at the cheapest price and rarely consider the long-term costs. This is usually to our detriment except in cases where it is possible to build things too well.

[kleinwolf]

Could we imagine that long term (discrete) opinion polls could be used by some authorities as a stock-market of opinions, so that democracy could be applied at opportunistic moments to have the laws applied those preferred by those authorities ?

[Pangloss]

Could we imagine that long term (discrete) opinion polls could be used by some authorities as a stock-market of opinions, so that democracy could be applied at opportunistic moments to have the laws applied those preferred by those authorities ?

 

Well first I'd want to know why the majority opinion should be applied in such "opportunistic moments", and how you would go about determining when such moments have arisen. Then we'd have to address issues such as poll question determination, accuracy, who gets to ask the questions, and what oversight they would have.

 

And perhaps most important of all, you'd have to explain to me why, if you're going to all the trouble of actually creating a true democracy, that it would be such a terrible idea to let people have a real vote.

[kleinwolf]

In some countries the population has to vote about law changes in the constitution. So if some "authorities" feel that such or such law could pass, depending on these opinion "sniffing"...??

[JohnB]

I'd say your Achilles Heels are arrogance and the fact that nobody trusts you. (As a nation, not individuals.)

[The Bear's Key]

I'd say your Achilles Heels are arrogance of certain leaders and the fact that nobody trusts you because what happens is the actions/politics of those leaders get discussed as if they were actual values of the U.S as a nation.

Um, better.

 

Also on that note, it's doubtful anyone should hate our freedoms -- but rather, those of a much smaller group: the freedoms of elected officials who might abuse foreign policy in ways that help nurture and breed the ultra-fierce resentment against us (then hide behind our flag....or under the cover of national "security").

[CharonY]

Hmm, well they may also other things that contribute to the image of arrogance, which, in my opinion, are mostly derived from the lack of knowledge of other nations/cultures. For instance what I heard sometimes from students is that the US offers "the best university system of the world". However, without actually having any idea how it is in other countries. Actually one of the graduate lectures I had ended with a heated discussion with a group of Americans on the one side and a mix of students from India, Japan, Italy and one US American on the other.

Strange enough, I found it to be one of the more rewarding sessions that I had.

[Mokele]

For instance what I heard sometimes from students is that the US offers "the best university system of the world".

 

Perhaps a better phrase would be "we shell out boatloads of grant money and have a nearly inexhaustible supply of cheap labor (aka grad students), so there's a lot of global competition for faculty positions in the US."

[GutZ]

I think the scientific push and drive to become number one is gone that's all. Once you are number one that need to become the best diminishes. Everyone was within the shadow of the US. You guys had nothing to prove...but other did, and the race never ends ;P You guys thought you crossed the finish line.

 

Simple as that.

[JohnB]

Um, better.

Um, wrong. This isn't something that Bush did, it's been going on a long time.

 

America does not now and never has trusted her allies. As a consequence, we don't trust you all that much either.

 

Also on that note, it's doubtful anyone should hate our freedoms -- but rather, those of a much smaller group: the freedoms of elected officials who might abuse foreign policy in ways that help nurture and breed the ultra-fierce resentment against us (then hide behind our flag....or under the cover of national "security").

 

Again this is not new. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" has been a staple of American foreign policy for decades. Strangely enough this tends to foster resentment amoung the people that the bastard oppresses.

 

To then insult the intelligence of people by claiming to spread freedom and democracy just adds to the fire.

 

Americas foreign policy has always been based on the perceived best interests of America. There is nothing wrong with this, as it is true for every nation. The difference is that we don't lie to ourselves about it.

[CharonY]

Perhaps a better phrase would be "we shell out boatloads of grant money and have a nearly inexhaustible supply of cheap labor (aka grad students), so there's a lot of global competition for faculty positions in the US."

 

Maybe, although I am not even sure whether there is more competition for faculty positions, but rather that there are more available for international faculty. It is simply easier to get a faculty position in the US than in many parts of Europe, even if you are foreigner. But this is clearly not the point that the students wanted to make. The basic assumption was that the university education in the US surpasses that of all other countries.

[The Bear's Key]

Um, wrong.

Nope....

 

This isn't something that Bush did, it's been going on a long time.

To be honest, I didn't even mean Bush, nor the Iraq thing. I'm referring less to Presidents, and more to elected congressional leaders and others who might have foreign policy authority -- especially the less transparency involved and/or in connection with business.

 

One good example might be activities like those of John Perkins and enacted by officials in the U.S. government. Though it's a bit difficult finding the original sources as they're now gone, except for one page cached on google servers.

 

But there's even U.S. citizens who do resent how our leaders (and only a handful of leaders at that) can perform activities in secrecy -- even from government itself -- with the excuse that it's in our best interests.

 

You might already be familiar with the involvement of Australia in helping government to spy on us -- even before 9/11.

 

The problem isn't us, it's government secrecy. And enough of us are on the same side, for we don't view corrupt leaders as "our bastard". Instead, we demand they're openly and fully investigated.

Edited June 9, 2009 by The Bear's Key
added smiley :)

[JohnB]

Bear's Key, since the start of the Cold War the US has had a policy of supporting a tinpot dictator provided he supported the US. And the US government was too arrogant to notice that this action diddn't endear them to the oppressed populations.

 

As to the second sentence it needs no extension.

 

Nobody trusts you. It's that simple. America doesn't trust anybody else, so why should anybody else trust you?

[Sisyphus]

One way of putting it is that the Cold War led us to approach foreign policy based on the fairly ridiculous premise that the world was a zero-sum game against a single opponent (the Soviet Union, which had the same approach). This is obviously an oversimplification, but it has enough truth to explain most of our more questionable actions.

 

Post-Cold War, we no longer have that excuse...

[Pangloss]

Bear's Key, since the start of the Cold War the US has had a policy of supporting a tinpot dictator provided he supported the US. And the US government was too arrogant to notice that this action diddn't endear them to the oppressed populations.

 

As to the second sentence it needs no extension.

 

Nobody trusts you. It's that simple. America doesn't trust anybody else, so why should anybody else trust you?

 

I have two problems with that.

 

#1: All countries act in their own interests, and there is no universal moral position defining this standard. It usually (though admittedly not always) comes down to historical analysis and deciding that somebody screwed up only after the fact.

 

#2: In the case of Iraq the community of nations complained that the US DIDN'T leave that tinpot dictator in place. So we're damned when we do, and damned when we don't. It's a double standard.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with global citizens deciding when they agree or disagree with US actions -- more power to 'em. But when the statement is made that "nobody trusts us", that has to be challenged as unfair, in my view.

[JohnB]

Pangloss, I did oversimplify it.

 

Every nation acts in it's own perceived best interest, I agree with you and have made that very statement before in these fora.

 

Hussein is just one of many. Batista? Noriega? Do these names ring a bell?

 

Check out the Dictator of the Month listing and have a look at how many were supported by the US.

 

TBH, they were supported by "The West" in general, but you guys have more money than us, so your support was more visible. People in these nations probably noticed that while the US was preaching "Freedom and Democracy" on the world stage it was also supplying the weapons and vehicles used to take them to detention camps.

 

This is part of the "trust" thing. The US said one thing and did the exact opposite. Not a way to build trust, I'm sure you agree.

 

Your allies don't really trust you because you don't trust them.

 

The US will not sell first string military hardware to anybody. Ostensibly to prevent it being used against the US. Thanks, you're afraid that if you sell us something good, we'll attack you. Yep, a lot of trust there.

 

US military forces will not serve in an International fashion except under the command of US Generals. IOW, you have to control the game or you'll pick up your ball and go home. This attitude was sensible in WW1 because the pommy generals were so bloody poor, but now?

 

Are you afraid that a foreign General will be careless with US lives? Guess what? We wonder the same about your Generals. And the ROW has quite a bit more experience in exactly how p*ss poor a lot of yours are.

 

The US does not share intel with it's allies, even a theatre of war. How long have Aussie troops fought beside yours in Iraq? It took direct action by then President Bush to order the Pentagon to allow Aussie access to the US military internet in Iraq in 2007.

 

The US will take chocolate soldiers and make them Brigadier Generals in charge of international combat troops. Hate to tell you this, but Abu Ghraib was a surprise only to Americans.

 

It would appear that the US believes that it's part time Generals/Management consultants are better than everybody elses full time experienced Generals, would it not? Is this "arrogance"?

 

Starting to see why there is a lack of trust?

 

* Comments above about the US military are about the leadership only. The US front line soldier is as brave as any other nations. It's a shame that they are sometimes so poorly trained, equipped and led. I have yet to meet the trooper that won't fight beside them without qualm.

 

As an aside. There has been speculation ("on the ground" shall we say) that the US militarys problem is that has so much. In the 1991 Gulf War 1,848 M1 Abrams were deployed by the US. That's a lot of tanks. Your military philosophy has been about getting "more" onto the battlefield. Little militaries like Australia (who only have about 100 tanks in total) have to work out tactics that work with "less".

[Pangloss]

JohnB, I'm somewhat hesitant to argue these points, because I know that (a) your points are not entirely unfair, and certainly not unfounded, and (b) I know you well enough to know that this isn't an example of blind anti-Americanism. But I do think these points have counterpoints worthy of merit, so let me try to address them, from a position of respect for what you're saying (i.e. I understand why people feel that way, and don't entirely disagree with it).

 

The US will not sell first string military hardware to anybody.

 

This is occasionally true, but I don't think it is the general rule. We sell our best combat aircraft right now, for example, and plan to sell out main next-generation fighter across the board (the F-35). We won't be selling the F-22, but then we're only making a small number of them, for a very short shelf life, and there is no international interest in the product (for the exact same reason -- it's too expensive).

 

One big reason why a lot of hardware doesn't end up in foreign hands is cost. A B-2 Stealth Bomber costs a billion dollars per unit. The same amount of money can operate one Nimitz-class aircraft carrier group for a single year. I don't know if it's ever come up whether to sell items like that to other countries, and if it did it might indeed spark a debate over security, but given what we do sell I don't think you can use these examples as evidence that we don't support our allies.

 

And the same availability applies to less expensive items. Your troops operate our main battle tank, fire our main combat rifle, use our best radar technology, and your troops find each other using our satellite positioning system (which is actually open to the entire world, free of charge). Even our operational missile defense system is sold overseas.

 

Is there some specific piece of "first line" hardware that we're not willing to sell that people actually want to buy?

 

 

US military forces will not serve in an International fashion except under the command of US Generals. IOW, you have to control the game or you'll pick up your ball and go home. This attitude was sensible in WW1 because the pommy generals were so bloody poor, but now?

 

Are you afraid that a foreign General will be careless with US lives? Guess what? We wonder the same about your Generals. And the ROW has quite a bit more experience in exactly how p*ss poor a lot of yours are.

 

The flip side of that coin is that with most countries (Australia being a definite exception) the problem isn't an unwillingness to serve under US command, but an unwillingness to serve at all. The Rwanda situation is a typical example -- nobody is willing to step up to the plate, but everyone is willing to find fault with US foreign policy (no doubt advancing their own careers in the process -- I wonder sometimes if foreign diplomats ever get any blowback of any kind for blaming Americans).

 

IMO more countries should follow Australia's lead (which I would characterize as intelligent and thoughtful, but not bullied or reactionary, engagement), and it's also worth noting that because of that engagement Australia's criticisms carry more weight with many Americans.

 

(I think maybe I got sidetracked a bit here and dodged your question a bit, but I addressed it more directly two quotes below.)

 

 

The US will take chocolate soldiers and make them Brigadier Generals in charge of international combat troops. Hate to tell you this, but Abu Ghraib was a surprise only to Americans.

 

I'm afraid you've completely lost me here. What is a "chocolate soldier"? Is it like a mercenary? Sorry if I'm being dense here, I just don't think I've ever heard the term.

 

 

It would appear that the US believes that it's part time Generals/Management consultants are better than everybody elses full time experienced Generals, would it not? Is this "arrogance"?

 

I think if you were to ask the people who are actually involved in these things they would tell you something different. Bear in mind that a lot of cross-training takes place -- that's a sign of respect going in BOTH directions. Ask a Seal what they think of the SAS some time and I seriously doubt you'd hear anger, anomosity and "arrogance" come out of their mouths.

 

I don't know, John, you could be right, but I've seen no evidence of this kind of sentiment and so I have no reason to think that that respect doesn't extend to top brass and tactical planning types.

 

 

But like I said, I understand where you're coming from. I think it helps to hear things like this because (a) it's what people are actually feeling, so it needs to be addressed, and (b) criticism that's right needs to be recognized and applied. We get a lot of good criticism, but we're not always very good at learning from it.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Pangloss

[JohnB]

What is a "chocolate soldier"?

Sorry mate. Slang. One of a variety of epithets used to describe reserve or part time troops. "Weekend Warriors" and "Cut lunch Commandos" are two others.

 

I'm glad you don't take it as anti americanism as it's not meant that way. Our nations have been friends for a long time, and I think we're good enough friends to be honest when things get under our skin.

 

Your ITAR rules often cause sore spots. Note this BBC article from 2006. US ITAR rules nearly scuttled the JSF because the US would not guarantee the UK access to the software that would allow the UK "sovreignity" over the aircraft.

 

If we're spending millions on planes, we expect the computer code so that we can fix the things. We would also hope it would be "back door" free.

 

Remember "Promis"? Writing a backdoor and getting it to your enemies is one thing, selling it to your friends is another.

Ask a Seal what they think of the SAS some time and I seriously doubt you'd hear anger, anomosity and "arrogance" come out of their mouths.

I quite agree. I have nothing but respect for the US troopers.

 

I wonder if things change higher up the chain simply because of numbers. If you have 500 troops and 50 are Aussies (10%), you notice them. But if you have 500,000 troops and 1,000 (.2%) are Aussies, you don't notice them as much.

 

Although national pride forces me to say that you will notice 1,000 Aussie troops, no matter how big your battlefield is. Probably by fiinding out that they got there first, secured the objective, captured the enemy, checked out the local pubs and had a cuppa while they waited for everybody else to catch up.

 

BTW, we don't use your main combat rifle (in general use), we use the f88 Austeyr. Still a 5.56 though. Personally I prefer the old FN FAL SLR with the 7.62x51 round.

 

Look, it's not that we don't trust you at all, it's just that there are enough niggles to stop us trusting you (actually your government) wholeheartedly. I'm sure that every Australian that knows jack about military matters is well aware that if push came to shove and we needed help, then every US serviceman and servicewoman would be just itching to come. We just wonder sometimes if your government would find a way to not let them.

[iNow]

Don't worry... Many of the US citizens don't trust the US government either.

[Mr Skeptic]

Don't worry... Many of the US citizens don't trust the US government either.

 

True, and rather interesting. Isn't our democracy one of the things that we are most proud of? Yet the result (elected officials), we are ashamed of?

[padren]

True, and rather interesting. Isn't our democracy one of the things that we are most proud of? Yet the result (elected officials), we are ashamed of?

 

I can't help but to pose a bit of a question when it comes to ethics... at least in our social view of each other as Americans, how many of us feel our normal, regular fellow Americans would choose the "high road" and turn down a (sure fire, not going to get caught) little benefit through a lucky connection, such as:

 

1) Insider trading - would you take a tip from a friend that had insider information, if it couldn't be traced?

 

2) Tax sheltering advice from an IRS agent friend - dodge paying what others would have to, thanks to a good connection?

 

3) Allow a councilman to "favor" your company in a city bid?

 

Regardless of being asked if you would engage in such activity - even knowing you couldn't be caught, how much would you trust your fellow Americans not to engage in such activities, if the opportunity arose?

How much do you think the average American trusts the average American not to engage in such activities?

 

I don't know if we really have enough faith in each other to believe we wouldn't use such advantages if they came up - elected people are powerful, connected people with a lot of such opportunities. We may see each other as more honest as a result of assuming "normal" people just don't have the same opportunities to abuse.

[Phi for All]

how many of us feel our normal, regular fellow Americans would choose the "high road" and turn down a (sure fire, not going to get caught) little benefit through a lucky connection, such as:

 

1) Insider trading - would you take a tip from a friend that had insider information, if it couldn't be traced?

 

2) Tax sheltering advice from an IRS agent friend - dodge paying what others would have to, thanks to a good connection?

 

3) Allow a councilman to "favor" your company in a city bid?

#1 is flat out illegal, no way would I ethically condone it. #2 sounds like it's using existing laws and doesn't violate anything (since legally the IRS couldn't reprimand it's agent for telling us something we could find out on our own), and has the added advantage of being info I could legally pass along to anyone, so I have no qualms whatsoever ethically or legally. #3 may be legal (questionable) but ethically I don't like it, it's the sort of thing that our system should work harder to prevent, unless the councilman's "favor" has no strings attached and I've done a great job presenting why "favoring" my company in the bid is in the best interests of the city, and not just my own.