Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmk | Hacker News Reader

It looks like the vaunted experience of Biden and his team has not translated into any sort of deft policymaking, particularly in foreign policy. The messy pullout out of Afghanistan, followed by this scuttling of the deal in progress between Australia and France have reinforced the notion that Uncle Sam can not be relied upon, even by his closest allies. Pretty surefire way of helping fence-sitters become client states of China.

View on HN

Though downvotes I agree here - I would rather the US eschew the UK to have better relations with the EU, who seem to have a much better grasp on the challenges of today, while also providing for better quality of life for their citizens. Of course nothing is all roses but I’d find it hard to argue the average person in the (western) EU has a worse quality of life than in the US.

This would be a less bitter pill to swallow if other EU countries made their nato spending commitments (it's only France).

Honestly putting UK as an adversary to the EU is ridiculous. We are all allies. There should be no eschewing.

Derna forever!

EDIT: Sorry for the low-effort riffing. I was being wry.

The U.S. won a decisive victory at Derna and, in the aftermath of the diplomatic resolution resulting from that victory, promptly abandoned our allies, without pay, in enemy territory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Derna_(1805)

It is my opinion that we are unreliable, and it's deeply painful when diplomats squander gains made at the cost of decades of treasure and military blood.

This is especially painful right now. A lot of us had to beg, borrow, and steal our way to rescuing Afghan interpreters while the State Dept did nothing.

You shouldn't let downvotes cow you into issuing mea culpas. Stand your ground and ignore the loss of imaginary internet points :)

It is deeply unjust that old farts (who no longer even send their own children into combat; the current president is a fortunate exception) instigate futile wars and then blunder their way out of them by essentially capitulating more or less completely. This has been especially true in Iraq where we have handed the country on a platter to Iran, and also in Afghanistan where we do not even know if future terrorists will not be sheltered.

But I still believe that what Churchill (supposedly) said about us is essentially correct: "Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.”

Huh? What does this mean?

He's saying what happened in Derna (i.e. abandoning allies) was and always will be the way of the US government. It's a part their DNA, their heritage, and they'll keep doing it. Personally, not sure if this holds merit.

If they think the US is bad seems like an even worse idea to go buddy up with China imo. You know, the country on a more egregious economic imperialism kick for the last 15-25 years.

Honestly, I'm kind of hoping Biden keeps pulling moves like that.

My biggest worry with a Biden presidency was that he'd undo Trump's effect on US image. There's increased awareness in EU countries now that the US cannot be relied on, and that any relationship with them will always be one of vassalage (see also the proposed US-UK deal after brexit).

There's still a serious chance Biden might be a return to business as usual, with EU countries courting the US favor instead of trying to be a rival superpower.

So I do hope he keeps pulling out these blatant "fuck you"s to allied countries. Now is way past time to rip the band-aid off.

Hoping for conflict.

I mean, ideally, I'd hope Biden would get back into the JCPOA, pay Iran reparations for the damage they inflicted to their economy by going back on their own deal, pardon Julian Assange, close Guantanamo Bay and all US black sites, cease drone strikes on foreign soil, scale back US surveillance on allied countries, and repeal FATCA.

But realistically, none of this is going to happen.

So realistically, I'm hoping Biden screws up enough that European countries wean themselves off of their dependence on the US.

Because I am french I will not say anything too dark.

But yes, this SUB contract was big. Giant.And Naval Group is partially a state company.

The Worth for french community is this : 1) French just hatted Trump. Deeply. His sense of hatting his allies ( Germany...) and loving his foes ( North Corea, ect).

2) As opposed, French loved Biden. More rounded, multi cultural, more social like in Europe. I would say french people felt Biden was a friend.

So With this SUB commercial stab in the back, the feeling of a friend that betrays us french is palpable.

It feels as if Biden just behaved like Trump.

The nuclear subs appear to have much bigger advantages over conventional subs, so on the merits of the product, perhaps the US/UK combine increases security in the Pacific and strengthens the "contain China" strategy. Similarly, withdrawing from Afghanistan puts an end to twenty years of lying to the American public that the Afghan war was even a modest success, and allows resources and political capital to be focused on other efforts/strategic goals of national interest. But it has all been done in a hamfisted way.

Nuclear submarines are expensive to dispose of though. The UK hasn’t completely dispose of any of their retire nuclear submarines if I’m right. Is the US going to dispose of the subs for Australia when they reach the end of their life or are the subs going to sit in dock forever like the UK subs?

P.S. Hell, the US itself is behind schedule disposing of their retired nuclear carriers.

Well then the Australians perhaps should have asked the French to build them nuclear subs, like the French are used to building?

Biden/the US military industrial complex of which he’s a part have been eyeing the EU with way too much suspicion. I really fear for the consequences in the future. Hoping the EU will take refugees :p

> Pretty surefire way of helping fence-sitters become client states of China.

By offering to provide less costly subs in support of a war with China? Your comment is nonsensical given the context of the deal.

It's not the military hardware that I'm referring to, but the treatment of a longstanding ally that helped found the nation. Did the US participate in the tender? It appears to me that they just swooped in and offered the subs that had been picked over Germany and Japan's proposed subs. The French aren't recalling their diplomats from Germany and Japan, are they?

France, our long-standing ally, has no interest in providing support to the US against China’s aggression. Let’s deal with the reality of modern day geopolitics and not that of over 200 years ago.

That's exactly what has happened here, but it's difficult to see how this improves "America's standing in the world" vis-a-vis Trump. Anthony Blinken is supposedly a seasoned diplomat vs. Rex Tillerson or Pompeo, not to mention the clearly more experienced Biden. Is this hamfisted diplomacy what we get by replacing Trump? Not much finesse there no matter who's occupying the hot seat, it appears.

It's only worth comparing these decisions with the credible alternatives. In Afghanistan, America had to choose between a messy pullout or a swift escalation with the Taliban. Biden himself really was left with a matter of months to execute on either, and it was never going to be escalation.

It could be the case for one reason or another, but I find it pretty hard to believe that President Trump/Romney/Obama/Clinton/Sanders/Buttigieg would have really made it go any better, as though the "withdraw from Afghanistan gracefully" button is right next to "lower the gas prices" in the Oval Office. I am almost certain it would have gone worse under some of them.

By pissing off the French and bolstering Australia, it could just as easily be argued that Biden was being shrewd in signaling his seriousness about the Asia-Pacific by spending down some political capital in France. I think that will end up depending on how contained the fallout from this will be, but it's not like the rest of America and France's shared interests just evaporated.

>America had to choose between a messy pullout or a swift escalation with the Taliban.

The Taliban offered to let the US control Kabul for the evacuation[0], it was the admin that refused. Earlier, the US extended the deadline itself from 1/5 to 31/8 - without an escalation (and without making any use of the extra time it appears).

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/28/taliban-take...

You do know the messy pull out of Afghanistan was a peace deal agreed to by prior governments (without the consent of the Aphgani government no less) could they have done better, absolutely but the way you are framing it is hardly unbiased.

As for countries deciding to not rely upon America, that has long been a desire, but the previous administration drove it home like a stake through the heart. Having lived outside of the US for most of the last five years I can’t fully express how far the US has fallen in the eyes of the world, and just how much of a joke we are these days.

Well, if Biden's pitch to the electorate was that he had more experience and was more capable, it is difficult to reconcile these clumsy efforts with the sales pitch. If you claim to be better than your predecessor, you really can't have it both ways: ultimately, responsibility lies with you, and you had better deliver the goods.

Biden had months to prepare for the pullout.

Ironically, France evacuated its embassies months ahead of time, for obvious reasons (at least obvious in hindsight). The Biden administration at the time criticized us for undermining confidence in the Afghan government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com