American Foreign Policy: Longing for Simplicity

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.

What About Our (Fiscal) Civil War?

"Bang bang bang," I shouted when I jumped into the Tennessee grass and tried to avoid the imaginary fire from my older brother. We were both under ten at the time but that did not stop us from developing an interest in United States history - particularly the Civil War. I wore gray, the color of the Confederates, and my brother wore blue for the North.

With a battle site not ten minutes away, in the city of Franklin, it was easy for two young boys to get enthralled with the fights of the past. There was one problem for me, however: I never got to win. The South suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Franklin.

During this month of September the public had an opportunity to discuss and debate another civil war - the one in Syria. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints and coalitions for and against a military strike. The whole global crisis and argument developed because President Assad used Sarin gas against his own people. The lungs of 400 children were paralyzed because of the banned chemicals.

Not surprisingly, the conservative-controlled House of Representatives were opposed to the strike. Some of the members may have opposed the strike on rational grounds, but it is almost certain that some wanted to simply oppose the President. Congressman Israel thought so and stated that:

"Does anyone truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and had asked House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they’re opposed to what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me."

Luckily, we did not have to find out if there were enough votes from the House of Representatives. A diplomatic deal was struck and for the meantime postponed a potential global conflict. Unfortunately for the American people, we can still expect a domestic conflict that will have an impact on our everyday well-being - the budget battle and likely government shut-down.

The truth of the matter is that we are embroiled in another American civil war. This war is not being fought with horses and bayonets. The weapons of choice for this ideological civil war is special interest money, political brinkmanship, and a wide army of pundits. The casualties: our economy and the American people.

If you have not been following, the Federal government is facing a possible shut-down because extremists in the House conditioned the funding of the Government on the defunding of ObamaCare. It is a symbolic move, which has a zero change of passage, but has the ability to cause havoc to our markets and economy.

The GOP obsession with ObamaCare has curtailed any laws from being passed, i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of laws that could only help the United States. Now, the GOP's irrational fixation will slow our already slow recovery.

ObamaCare was passed and signed in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, and has helped millions of young Americans stay insured through their parents' health care. 78% of the young beneficiaries of ObamaCare are Republicans.

Yet, we are still fighting. Why? Because there is a political opposition that cannot govern and perhaps do not want to govern. A government shut-down is precisely what some of the Tea Party zealots advocate. They do not want a limited government, they do not want a government at all.

Every civil war eventually comes to an end. I am certain that this fiscal one will end too. But only because the American people are fed up. Reasonable conservatives and liberal Americans will come together to express their dissatisfaction with the gamesmanship. We do not have to accept a government that is incapable of compromise and disrespectful of the opposition.

In the end, we are all in this together - brothers and sisters of the Constitution. I can guarantee that despite these budget fiascoes, there will still be young children replaying the great history of our country in their front yards, perhaps the Battle of Franklin too. I even bet that, just like my brother and I, they will eventually get tired, smile, and put down their imaginary arms. Sometimes its more fun to be on the same team.