[Pops]

A good article on Rubio, which this thread is not, opens with this:

Presidential “doctrines” have a long history in American foreign policy. The earliest, and most famous, was James Monroe’s insistence that the United States would prevent European powers from gaining a beachhead in the Americas. More than 80 years later, Theodore Roosevelt added the “corollary” that in order to prevent the kind of instability that might invite foreign meddling in the region, the United States could intervene to topple Latin American governments. In 1947, in an effort to justify aid to anti-communist regimes in Greece and Turkey, Harry Truman outlined the doctrine of containment, by which the U.S. would “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Jimmy Carter refocused that doctrine on the Persian Gulf, where he vowed that the U.S. would use military force to repel Soviet domination. Ronald Reagan turned containment on its head by insisting that the U.S. would not merely prevent Soviet expansion but aid anti-communist rebels seeking to roll back pro-Soviet regimes. Finally, in response to the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush took this aggression a step further by arguing that rather than deterring or containing hostile regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. would launch preventive wars to overthrow them.

What should be the new American Doctrine?

And, what do you think it will be?

[Tanada]

What we should have,

As the right of each country to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no one may interfere with the normal and healthy development of their culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a society that is incapable of handling such advantages wisely.

What we will have,
more resource wars depicted as helping those 'poor, disadvantaged people to achieve the freedoms of DEMOCRACY'

[Timo]

In no way am i advocating this, or expressing any level of support for this doctrine for American's future, but i have a bad, bad feeling that this country is moving FSA with a doctrine of Us First! As resources become harder and more expensive to secure, our political and military priorities will turn dramatically inward, and we'll do whatever it takes to keep our way of live moving along, uninterupted. As Darth Cheney said, our way of life is non-negotiable. Washington will keep the international Business Conglomerates humming along so that they're free to exploit every nook and cranny of this god foresaken planet until it begins to resemble Mars. Divide and conquer, without and within.

[hvacman]

Down near the bottom of the article:

When you’re running against candidates like Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee, appearing serious on foreign policy isn’t hard.

That is the problem with just about every candidate on both sides. They both have a bunch of lightweights. IMHO, the fact two people with almost zero executive experience - Sanders (former mayor of Burlington) and Warren (career scholar) - actually look like viable Democrat presidential alternatives is proof of the dire Democrat situation. Frankly, from a leadership perspective, our best leaders are (I know I'll get slammed for this by the peanut gallery, but it is true) leading some of the world's best-run (and profitable) large corporations. And those corporate leaders have no interest in entering the political arena. Why would they? What a mess.

[Outcast_Searcher]

What should be the new American Doctrine?

1). To work WITH American allies to defend their mutual interests in safe trade, transport, and commerce as member countries mutually agree to engage in.

2). To work as part of the community of American allied countries -- NOT to provide the bulk of the defense material and money all at America's cost. (If member countries want the US to be the mercenaries to, for example, use battleships to defend oil shipping in the Middle East, then member countries need to PAY for that in proportion to how many shiploads of oil go to their ports. The US would, of course, pay for the proportion of such assets go to US ports).

3). To never unilaterally interfere with the internal affairs of other countries militarily, whether they be American allied countries or not.

4). To make it clear that direct attacks on US soil will invoke serious ass-kicking retaliation strong enough to make the desirability of attacking the US very low. (Such ass-kicking may include attacking the instigating country, if needed to quell repeated attacks on their part).

This would allow free trade and protection of assets and people involved in trade and travel among our friends. It would NOT have us involved in petty squabbles over resources in other countries that aren't ours. It would let us do what the military has historically been for -- protect Americans on American soil, with as much force as deemed needed.

And, what do you think it will be?

Business as usual, which means whatever is perceived to maximize profits of the interest groups who buy the US political class.

Obviously this is high level and doesn't get into cyber attacks and defense, etc.

However, the concept should be clear and far less threatening to other countries (friendly, and not so much). The US would only remain a planet dominant superpower to the extent other countries WANT to pay us to. If they are willing to provide for their own defense needs (say the EU taking care of their own squabbles with Russia, etc), then the US forces could be reduced enough to protect US interests only (which will still have lots of power and be plenty expensive).

And I'd use any savings to make America stronger via being more resource independent (such as energy independence), have better infrastructure, better education, etc. Only by being strong economically can America afford to have a strong military, over any sustainable time-frame.

[hvacman]

Oh, and Pops, it looked like you tried to post a second link to a different article with the link text which this thread is not, but it didn't quite work. Could you re-post that link?

[Sixstrings]

I would say..

We should counter China / be a counterweight to them, while not really being in opposition to them fundamentally but rather encouraging them to step up in the world the right way (this is actually what US policy is right now, and that's what Japan and the others talk about regarding China, as well)

So, encourage the Chinese to become a manager of globalism through the accepted outlets, UN security council etc. Get China involved in solving regional crisis / peacekeeping.

It's appropriate to be a leader in the world rather than a conquerer -- that's what the USA has been, and so in the future Asia will be one or the other, either a leader or a conquerer. We'd actually rather that be the former.

I guess it's a bit like raising a kid. You have to oppose them at times, yet guide them, then one day when you're old you know they will be in charge and if you raised them right then it will be okay. Hopefully.

We don't have to have a war with China one day -- we just need to channel their "rise" in the right direction.

Other facets of the new American doctrine should be more consensus-based, not being out front all the time anymore. I do have to give Obama credit for doing the right thing on this, such as in Europe. We shouldn't be sending more forces out until the allies are really sure they want them and have been hollering "where's America." Make sure that coalition is really there, make sure a team is really there, AND IT IS NOT JUST US.

We don't ever want another Iraq, we don't ever want allied populations just saying their parliament was tricked by us.

And -- it's also TIME now, for a more consensus based foreign policy.

Europe is ready for it. They're actually more wealthy than we are. It's time they have their own "European Army" to shore up Poland with, rather than the US Army. There's really no reason for American troops to even be in Germany, or so many of them. Nor having so many troops in South Korea, and Japan, and even Australia.

It's time to begin passing the baton. Our regional allies can look to EACH OTHER more, and less to us.

Domestically -- we need to focus a lot more on that. Less foreign policy, more domestic policy.

The direction things are going with this TPP and all that is world governance. That may actually hinder us to move up, to standards more akin to Europe -- we'll fall in that race to the bottom (or a median with Asia), and Europe will fall to. And lose their social benefits and such, too.

And then who knows, maybe Asia will get so rich we'll turn into an Australia then we'd get a bounce out of Chinese buying so much stuff here.

So anyhow, the above is pretty much what American Doctrine is shaping up to be. Not really saying it's what I'd do, but it's one way to go. (the other way is protectionism, which in honesty may not be the best as far as world peace goes, but I do support Sanders' ideas -- maybe there's a middle ground like Germany does)

If I could add anything to the wish list, besides more domestic policy, I'd like to see big things done in space. If everything else went to sh*t at least we could say "look here, American civilization landed on Mars, it landed on the moons of Jupiter, it has colonies taking root in the solar system."

The space stuff is like our civilization's pyramids, and one of our many great achievements. Long after we are gone, the footprints and stars and stripes and placque will still be on the moon.

Space is also that next frontier, and we could move forward quite a bit by being first on that. So don't cede that one to the Chinese.

[Outcast_Searcher]

That is the problem with just about every candidate on both sides. They both have a bunch of lightweights. IMHO, the fact two people with almost zero executive experience - Sanders (former mayor of Burlington) and Warren (career scholar) - actually look like viable Democrat presidential alternatives is proof of the dire Democrat situation.

As a moderate who craves real leadership and some guts, even if some things happen I strongly disagree with, I hear you. OTOH, as a moderate, it seems to me that the proof of the dire GOP situation is that virtually ALL of their viable candidates pander to so many of the far right "values" and talking points (going after women's reproductive rights, anything but a "traditional" family, trying to prevent separation of church and state (as long as the church is Christian, of course), etc, etc.

Even though I hate the Hildebeast mightily on principle, and am not thrilled with Sanders or Warren, I can't see myself voting for any of the GOP candidates who might have a much sounder concept of financial reality when they will push so hard for things all but the far right base is growing completely intolerant of.

Unless we're in some significant global military escalation, I don't think you'll see most voters picking a far right GOP mouthpiece due to his corporate or international policy experience, given the negative baggage he will bring.

[Pops]

Oh, and Pops, it looked like you tried to post a second link to a different article with the link text which this thread is not, but it didn't quite work. Could you re-post that link?

Sorry, that was just to emphasize this thread isn't about Rubio. I just thought that para was a great synopsis of our various "mission statements" I had to give credit.

[Pops]

We are still operating under Bush's doctrine of preemption, O has done nothing to change it and certainly not dial it back. On the military spectrum from Monroe to Preemptive War how much further can you go? The POTUS is sole arbiter of who's with us and who's against us and has ultimate authority to drone out whomever he designates a threat, peremptorily. And that is just the beginning since we've long since decided we can go to war without provocation,even if we need to trump up a few excuses.

--
This isn't where I started to go with this but...
I mention elsewhere that I'd heard the US mil is on a heightened alert. I just read this a.m. that a "plot" was foiled to bomb Ft. Riley in Kansas. This has particular interest to me as my kids and grandkids live on that base. But here is the thing, there never was any threat because the jihadi kid got his bomb from the FBI.

The kid talked stuff on FB and twitted he was a dangerous Jihadi and so the feds set him up with a dud and waited for him to "arm" it and they popped him.

This really goes beyond "thought crime" in that in some of these "sting" operations, the paid "informant" is not just a snitch but is an active instigator and facilitator.

Last summer, the Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute released a report detailing 27 federal terrorism cases from initiation to post-conviction. In some cases, individuals had no history of terrorist acts, and were considered to be "law-abiding citizens" before the initiation of sting operations. Andrea Prasow, deputy Washington director at Human Rights Watch and one of the authors of the report, said in a release:

Americans have been told that their government is keeping them safe by preventing and prosecuting terrorism inside the US . . . But take a closer look and you realize that many of these people would never have committed a crime if not for law enforcement encouraging, pressuring, and sometimes paying them to commit terrorist acts.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update ... sary-video

And from that report by human rights watch:

In the case of the “Newburgh Four,” for example, who were accused of planning to blow up synagogues and attack a US military base, a judge said the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles,” and had, in the process, made a terrorist out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”

The FBI often targeted particularly vulnerable people, including those with intellectual and mental disabilities and the indigent.

The kid in KS was off his meds (for something or other).

So where does that leave me? Obviously I don't care what needs to be done to keep my daughter and grandkids from getting blown up — but were they ever actually in danger? This head case kid spouted stuff on FB and got on the list and along comes an FBI "informant" to put the bomb in his hand. Kids are very easily indoctrinated, which of course is why they are prime targets of recruiters, both good and bad ones. Is it the FBIs job to "challenge" kids to make sure they can't be "radicalized"?

I gotta wonder if my grandkids aren't in greater danger from the thought police.

I think the new doctrine is just what Michael Hayden said: sniff it all, collect, but then what?

Call it the Star Chamber doctrine. We are going backwards.

[Timo]

I know that kid's dad. That Ft. Riley plot was as big a shock to him as it was to everyone else. I also know a guy who was caught and recently sentenced for making bombs to blow up his ex-wife's attorney's law office. Point being that lots of people are capable of going loco for a wide variety of reasons without any external warning. Religion and politics are often irrelevant to the crazies. Or maybe they're the victims of losing their grip on reality. They're legitimately sick in the head. I know that sounds bleeding heart liberal of me, and it's not meant to be an excuse for their criminal behaviors. Still, not everyone goes nuts when they get pissed off for whatever reason.

That threshold for going nuts, though, does seem to be getting lower and lower, all the time.

[Pops]

I read your post Timo and the very first thing that came to my mind was:
Do I now have a digital link to the kid somehow?
Could that affect my son's and son-in-law's jobs, re: clearances?

Paranoid? Probably. Not sure how many degrees of separation constitute "material support".
The fact that the paranoia kicked in so quick only reinforces my paranoia. (How sick's that?)

Total Information Awareness, directed outward but especially inward, toward all enemies of (and FaceBook Rants against) the state, foreign and particularly domestic, is the new US doctrine.

It dawns on me how strange the juxtaposition of the widely publicized liberalization of civil rights toward gays, while at the exact same time there is this subtle undermining of the first amendment for all of us.
(Not to mention the expansion of the civil rights of corporate persons under Citizens United)

I guess the moral is, careful what rant you post on FB (or PO.com)—because big brother IS watching.

Security of the state and its supranational corporate sponsors at any cost.
That is the new doctrine.

[Sixstrings]

Here's a good video from Time, describing the 3 choices we have going forward, on which direction the American Doctrine could go:

What Does America Stand For? | TIME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-i9WsOjIDc

My only problem with it is that it's all well and good, but things have fallen apart too much domestically, need to raise the damn minimum wage for crying out loud. And rebuild infrastructure and get a jobs-focused policy, and move further toward universal healthcare, mong other things. And then, okay, go be superman in the world.

Really -- when thinking of foreign policy -- the different approaches do vary depending on what national priorities are. Are the priorities for the working and middle class here, or is it just corporations. Etc.

The guy interviewed in that Time video is right about while we do not WANT to be global cop, it's still true that if we are not, then nobody else will do it. And then the problems come back on us. My view is just that it has to be balanced, against improving conditions here domestically for most of our people.

You can't just be all about foreign policy, that's illogical. What's some American care about global stability on the other side of the planet, if he's got no healthcare and no insulin for his diabetes and his millenial kid living at home can't ever find full time work that would pay enough to move out of the house.

[Pops]

Think I'm kidding?
Sen. Lindsey Graham, who just announced that he is going to announce for POTUS because he has been "right more often than not" on foreign policy said this in Iowa [@3:40]:

If I’m president of the United States, and you’re thinking about joining Al Qaeda or ISIL — anybody thinking about that? — I’m not gonna call the judge, I’m gonna call the drone. And we will kill you.

Not; 'if you're planning/plotting/talking/conspiring/FB posting" but thinking. And no, it was not off the cuff mis-speakage or response to some gotcha question, he read those words from a prepared speech in which presumably someone consciously decided on that particular word.

Think he can't figure out what you're thinking?
Target knows when you're pregnant
Visa can predict your divorce
Even the taco joint down the street knows you're an alchy.
And your doc does too.

And just imagine what the Google-plex knows about you.

--
hat tip to the Wonkett, Salute!

[Timo]

Being paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

Be very careful what you say. You never know who you're really talking to. You don't know me, but i might very well know you! You might not know how you'll react to finding out what my motivations really are, but i do! I can see you! Peek-a-boo!

STOP! Don't touch that!

WAIT!

OK. Now you can go back to the main menu.

[Timo]

I'm lost in the suburbs, and cannot find my home.

[Keith_McClary]

What should be the new American Doctrine?

1). To work WITH American allies to defend their mutual interests in safe trade, transport, and commerce as member countries mutually agree to engage in.

2). To work as part of the community of American allied countries -- NOT to provide the bulk of the defense material and money all at America's cost. (If member countries want the US to be the mercenaries to, for example, use battleships to defend oil shipping in the Middle East, then member countries need to PAY for that in proportion to how many shiploads of oil go to their ports. The US would, of course, pay for the proportion of such assets go to US ports).

3). To never unilaterally interfere with the internal affairs of other countries militarily, whether they be American allied countries or not.

4). To make it clear that direct attacks on US soil will invoke serious ass-kicking retaliation strong enough to make the desirability of attacking the US very low. (Such ass-kicking may include attacking the instigating country, if needed to quell repeated attacks on their part).

This would allow free trade and protection of assets and people involved in trade and travel among our friends. It would NOT have us involved in petty squabbles over resources in other countries that aren't ours. It would let us do what the military has historically been for -- protect Americans on American soil, with as much force as deemed needed.

But, you can't allow the Saudi royals and assorted emirs and sultans to be overthrown.
They might be replaced by somebody who is looking after their own country's interests instead of yours.

[Keith_McClary]

Visa can predict your divorce

Interestingly worded non-denial:

“Visa does not track or monitor cardholder marital status, nor does it offer any service or product that predicts a potential divorce. These claims are false and any media outlets or authors citing that Visa has such capabilities are inaccurate and wrong.”

"does not track or monitor cardholder marital status" but maybe they predict it.
"nor does it offer any service or product that predicts a potential divorce" buy maybe they use such predictions for their own internal purposes.

[Pops]

Dang, I really didn't plan this thread to go this way but...

Global intelligence agencies, including the US National Security Agency, planned to hijack millions of Android smartphones with spyware.

The project, first published Wednesday by CBC News and The Intercept, sought to exploit the smartphone operating system for surveillance. Dubbed "Irritant Horn" by the NSA, the agency planned to hack and hijack the connections to app stores and direct users to spyware. That spyware would collect data and send it back to the NSA without the user noticing.


NSA is so overwhelmed with data, it's no longer effective, says whistleblower

One of the agency's first whistleblowers says the National Security Agency is taking in too much data for it to handle, which can have disastrous -- if not deadly -- consequences.

The newly-released document shows how the NSA and its partner agencies in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, wanted to launch man-in-the-middle attacks, a process of tapping into the connection between a user and a server, to install the spyware implant.

The project was in response to concerns sparked by the Arab Spring in late 2010, in which a number of countries' governments were overthrown. The NSA and its partner agencies did not want it spreading.

Irritant Horn followed in the footsteps of an earlier, successful effort targeting UC Browser, a widely popular app in China and India, in late 2011. After finding a weakness in the app, the NSA continued to search for ways into the app store and other Android phones, instead of disclosing the flaw to Alibaba, the app's developer.

It's not the first time smartphones have been the target of an intelligence agency's surveillance.

GCHQ, the British electronic eavesdropping agency, developed tools to target iPhones and Android devices. These tools, named after the children's television cartoon characters "The Smurfs," allowed the agency to determine a device's location with extreme accuracy, turn on devices when they were turned off, and to secretly activate a phone's microphone without the owner knowing.

We reached out to the NSA for comment, but did not immediately hear back. (The NSA did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The Intercept.)

http://www.zdnet.com/article/nsa-planne ... artphones/