Even though I am sure that the idea is right, I’m not so sure that I will be able to sell it. But I’m not about to give up so easily.

Let me ask you this: What is the one thing that can take a dream, and make it real? The answer is: Money. That’s how this world works. If we can somehow find the investors to put just one project on the gound, then it’s possible to attract enough attention, and enough investment, to take that one project, and transform it into a movement for change. And if my hunch is right, a lot of the investment money could be Arab money.

What if we could get countries like Saudi Arabia to convert oil profits into green profits by investing to create jobs, jobs which are geared to clean up the environment, and which help to neutralize extremism by giving everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future?

This may seem like a “fake illusion” as you say, but what is the alternative? We are reaching a point in our development as a species, a tipping point of sorts, in which things will either improve exponentially, or they will just fall apart. The problems we face like global warming, extreme poverty, and ideological extremism, are converging. This means that we either find a solution, like Selling a Vision of Hope, that fixes almost everything in one shot, or the problems will converge to become our mutual undoing.

There will be trials and tribulations along the way, but in the end, I remain hopeful that we will find a way to come together. The answer is within our reach. We just have to give expression to our better instincts.

Soufiene: What if the U.S. comes to the conclusion that it is in their “imperialistic interests” to enable disenfranchised people around the world to realize a Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom? In other words; we may still be imperialists, but if our motivations in that regard take us in a good direction, then isn’t it still a good direction?

I hope!! Why not? But it is no more than a fake illusion for the moment!

Some of you are skeptical about Obama’s ability to sell a Vision of Hope for the Middle East, especially in light of the history of U.S. foreign policy. Some of you advocate non-intervention. My guess is that non-intervention assumes a level of maturity and civility, on the part of other nations, which as yet is not there.

There are brutes out there; extremists who want to believe what they want to believe, and for whom the truth is just a side issue. The U.S. should help to counter these guys, even if the U.S. has not always lived up to its highest principles. The fact that we are not always perfect, does not mean that we should give up on trying to perfect the world.

Soufiene, you say that the U.S. in an imperialist country, and that we’re out to take advantage of Asia and Africa for their natural resources. You say that the U.S. inclination toward hegemony negates the idea of Selling a Vision of Hope. Fair enough. But let me ask you this, Soufiene: What if the U.S. comes to the conclusion that it is in their “imperialistic interests” to enable disenfranchised people around the world to realize a Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom? In other words; we may still be imperialists, but if our motivations in that regard take us in a good direction, then isn’t it still a good direction?

Jina, you seem to advocate non-intervention, and you use foreign policy blunders to buttress your position. But what about World War II? Would U.S. non-intervention have been a good thing for the world? Should nuts like Hitler be given free reign? Intervention, when properly conceived, is a good thing, Jina. Not every idea on earth is a good idea. And someone has to have to courage to call the shots, when evil is to be let loose upon the world. That doesn’t mean that America is free from guilt. It just means that there are times when America stands out as the best possible hope for mankind.

Amilkarepublic, you say that Hope is not enough. Maybe. But to my mind, hope may be all we have. And if we, you and I, are somehow able to give substance to that hope, then it is no longer an empty dream.

Jessica, you say that strategies and visions are not enough. That we need plans, and that some of our plans are not always popular. Well, you’re probably right. But we are running out of options. Perhaps one good option would be to come up with a good vision for the Middle East, and to be clear about it, and to come up with plans that are consistent with the vision, and not contradictory to it. And I agree with you that foreign aid is necessary, but the aid come in the form of investments which create good paying jobs, jobs which are geared to protection of the environment. We will get more bang for the buck that way, and avoid at least some of the corruption.

And Jina is absolutely right to suggest that the nature of aid should take into account local cultures and customs. If an African farming village wants to remain an African framing village, then invest in that way. Not every street on earth is Wall Street.

Well, what can I say, I’m proud of you guys. You are the future. At least you bother to think, and to care, about something other than yourselves. Therein lies the hope for mankind.

Tasnim, you saying that it’s just words to say that: “We’re not fighting a war against terror, we’re fighting a war to realize a vision of hope.” Well, so far you’re right, but if we can somehow find a way to give some substance to these words, then they won’t be just words anymore. How do we do that, Tasnim?

It is a pointless endeavor to get into a point-by-point debate about what he could/could not have done better.

I am not trying to get into a point-by-point debate about what Bush could have done better. That would be an exercise in futility. I’m questioning the comparison, based on foreign policy decisions, between Bush and Reagan.

What is important now is moving forward, and each candidate should address how they will answer/solve many of the questions and problems. That is the point of the original post, is it not?

The point of the original post was, I think, selling a vision of hope for the Middle East. I don’t see how that is possible with the continuation of the same mentality which has been behind US foreign policy for the past several decades, including the Reagan years.

We’re fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope

Bla Bla Bla of hypocrite politicians. His “hope” is to strengthen more and more the USA hegemony on the rest of the world. And all the means would be vindicated.

Yes, what you say about the US and Rwanda is true. I personally believe that the US should have done more in that case….but one of the reasons Clinton has stated he didn’t is because many people rejected the US intervention in Bosnia right before the Rwandan genocide. Again, I reassert that if the US really practiced isolationism as you would like, then nothing would have gotten done in Rwanda anyway. Is that really a better option, to never act on anything in any other country? I think that is a niave view of foreign policy that is not realistic in our increasingly globalized world.

If you read the US Constitution or the history of its making, you would know that it was a HUGE priority for the founding fathers to make people of all religious groups eqaul. That is why many people came to America in the first place – because they were being persecuted because of their religion in their home countries(ie, Quakers, Protestants, ect).

Also, if the economic aid given is not used properly that is the fault of the host country – not the donor.

How very irresponsible. If you give money to dictators, I wonder what they gona do with it… I’ll let you use some common sense on this one.

Either way, you clearly think that the US should not give out any form of aid anywhere, which is perfectly fine. My point was that if the US did as you would like, there would be many many other people in the world who would diasgree with that decision. It’s a no-win situation.

It’s a no-win situation for US and the dictators and their friends.

I have read “Shake Hands with the Devil” – I never said America had troops in Rwanda. My statement was a HYPOTHETICAL one, with Rwanda as an example where the US was criticized for not doing enough. IF America really practiced isolationism, as you would seem to prefer, then that means not interfering in other countries EVER even when it’s necessary – like in the Rwandan genocide.

US is criticized for preventing others from acting by using their dictatorial powers in the UN and failing to admit that a genocide was taking place until it was too late. US kept saying “acts of genocide” not “genocide” to describe the situation, and of course when Clinton visited the country, he lied and said, “they didn’t know”. Kind of like how the Brits did it to Jews when Jews were being slaughtered by the Nazis.

I don’t follow your last comment, “It was whiteman creating these countries that leads to constitutions being changed as people figure thing out on their own.” Of course white men created the US Constitution, but I don’t know why that’s important (and what does it matter if they were white or not???) – men at the founding of every country create their constitutions.

Whiteman created the US constitution for their own kind. Whiteman’s pawns created the constitution ignoring the local culture and customs which results in presently many countries re-writing their constitution to match their values and diversity. The ones who the Colonialists favored were the ones who wrote the constitution because they were put into power. These constitutions and laws they created gave them power over the other ethnic/linguistic/religious groups. Which resulted in all the wars you see in Africa and elsewhere. This is what I meant.

This is a perfect example of the no-win situation my original post was trying describe: I think everyone would agree that less harmful drugs in the world are a good thing, but the US also wants Mexico to improve their human rights before giving $ to combat the drug trade. Who is at fault here? Either way, if money is not spent to curb the drug trade, more people die either due to overdose or gang fights or whatever.

When weapons and arms are sold to foreign governments, that is not the aid I was referring to. Arms deals are what happens in a capitalist society where countries wish to protect themselves. Take Egypt for example: this year $415 million was given by the US to Egypt in economic aid, which was to help the poorest of the poor, especially targeted at building schools and water filtration plants. The military “aid” part of the same package is used to buy weapons made in the US, which keeps people in the US employed. NOT ALL AID GIVEN BY THE US IS USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES, in fact, billions of dollars every year are given by the US for economic reasons. You may not agree where this money is spent (ie, Israel or Egypt or whatever) and that’s your opinion. But the non-military economic aid is there by the billions, and it’s existence should not be denied. Also, if the economic aid given is not used properly that is the fault of the host country – not the donor. Either way, you clearly think that the US should not give out any form of aid anywhere, which is perfectly fine. My point was that if the US did as you would like, there would be many many other people in the world who would diasgree with that decision. It’s a no-win situation.

I have read “Shake Hands with the Devil” – I never said America had troops in Rwanda. My statement was a HYPOTHETICAL one, with Rwanda as an example where the US was criticized for not doing enough. IF America really practiced isolationism, as you would seem to prefer, then that means not interfering in other countries EVER even when it’s necessary – like in the Rwandan genocide.

I don’t follow your last comment, “It was whiteman creating these countries that leads to constitutions being changed as people figure thing out on their own.” Of course white men created the US Constitution, but I don’t know why that’s important (and what does it matter if they were white or not???) – men at the founding of every country create their constitutions.

Tasnim,

As I said, no US President – including Regan or Bush – is perfect. My “principled” comment is merely repeating what supporters of each President might say. I am not a supporter of GW Bush, and I didn’t vote for him either time. It is a pointless endeavor to get into a point-by-point debate about what he could/could not have done better. What is important now is moving forward, and each candidate should address how they will answer/solve many of the questions and problems. That is the point of the original post, is it not?

there is no reason why a message of hope and change cannot include the Middle East as well.

There’s an endless list of reasons. Obama’s AIPAC speech is one of them.

We’re not fighting a war against terror. We’re fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There’s a big difference.

Bush’s speech-writers can sprinkle utopian language with the best of them. Where’s the difference?

No US President is perfect, and as Soufiene suggests, Regan wasn’t either. But, to his credit, Regan was principled – he put things like religious freedoms first in foreign policy decisions…G.W. Bush is also seen as principled – it’s just that many of us don’t agree with how he goes about fulfilling such principles.

Was Operation El Dorado Canyon principled? If so, how?

If America were to stop all foreign aid, we would be critisized as a heartless country who doesn’t care about the world’s poor (oh wait! some already think that despite the billions given away by the US every year….)

It’s because you give the “poor” aid, but at the same time give guns to the same dictators who keep the poor poor and oppressed. Of course all the “aid” goes to the governments that oppress the people and the “aid” money disappear into the Swiss bank accounts of all these dictators and their friends or are used to buy weapons from the USofA to oppress the “poor”. Some aid you give, so please keep your fugging aid to yourself and use it on the poor black folks when the next hurricane hits or the poor souls who are sent to a war and are left on the street after they come home.

If we were to withdraw troops from every bit of foreign soil, we would be critisized when conflicts do take place for not doing enough (oh wait! we already were, in Rwanda during the 90’s genocide….)

In Rwanda, America never had any troops. It was America that threatened to veto and then vetoed the second resolution that would have seen troop increase in Rwanda to pacify the genocide. UN peacekeepers would have been from African and South Asian countries led by Canada. Of course this is what happened after Kagame took Kigali and ended the genocide. US and France wanted to stop a man who would put his country before foreigners compared to the Interahamwe and the Hutu Power who were the pawns of the French and the West. They deployed the troops that they previously said they didn’t have within 24 hours after Kagame ended the genocide. Of course it’s also the French that trained and armed the Interahamwe that perpetrated the genocide. I can go on… well this is just ONE country… Western dirty hand can be found in every conflict in every other country in the world, almost without any exception.
If you get a chance, read the book Shaking Hands with the Devil by General Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian general who commanded the UN troops in Rwanda during the genocide.

Comparatively to other country’s constitutions, the US Constitution has gone through minimal changes throughout its life. It is those countries who constantly change their “founding beliefs” that are the most dangerous.

Large numbers of other countries are less than 60 year old. It was whiteman creating these countries that leads to constitutions being changed as people figure thing out on their own.
Of course, I find US constitution as almost like Muslims trying to follow the Quran as it is written 1400 years ago. Time change, change has to be made to accommodate the present.

No US President is perfect, and as Soufiene suggests, Regan wasn’t either. But, to his credit, Regan was principled – he put things like religious freedoms first in foreign policy decisions. Regan was also fairly popular, in part because he seemed like “a regular guy” rather than a lifelong politician. G.W. Bush is also seen as principled – it’s just that many of us don’t agree with how he goes about fulfilling such principles. Maybe history will look fondly upon him, who knows. Only time will tell.

Jina, you are right that many of the things that America’s founding fathers stood for don’t seem to hold true today. A recent little known Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, promoted the same idea that you did – essentially isolationism. In Ron Paul’s world, all American troops would be withdrawn from foreign soil, and ALL foreign aid would be discontinued.

If America were to stop all foreign aid, we would be critisized as a heartless country who doesn’t care about the world’s poor (oh wait! some already think that despite the billions given away by the US every year….)

If we were to withdraw troops from every bit of foreign soil, we would be critisized when conflicts do take place for not doing enough (oh wait! we already were, in Rwanda during the 90’s genocide….)

But, Jina, one of the reasons why the US has been relatively successful in the past 100 years or so is because the US – more so than most other countries in the world – stays true to its constitution. Our constitution cannot be changed at the whim of a President or a one-sided Congress. Comparatively to other country’s constitutions, the US Constitution has gone through minimal changes throughout its life. It is those countries who constantly change their “founding beliefs” that are the most dangerous.

Whoever is considered “the leader” of our world – regardless of if that country is the US, China, or whatever – every single decision made by that country’s leader will be scrutinized and criticized. No matter what choices a US President makes, he/she will always disappoint or disagree with someone. But not making such choices are not an option, so what then?

Think back to President Reagan. His vision consisted of several relatively simple concepts. But he gave people something to latch onto. He gave expression to their best hopes for the future. And to a great extent, he helped to create the framework for the eventual dismantlement of the Soviet Union.

Funny, you talk about SU, but you talk like this butcher is any different. You forgot to mention about the terrors that Regan unleashed upon people world over that resulted in millions being killed off.

And in fact, America was founded on what the founders perceived as universal values, “We recognize these truths to be self-evident.” For me, at least, truths which are “self-evident” are the same as principles of “common sense,” the kind of truths which our Creator gave all of us to bring a semblance of order to our lives.

One of America’s founding father’s doctrine was non-interventionism. America as of now stands for almost opposite of everything that the founding father’s stood for…. sigh…

The Iraq war was prepared during the Clinton’s period. The Iraq embargo, and the regime change strategy pointing Saddam’s goverment, were maintained and prepared successively under the democratic party mandates. G. Bush, has just executed the plans.

I personnally don’t believe in neither an Obama, nor a Bush foreign policy for the USA. But, I do beleive in a USA foreign policy. Which have been always driven, and supervised, by some internal and external lobbies, and strategic offices in the USA.

The USA is an imperialist country, ergo, it will always find matters and reasons, to send it’s army and spread it’s domination over-seas, especially in Asia and Africa. Those two continents, are full of natural ressources.

Under the Democartic party as well as under the republican one, each year, the USA spend more than 500 Billions dollars in weapons industry.

I evoked that, because I perceived some Internauts speaking about the complexity of the problems.

Foreign policy decisions, as you suggest, are never simple. But Jessica, we still need a vision. The vision should be broad enough to allow for the logistical maneuverings that you so rightly speak of. But it should also be simple enough to make sense to people, and to give them a good sense of where we’re heading as a nation. A good vision would be Clear, Concise, Convincing, and Complete.

Think back to President Reagan. His vision consisted of several relatively simple concepts. But he gave people something to latch onto. He gave expression to their best hopes for the future. And to a great extent, he helped to create the framework for the eventual dismantlement of the Soviet Union.

It is not a vision to say that we want out of Iraq. It is not a vision to say that we’re fighting a war on terror. Those are not visions, they are strategies.

I’m not saying that Selling a Vision of Hope is the only way to go. But to me, at least, it does make sense, and it could be used to inspire people to carry on until success is at hand: Speak to one another with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity. Invest in one another to create jobs which protect the environment and which help to neutralize extremism. Inspire each other with a sense of hope, a vision of peace, prosperity, and freedom. Find ways to sustain the hope with public diplomacy. And when necessary, fight, and fight hard, against the forces of extremism, but position the fight within a Vision of Hope. Raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. Use a Vision of Hope to marginalize the extremists in the eyes of their own people, by beating them at their own game.

We’ve been fortunate in recent days to read, on this website, from people in Iraq and in Iran. These young people, as hard as it is for them, still believe in concepts like democracy and freedom. They believe in these values not because they are American values. They beleive in them because they are universal values.

And in fact, America was founded on what the founders perceived as universal values, “We recognize these truths to be self-evident.” For me, at least, truths which are “self-evident” are the same as principles of “common sense,” the kind of truths which our Creator gave all of us to bring a semblance of order to our lives.

John McCain is likely to grab hold of a vision with respect to the Middle East. Senator Obama is well advised to give some substance to his noble call for hope and change if he is to successfully meet the challenge posed by his opponent.

Sounds good….but if all US Presidents were to truly live by that rule, the US would never have fought Germany in WWII – they would have only fought Japan, because it was Japan who attacked at Pearl Harbor. I certainly believe that going to war against Germany (and Japan, and others) in WWII was the right decision.

So that brings us to an amended statement, such as: “By the end of my first term, American troops will not be occupying, or engaged in conflict with, any other nation unless said nation or its allies directly attacks or makes a declaration of war against these continential United States.”

Now it sounds dangerously close to Bush’s “If you aren’t with us you are against us” statement, referring to any countries that harbor terrorists. I strongly disagree with this statement, since I don’t believe entering Iraq was an acceptable response to 9/11.

Another amended statement could read, “By the end of my first term, American troops, if they do not have support of the international community, will not be occupying, or engaged in conflict with, any other nation unless said nation or its allies directly attacks or makes a declaration of war against these continental United States”

What constitutes “the support of the international community?” Does that mean approval of the UN Security Council? Clearly, then, Iraq would have been avoided by this statement. Even the UNSC isn’t exactly representative of all nations in our world. But what if “the international community” only means one or two countries other than your own? Then the Iraq war would be considered “accceptable,” because the US had the support of a few other countries.

I’m only posting this to show that foreign policy decisions are never – nor can they be – that simple. Sure, it would be great if things were as simple as Eric and Nissim suggest….but they aren’t. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to try to solve problems using new avenues, it just means that we should remember the complexity of the problem while aiming to solve it.

I would hope, as an Obama supporter, that Senator Obama is smart enough to avoid the typical political trap of making foreign policy related campaign promises that he can’t keep.

In a way, they did bring you back a gift, perhaps even two gifts: the gift of chocolates, and the gift of knowing that we’re not so different from one another as we think. Most of us enjoy chocolates, even if there’s some Hebrew on the box. And it’s no wonder that it’s up to kids to point us toward the truth. And what is the truth? Well, at least part of the truth is that we are all people, and as people we share a lot more than divides us.

And Eric, I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and I believe that a guy like Obama could probably help to get us there, or at least point us in the right direction. But as you well know, “the devil is in the details.” For example, yes, in theory, we should not attack a nation which has not attacked us. But what do we do if we find that it is planning to attack us, or is harboring groups which are planning such as well?

And yes, in theory we should not have dealings with countries that are repressive of their people, but what of the people themselves? Shouldn’t we find a way to improve their lot, even if their governments are not to our liking?

And yes, we should help people around the world without regard to profit, but if doing that would put us in jeopardy economically, how long would we be able to sustain the effort? If profitability could somewho be made part of the equation, would that not ensure the continued viability of our efforts to help?

And yes, we should not let the captains of industry divert us from our allegiance to principle. However, shouldn’t we take at least some of their considerations into account, if it is true that we need their support to give economic substance to our principles?

What I am suggesting is that as we chart the course you suggest, which is a noble one indeed, we should look at all the different angles, even those which may not be palatable to our sense of right and wrong, so that what we end up with is doable and sustainable. In the final analysis, the worth of an idea is to be judged, at least in part, by the practicality of its implementation, and its net effect on bringing some good to the world.