wanting to change it, but looking at it after one steps back from it, possible our form of picking leadership is not really the best way of doing things in this new world of ours.
Forgetting the current back and forth going on, like here, "MSN Money Board Refugees ", where Henry, P.I. Marsha. Palm, krickett , ed..and a few others have been yapping about Obama , yadda , yadda..Obama will be replaced, whether after 2012 or 2016..definitly gone and then another leader will be picked ..
The same yadda , yadda ..unless the one replacing him walks on water , and personally I don't feel. IMHO, that one is coming for a long time, , so we are stuck with mortals and the same yadda, yadda will come about , only this time possible from the other side or if what the current yadda, yaddas fear happens, the current one wins, then another four years of the same yadda , yadda, only possible more strident , if possible might be the result.
The problem as I see it though is what ever happens , when new ones come into play , so many times what was our policy then is thrown out and what was not the policy, now becomes the policy..
When it is related to domestic things, well that seems to be worked out..many times the old is kept but modified , tweaked, hopefully for the better, but whan it is foreign policy, a complete change , well that drives our foreign friends nuts, confuses our friends abroad and even those not so friendly ones, drives them nuts too , as to what was known on our policies are now out the window..so what do they do now.
In some ways foreign ways of picking senior leadership seem to give a continuity, gives one a known expectations of with some tweaking and changes but over all, one knows the guide lines, how to deal with others.
-----------------------------------------------------
english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011621132915825211.html-------------------------------------------------------
I got to thinking about that as I read this article relating to "what after Afganistan ", a speech by Gates, the out going Secretary of defense made recently in Singapore, .. as he out lined the future US policies in South East Asia , yet realize after he leaves, a new Pontus comes into power, whether 2012 or 2016..all that he is suggesting could change..
------------------------------------------------------
Opinion
Asia after the Afghan war
The US withdrawal of its troops will test the will of Asia's power brokers to build a secure regional order.
Yuriko Koike Last Modified: 24 Jun 2011 10:08
"At the recent Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore - in the presence of Chinese Minister of Defence - US Defence Secretary Robert Gates outlined his ideas for continuing US military operations in and with Asia
July will mark two milestones in America's sometimes-tortured relations with Asia. One is the beginning of the end of the nearly decade-long struggle in Afghanistan - the longest war in United States history - as President Barack Obama announces the first troop withdrawals. The other is the 40th anniversary of Henry Kissinger's secret mission to Beijing, a turning point in the Cold War and the first step on China's road to modernisation - but at the time a huge shock to Asia, particularly Japan.
The looming Afghan withdrawal recalls, at least for some Asians, a third, even more traumatic event: America's chaotic exit from Saigon in April 1975. Back then, that debacle seemed to presage a broader US withdrawal from Asia, with a war-weary American public seeking the supposed comforts of isolationism. Today's Asian nervousness exists not only because isolationism appears to be gaining ground once more in America, but also because Afghanistan's stability remains in doubt, while China's power is rising in the absence of any pan-Asian consensus or institutional structure.
The US did, indeed, turn inward following the fall of Saigon, and its neglect of Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 led to chaos and al-Qaeda's near-takeover of the country. So it is not surprising that many Asian leaders are asking themselves what commitments the US will maintain once its troops leave Afghanistan. Perhaps equally as important, many people in Asia are also debating whether the region would be able to rebalance itself, should the US scale back its military presence.
Fortunately, US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has reassured America's Asian friends and allies that regional disengagement is not being contemplated. At the recent Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore - indeed, in the presence of Chinese Minister of Defense General Liang Guanglie - Gates outlined his ideas for continuing US cooperation in and with Asia. Gates promised to increase the number of US warships deployed to Singapore as part of the US-Singapore Strategic Framework Agreement; increase the number of US Navy calls in Asian ports; hold more joint naval exercises; and improve multilateral military cooperation.
Even more reassuring were the principles that will, according to Gates, guide America's future Asian strategy: free and open commerce; support for the rule of law and the rights, responsibilities, and sovereignty of Asia's states; open access to Asian and global sea lanes, airspace, and cyberspace; and peaceful resolution of all conflicts. These principles matter, because Australia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam, and even Mongolia all regard a US military presence in the region as essential to counterbalancing China's increasing might.
Gates, however, is due to step down from his post shortly, which is unfortunate, because the Obama administration's apparent lack of any explicit Asia strategy means that Gates' reassurances might not reassure for very long. Nowadays, US policy on Asia needs the type of strategic vision and insight that guided Kissinger's discussions with Mao Zedong and Zhou En-lai four decades ago. Without a clear and convincing doctrine, at least some Asian leaders are likely to remain dubious of America's ability to remain Asia's dominant military force, particularly given its economic woes, projected fiscal retrenchment, and other overseas commitments. This lack of clarity may become particularly troublesome should China's leaders underestimate the enduring quality of America's Asian commitments.
Securing a structure of peace in Asia, however, is not solely America's responsibility. America's friends and allies need to think hard about what sort of regional order they want, and they must begin to collaborate in order to breathe life into a structure of peace within which all of Asia can prosper and feel secure. Japan's government in particular needs to identify a coherent Asia strategy and stick to it, instead of leaning towards China one minute, and America the next. In constructing a viable strategy, deepening Japan's partnerships with Asia's great democracies - India, Indonesia, and South Korea - must be a priority.
But the biggest question concerns China's place in a consensual Asian order, and its willingness to collaborate with its neighbours, as well as with the US, in creating it. The doubts that many Asians now hold about China's intentions are well grounded, given the secretive nature of China's military build-up, and its leaders' increasingly aggressive tone in territorial disputes with India, Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. China's unconditional support for North Korea's wayward regime, despite its repeated crimes against peace, is also a cause for concern about whether China will treat its neighbours' security concerns with respect.
Today's Asia-Pacific region has now become the focus of the global economy. According to the World Bank, three of the top five economic powers will be Asian powers (China, Japan, and India) within this decade. The boom that has brought this shift occurred because America's military presence in the region provided stability and predictability. America's withdrawal from Afghanistan must not be allowed to call this stability into question.
What happens in Afghanistan as America begins to draw down its troops will test the willingness of all of Asia's powers to work together to build a secure regional order. In Afghanistan, their long-term interests are essentially in harmony, as none - including China - wants to see Afghanistan become a haven for terrorism once again. But only a strong regional consensus on Afghanistan's future can avert the prospect of a renewed struggle for mastery there. If such a consensus can be forged, however, it will provide a foundation for further collaboration in building a pan-Asian order based on consent, not military might.
Yuriko Koike, Japan's former Minister of Defense and National Security Adviser, is Chairman of the Executive Council of the Liberal Democratic Party.
The article above was first published by Project Syndicate.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy."
