When it comes to foreign policy, Americans must be confused. Exhausted from a decade of war in far away places, it appeared that public opinion favored less military engagement abroad. However, a recent Pew / USA Today poll puts that assumption to the test. A larger percent of individuals now, 31 percent, think that the United States is not doing enough overseas.
What has caused such a large number of citizens to become more hawkish? It certainly cannot be the tan suit that President Obama wore, which drew a stir of controversy on the Twittersphere. Perhaps it is the turmoil in multiple regions that has caused some anxiety. Truly, the world is a mess right now.
Civil war in Ukraine, Russian aggression, Israel and Hamas, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, are all conflicts; the bloodshed and turmoil is palpable.
The coverage of such events put to question America's role in foreign affairs. What should be America's role? And is President Obama implementing the right responses to such crises?
If you were to ask a Republican legislator, the answer would be: more involvement, and Obama is a failure. More specifically, the talking point oft quoted is that "Obama conveys weakness." Neocons, the advocates of the Bush II Iraq campaign, are enraged that we have not bombed Syria, invaded northern Iraq, and implemented a no-fly zone in Libya. They want harsh talk. They desire more "action."
Criticism is much easier than governing and policy-making. When pushed on follow-ups, the criticizers are usually short on strategy.
The Blame-Obama crowd offer no real alternatives or sound advice. They agree that ground troops should not be used in most conflicts. They even concede that an outright war with Russia over territorial disputes in Ukraine would be foolish. Much of the concern lies with the Administration's timing, optics, and proportionality -- more weapons should have been given to militant groups in Syria (like that worked so well in Afghanistan).
The world is a complex place, with complicated people inhabiting it. While the campaigners yell and scream about foreign policy negligence, evil men and women will continue to kill. A Republican in the White House would not change that.
Given the sociological and anthropological realities, i.e. that we can expect war, conflict, and bloodshed, let me answer the two questions that were posed earlier.
America's role should be the same as it was in the Twentieth Century: a beacon of hope, a template for how the rule of law should be supreme. When possible the United States should exert its strong influence by political, economic, and diplomatic means. The pen is mightier than the sword. It is possible that persuasion and diplomacy could thwart unnecessary war.
Further, America should recognize that other sovereign countries are in charge of their own fates. Yes, we can support and counsel, but ultimately it is impracticable to think that we can intervene in every unjust situation.
Finally, if we do use our superior military, it should be with a clear plan -- a long-term viable strategy. President Bush invaded Iraq but he did not think of the consequences of disrupting an explosive ethnic and political struggle. The Shias and Sunnis need to find a way to govern with an understanding of pluralism.
President Obama has used restraint and I admire that. The easiest thing is not always the right thing. As Commander-in-Chief, he could initiate another war without question. It certainly would be politically beneficial. However, it may not be in the United States' long-term interest.
Is Obama responding appropriately to the different hostilities abroad? For the most part, but he should definitely stop wearing the tan suit. Like they said on Twitter: he is not the President of Sears.
No comments:
Post a Comment