I am not at all sure that offering modernity to people who consider it an existential threat is a winning approach. The question is whether the fallback is military coercion or isolation.

Until recently Isolation was the option because they wanted it that way. All that has changed recently and their about imposing the 14th century on US.

And given what we see of Sharia slipping into the laws of the west, they're successful at it.

There's a moral question on both sides of that wall, of course, from our point of view.(The wall only has ONE side from their POV, of course)

I need some time to sort out the words for this, which I'll add here when I get time, today, or tonight. But it occurs to me the discussion of whose morality prevails needs be discussed, and would get far deeper than can be properly discussed in a comments section. And since isolation, as demonstrated by 9/11, is no longer an option, it's a question we can no longer avoid.

And guess what? I vote US.

I do have to laugh at the continuation of the acceptance of global warming/cooling/climate change as reality. It belongs under one heading -global politics: the manipulation of sovereign nations through propaganda techniques.

How long before dissenters are whisked off to climate Siberia? (William Gray is the latest to suffer the soviet type reeducation game)

Bithead: You are right as well. I am not at all sure that offering modernity to people who consider it an existential threat is a winning approach. The question is whether the fallback is military coercion or isolation. I can't speak for the board of ASP, but I'll tell you, that it is a tremendously difficult issue. What if you offer modernity and people reject it?

While I agree wholeheartedly with what might be called the “meta-policy” of this notion, i.e. sticking to what we're good at and fostering economic growth in the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East, I'm skeptical whether “development assistance” will do much in that regard.

Mmmmphf.
When you have a group of people who prefer as a rule to live in the 14th century, being seen as the one who offers the 21st century might just be counter-productive.

Countering and undermining jihadist ideology in a more effective battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world by expanding development assistance, trade and investment opportunities and health and education programs to raise economic prospects and increasing public diplomacy;

While I agree wholeheartedly with what might be called the “meta-policy” of this notion, i.e. sticking to what we're good at and fostering economic growth in the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East, I'm skeptical whether “development assistance” will do much in that regard. I'd like to see more in the way of opening up trade with the region and encouraging American businesses to get involved.

I guess I'll need to hear more policy details before I can make a reasonable assessment but much of what's being proposed is what hasn't worked over the period of the last 30 years.

The challenge is that many issues are exploitable, and highlighting the divides is often good politics. . . . So, just getting people from opposite sides of the aisle to say, "enough" and just refrain from exploiting relatively minor difference in policy would be a huge first step.

Agreed. That's basically where I was going with the last paragraph.

And fair enough on the platitudes. I plan to read the doc tomorrow and will comment more.

(1) I don't think there is as much disagreement over many foreign policy issues as James suggests, even when you get into details. The challenge is that many issues are exploitable, and highlighting the divides is often good politics. Case in point -- domestic surveillance. Both Republicans and Democrats want the intelligence community to have greater capabilities. But there is a lot of political mileage to be had from Republicans claiming Democrats don't want to keep America safe, while Democrats gain a lot with their base by accusing the Republicans of being against civil liberties and being in the pocket of big business. So, just getting people from opposite sides of the aisle to say, "enough" and just refrain from exploiting relatively minor difference in policy would be a huge first step. When I see Armitage and Duberstein signing a document along with Gary Hart and John Kerry, I see at least the possibility of that kind of simple responsibility and decency.

(2) All documents look like platitudes until you compare them to one another. Compare the ASP document to something from, say, the Project for a New America Century circa 2000. Both documents are full of generalities by themselves, but when you compare them you can see the differences. I would urge people to just read the document, and I happy to have an on-going conversation about the content.

--BF

Gary Hart and featuring the likes of John Kerry, Ken Duberstein, Richard Armitage

And

The problem, as Kerry himself admits, is actually building the political consensus to formulate and enact public policy surrounding these things. That’s much, much harder than agreeing on an outline

Well, I'd think they'd need to bring in s fair number of center to right folks, as well. It's comparatively easy to get agreement among the people you've listed here.