OUR FOREIGN POLICY....."LESSONS WE REFUSE TO LEARN"

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY SURE IS "A FOREIGN ONE"

"After 12 years of war, 6,711 troops killed, and costs to taxpayers projected to be at least $4 trillion, Americans' message to the White House and Capitol Hill is loud and clear: less involvement abroad (for now). In a December poll conducted by Pew Research and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), 52 percent of Americans said the United States "should mind its own business internationally," the highest percentage since that question was first asked in 1964"...states MICAH ZENKO.

Have we learned anything??
AFGHANISTAN...."After more than 10 years of war, the United States might have concluded that it didn't make much sense to spend billions of dollars each year trying to stabilize a country the entire GDP of which is a fraction of what the war was costing. So when Afghan leader Hamid Karzai started making lots of onerous demands in the negotiations over a long-term U.S. presence in this strategic backwater, U.S. officials should have grabbed their English-Pashto dictionaries and found the proper phrase for "Catch you later." But instead, the United States started begging the Afghans for permission to throw good money after bad. Sigh.".....by STEPHEN M. WALT
Have we learned anything ??
IRAQ.....
We sure accomplished alot here, huh!? Brought our peaceful, law-abiding civil model of democracy right to the "hearts and minds" of the locals!! Sure thing!!
Another quote from STEPHEN M. WALT....
"Alas, 2013 was the deadliest year since 2008, with more than 7,000 civilians killed by violence. Americans were transfixed by the Boston bombing, but events like that tragedy were weekly occurrences in Iraq. Adjusted for population size, the death toll in Iraq would be equivalent to some 70,000 Americans dying in sectarian warfare last year."

We could go on.....with many more examples of failed "meddling".... AND

  Don't even ask me about VIETNAM !!!

So what's in store for the coming year ???

To help you out, the CFR's Center for Preventive Action produced its sixth annual Preventive Priorities Survey (PPS), which evaluates ongoing and potential conflicts based on their likelihood of occurring in the coming year and their impact on U.S. interests.
(A word on PPS methodology: First, they harnessed social media (Facebook, Twitter, blogs etc.) to solicit a few hundred suggestions of contingencies from anyone with Internet access, which helped us to bypass the media filter. Second, with input from CFR colleagues, they distilled the crowd-sourced results down to 30 contingencies deemed most plausible to erupt or escalate in 2014. Third, those 30 contingencies were sent to a broad selection of 1,200 government officials, foreign policy experts, and academics, who rated their likelihood of occurrence in 2014 and potential impact on U.S. interests.
Here are the results:

Tier One:
Situations that should be the most worrisome for U.S. policymakers:

• Intensification of the Syrian civil war including possible limited military intervention
• A highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure
• Renewed threat of military strikes against Iran as a result of a breakdown in nuclear negotiations and/or clear evidence of intent to develop a nuclear weapons capability
• A mass casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or a treaty ally
• A severe North Korean crisis caused by a military provocation, internal political instability, or threatening nuclear weapons/ICBM-related activities
• Growing violence and instability in Afghanistan resulting from the drawdown of coalition forces and/or contested national elections
• Increasing internal violence and political instability in Pakistan
• Strengthening of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula resulting from continued political instability in Yemen and/or backlash from U.S. counterterrorism operations
• Civil war in Iraq due to rising Sunni-Shia sectarian violence
• Growing political instability and civil violence in Jordan triggered by spillover from the Syrian civil war

Tier Two:
Situations either less likely to occur, or are in countries of limited strategic importance to the United States:

• Further deterioration of the political situation in Egypt resulting in significantly increased violence, especially in the Sinai Peninsula
• Increased sectarian violence and political instability in Lebanon due to spillover from the Syrian civil war
• Continuing conflict in Somalia and intensification of al-Shabab's terrorist attacks on neighboring countries
• Continuing political instability and growing militancy in Libya
• Escalation of drug-related violence in Mexico
• A severe Indo-Pakistani military confrontation triggered by a major terrorist attack or heightened violence in Kashmir
• An armed confrontation in the East China Sea between China and Japan stemming from tensions over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands
• An armed confrontation in the South China Sea between China and one or more Southeast Asian claimants to disputed maritime areas
• Increasing sectarian violence and heightened political instability in Nigeria
• Escalating violence and risk of mass atrocities in the Central African Republic as a result of the ongoing insurgency

Tier Three:
Situations the least likely to occur or would have a minimal impact on U.S. interests, if at all:

• A Sino-Indian clash resulting from escalation of a territorial dispute and/or a military incident
• Destabilization of Mali by militant groups with spillover effects on neighboring areas
• Growing popular unrest and political instability in Sudan
• Military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan triggered by border and/or resource disputes
• Resumption of conflict in the Kurdish-dominated regions of Turkey and the Middle East
• Intensification of violence in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo with regional spillover
• Increased sectarian violence between Buddhists and Muslim Rohingyas in Myanmar's Rakhine State
• Protracted internal violence in Bangladesh surrounding the general elections
• Deepening political crisis in Venezuela leading to civil violence and potential regional instability
• An outbreak of military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh

Finally, experts were asked to provide their own items for U.S. officials to keep their eye on. Among the commonly cited:

• Growing political instability in China
• Competing territorial claims in the Arctic
• Rising political instability in Russia
• Possible Russian intervention in Georgia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet states
• Growing political instability in Saudi Arabia
• Political unrest following the death of Fidel Castro in Cuba
• Renewed political instability in Bahrain
• Third Palestinian intifada or heightened conflict between Israel and Hezbollah
• Renewed political instability in Tunisia
• Chinese military intervention against Taiwan
• Rising political instability in Kyrgyzstan
  
  

  HAD ENOUGH YET ???