The
current fiasco over Syria has highlighted the confusion and inconsistency of
America's foreign policy. Secretary of
State John Kerry" attempts to explain each new twist and reversal in the
failed policy of his President has made a laughing stock of this administration.
Ironically, the general policy during
the last six years has been a continuation of the George W. Bush policies that
Obama campaigned against and promised to reverse. But today we are still
enmeshed in the Middle East conflicts. The number of Americans killed in
Afghanistan under Obama now exceed those killed under the Bush presidency. Camp
Gitmo remains open, and the Muslim extremists are gradually taking over one
more country after another. The subversion of relatively stable regimes in
Libya and Egypt was supported by American force only to increase the influence
of our enemies. The president's recent threat to bomb Syrian government bases
would have also helped the extremists take over one more nation. That such
folly was avoided only by the intervention of Russia and Iran indicates the
extent to which American leadership has fallen.
American
liberals and most Democrats opposed the Iraq war because, among other things,
they argued that nation building was not the responsibility of America.
However, after WWII we did make decent and viable democracies out of Germany,
Japan, and South Korea. Our resident generals were not limited by today's
politically correct "rules of engagement," and working with industrious
and educated populations, those three countries responded positively. However, we have discovered that the Muslim
nations in the Middle East are a different kettle of fish--they are torn by
religious fanaticism, divided by the mutual hatred of ancient tribal grievances,
and segregated into diverse religious sects that are devoted to wiping out all
other groups. And the populations are primarily uneducated and unemployed,
living off the flow of oil money that can only be produced by the expertise and
initiative of foreign companies and workers. If the Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts did nothing, they at least showed that we cannot repeat the Japanese
miracle in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the diplomats in Foggy Bottom, and
the President, have not learned this fact.
Why, when it is now so obvious, have they failed to see this point?
We
are suffering from an excess of internationalism. This dates back to the defeat
of isolationism during the last century when the original founding principle of
America to avoid foreign entanglements was dominant. As with most "isms," there seems to
be no happy medium. The cure for today's excessive foreign interventions is to
seek such a happy medium, but the thousands of government employees in the
State Department, and many of our political leaders, have nothing else to do
and believe it necessary "to lead" by action and talk to justify
their positions. The result is that
America is always sticking its nose into the affairs of other nations. A recent
egregious case was Obama's lecturing Russia's leader, Putin, about gay rights.
So much for knowing how to win friends and influence people!
It
is useful to recognize how the world has changed when devising foreign policy.
The Cold War is over, world commerce is thriving and connecting more and more
nations and their people, and we need not worry so much about so-called
"strategic interests" in every corner of the globe. We do not have to
"control" the Middle East to get oil because there are plenty of
other sources and the nations there will want to sell it on the world market
anyway. And, if China or Russia want to try their hand at controlling the
Middle East, let them--after all that region is known as "the graveyard of
civilizations." Finally, if we were to disengage, there would be less
reason for foreign people to hate us.
It
is also useful to recognize that America's multi-national corporations have
been much more successful in "foreign affairs" than our government
has been. You don't read about it in the mainstream media, but Kellogg, Intel,
Exxon, Microsoft, and hundreds of others have elaborate investments and
manufacturing operations in virtually every country on earth, including some of the most unstable nations, and they
are doing well. They build factories, employ local residents, follow their
laws, pay taxes, and thrive. Why is it just our government that is always in
trouble everywhere? Two reasons: 1.) Our government has no legitimate interest
or reason to bother other nations, and 2.) Governments tend to do most things
poorly, as overwhelminly proven by our recent efforts in the Middle East.
While
it has been a noble idea for America to be a beacon of freedom, and to stand up
for human rights, the best way to do that is by setting the example--not by
preaching to others. Our objective should be to restore our own house to
optimum financial order, eliminate corruption, fix our schools, and maintain
our military might. The constant urge to intervene everywhere on earth has us
overextended and earned the ill-will of many nations. The best medicine for our
foreign policy would be to stop all foreign aid payments, return all our troops
to America, completely close every endangered embassy, and let the State
Department rolls be cut in half through attrition--then they could only do half
the mischief they currently inflict on us.
No comments:
Post a Comment