"Foreign policy credientials"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHat did Truman do that stands out as a foregin Policy success, as opposed to a foreign war success?

1) The Marshall Plan, for starters.
2) The formation of NATO and keeping the Soviets in check.
3) Managing the scale of the Korean War (both policy and war related, IMO). Ironically, Truman gets blame for dropping the bombs, but he should get credit for holding nuclear weapons in check. There was tremendous pressure to use them again following WWII.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

1) The Marshall Plan, for starters.
2) The formation of NATO and keeping the Soviets in check.
3) Managing the scale of the Korean War (both policy and war related, IMO). Ironically, Truman gets blame for dropping the bombs, but he should get credit for holding nuclear weapons in check. There was tremendous pressure to use them again following WWII.

I guess you can say those things happened under him, not sure I would give him credit for them. It is, after all, the marshall plan, not the Truman plan. Btw, I give him credit for dropping the bomb, not blame.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I guess you can say those things happened under him, not sure I would give him credit for them. It is, after all, the marshall plan, not the Truman plan. Btw, I give him credit for dropping the bomb, not blame.

This is like blame the coach if the team loses but credit the players if they win.

Doesn't this point just confirm my original point about Palin/Obama? I get sick of these foreign policy wonks thinking they practice inside some black box. They don't. Foreign policy can be learned, and experts are always consulted. It's true that all Truman did is pick a dream team cabinet--Marshall, Forestall, Acheson, et al.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is like blame the coach if the team loses but credit the players if they win.

Doesn't this point just confirm my original point about Palin/Obama? I get sick of these foreign policy wonks thinking they practice inside some black box. They don't. Foreign policy can be learned, and experts are always consulted. It's true that all Truman did is pick a dream team cabinet--Marshall, Forestall, Acheson, et al.

Geez, I said I was taking a stupid position (I am only very rarely good at trolling), what do I need to do here?

[creekster]

I iwll add one thing, however, as much as Truman did well in his time, his time was unique. We were the benevloent conquerors of the world. The rest of the industrialized world was destroyed and/or demorlaized and the Soviets talked big but no one liked them. Plus, we had the bomb and had undeniable proof we were willing to use it. So it was a lot easier to do something like create NATO under those circumstances than it would be today.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

I guess you can say those things happened under him, not sure I would give him credit for them. It is, after all, the marshall plan, not the Truman plan. Btw, I give him credit for dropping the bomb, not blame.

They originally were going to call it the "Truman Plan". But Truman decided it would be easier to sell with the US public (who were initially overwhelmingly against giving all of that money to Europe when the US was rebuilding too) if they called it the "Marshall Plan". George Marshall carried tremendous gravitas at the time. I am not saying it was all Truman's idea, I am just saying that we shouldn't make too much of the name. Again, it is evidence of Truman's judgment.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHat did Truman do that stands out as a foregin Policy success, as opposed to a foreign war success?

The Berlin Airlift
The Marshall Plan/reconstruction of Europe
Reconstruction of Japan
NATO
Policy of Soviet containment

In his last state of the union address he not only anticipated but described in explicit detail the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, and how the foregoing would bring it about.

Is that enough?

I would mention successful conclusion to WWII and salvation of South Korea from totalitarianism, but that seems to be excluded from the scope of your question.

His foreign policy successes may seem like common sense today but then they were counterintuitive. See the Verseilles treaty.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The Berlin Airlift
The Marshall Plan/reconstruction of Europe
Reconstruction of Japan
NATO
Policy of Soviet containment

In his last state of the union address he not only anticipated but described in explicit detail the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, and how the foregoing would bring it about.

Is that enough?

I would mention successful conclusion to WWII and salvation of South Korea from totalitarianism, but that seems to be excluded from the scope of your question.

His foreign policy successes may seem like common sense today but then they were counterintuitive. See the Verseilles treaty.

All right, I posted without thinking. I concur with you and Lebowski. The irnoy is that I really like Truman. Itwas a stupiud post.

[Travis Henry]

The funny thing is Truman was regarded as a rube throughout his presidency, not unlike W. I know this is not exactly an original point.

Things are likely to be ruled against W's favor 40-50 years from now- unlike Truman who experienced a reputation makeover. It's one thing holding the Soviet Union in check and ensuring that Western Europe and Japan remain free and democratic. It's another thing invading a relatively inconsequential country (besides the oil) and establishing a stable government (which remains to be determined).

The only possibility that Iraq turns out okay for Bush and is deemed to have been worth the trouble is if Iran starts causing more serious problems and military action is necessary. At that point having a large military presence on both sides of Iran will look like strategically brilliant moves (even though probably not intended). Of course, it also appears as if Iraq became the killing grounds for the US against islamic terrorists. Instead of having them crash planes into major landmark buildings and killing a few thousand people over here, they killed a lot more of their own people and allowed our military to annihilate them. So maybe there is some more hope for W.

BTW, I'm extremely curious to find out about the technology or method that Bob Woodward is referring to that has allowed the military to start wiping these guys out. I think the Times had a story on Predators being able to track these guys inside buildings somehow- is that possibly what Woodward is referring to. Is it the way the Predators track these guys that is so top secret?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

His foreign policy successes may seem like common sense today but then they were counterintuitive. See the Verseilles treaty.

Which is why I see broad criticisms of Bush as premature (or perhaps immature). His success or failure as a president will bear itself out in time.

Foreign policy "experience" is so vague. It really depends on one's mindset, how much you've exposed yourself to other ideologies and ideals that differ from America's, your understanding of how those ideologies interact on the world stage, and what kind of role you think America ought to play in the world.

Administrating the particulars can be left to subordinates.