Not.
Buying.
It.

Ah, so. Your position is that the moral high ground that America now holds is that we have caused somewhat less human misery than the evil does?

Quite a vision you have there for America skippy.

Now, as a policy matter, does that imply that reducing our footprint would ease this challenge. I really don’t know. I can’t see how it could hurt. But I am also not sure it will help.

To me, this statement undercuts your entire argument. It makes your argument appear to boil down to trying something different for the sake of trying something different. It's not convincing to advocate for what would be a radical departure in long-standing US policy when you're not sure it will help US interests in the end. It's strikes me as a "grass is greener" argument.

I think there is another problem regarding what I see as the primary assumption underlying your argument here: That the negative's to US interests and standing are the result of being too engaged, therefore we should disengage. I thing the poll data clearly shows that those in the Middle-East who hate the US hate our policies and not our high level of influence and involvement. They view our policies as hypocritical, which is a big reason they don't trust US motives. They see our policies as being disconnected from our ideals. The rank and file want the US to be engaged, but want a different kind of engagement.

If that analysis is true, then it's hard to argue that disengagement will accomplish much in my view. A better option would be to change US policies under a new grand strategy instead of simply disengaging.

Whether or not they'd be willing is beside the point - by and large they couldn't unless they wanted to send troops across the western borders.

(Nod)
True enough.

No? I am guessing there are a lot of folks in Iraq who's loved ones have died in our little "shock and awe" adventure that really and truly hate us.

There are probably also some folks in Iran who's grandparents were tortured by the Shah who do actually hate us. Do you blame them?

Spare me the sanctimony, Anjin.

Those who hate us for that are far outnumbered by those being imprisioned and or killed by the current regime, and who hate us because that bloody genius Jimmy Carter bailed at the suggestion of George Ball, when things got hot for the Shah. Not only did we make enemies of the rest of the region, since we now had the label of 'can't be trusted' stuck on us, the resulting purge in Iran resulted in far more dead and their families pissed at us for pulling out.

Not.
Buying.
It.

These are great comments. I do just want to remind folks that I never claimed that my proposals would instantaneously fix all our problems.

Well Bernard, for what it is worth, I appreciate the thought you have put into this crucial issue. We seem to have some difficulty as a society dispassionately analyzing our policies and their effects around the world, especially when one considers our unparalleled wealth and power. This dialog is a useful step in the right direction.

We're also not talking, for the most part about actual hate

No? I am guessing there are a lot of folks in Iraq who's loved ones have died in our little "shock and awe" adventure that really and truly hate us.

There are probably also some folks in Iran who's grandparents were tortured by the Shah who do actually hate us. Do you blame them?

The Chinese, meanwhile, are not likely to be nearly as indecisive and unwilling to respond.

Lets see, we have 2 wars going on in the middle east. Unwilling to respond? Please.

China's ability to project power is very limited. They have nowhere near our capabilities. Exactly what is this dreadful response the terrorists so fear?

To postulate that the terrorists attack Americans and not Chinese because they are somehow afraid to is far beyond nonsense.

There are reasons these folks hate us. I suspect that the reasons make sense to them. We have supported dictators in that part of the world for many decades. Maybe they just think that we are F____king them over and they are sick of it. We used Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The minute they were not useful to them any more, we bailed. People do not like to feel they are being used, and they do like being treated with respect.

The Chinese, meanwhile, are not likely to be nearly as indecisive and unwilling to respond.

Whether or not they'd be willing is beside the point - by and large they couldn't unless they wanted to send troops across the western borders.

Besides, do you have any actual proof for this analogy? It's not like America is any less likely to beat the crap out of anyone who launches a terrorist attack on our home soil that anyone else (and we have the force projection capability to respond), so why aren't the less capable countries being hit worse?

Not pure H2, no, but once you have an affordable source of H2 you can bond it to something else to make it more useful in replacing petroleum in transportation.

Either way, you still have to use energy to MAKE it. And a pretty fair amount of energy too. So, unless you're ready to use the other generation means available to us... and coal and Nuclear seem the most promising at the moment, in terms of reliability to time to online status, any talk of using hydrogen to power our transportation systems has less substance than the hydrogen itself.

There is the rather obvious point that radical Muslims from outside of China could attack Chinese interests and nationals outside of China should they choose to.

and...

We're not talking about actual action, but rather opinion. The fact that China is harder to attack than the USA, wouldn't be a reason for Islamists to hate them less.

There's an old saying about PETA followers, and why they tend to attack rich women in furs, rather than attacking bikers wearing leather. The Rich women are not nearly as likely to kill you for your trouble. They know the Americans are going to get themselves to balled up in internal political squabbles over our response to the Islamic threat. And so we have, haven't we? The Chinese, meanwhile, are not likely to be nearly as indecisive and unwilling to respond.

We're also not talking, for the most part about actual hate. It's true, some of it exists, but I suggest this is drummed up hatred on the part of those actually doing the foot soldiering. It's fairly easy to twist religion in that fashion, don't you think?

I come to my conclusion on the basis of both an analysis of public opinion data and by comparison to other countries.

I think you can also find public opinion data showing that Arabs initially reacted very favorably to the U.S. led invasion to free Kuwait. Also, there was great disappointment in the Middle East when the U.S. was slow to lead the West to stop atrocities against Muslims in the Balkins.

This suggests to me that America will be the source of anti-Americanism for doing nothing also. Why? Because America is seen as the dominant power in the world after the fall of the USSR, not the Chinese, not the Russians, not the Irish. The American footprint is not merely military, but in the liberal economic order it has pushed, as well as the social values distributed by its media.