Surprisingly, I did not bother to watch any of the Presidential debates. Quite frankly, I won't be voting for Mr. Obama and my political junkie genes must be fading. Add to that the fact that none of my issues will be seriously debated and the candidates that I want to hear, Gary Johnson chief among them, were excluded from the event.
One example of a personal issue that will be safely ignored is the global implications of America's "War on Drugs". While the US deals with an array of mafiosi, gang bangers, and other reprobates, nations throughout Central and South America deal with the private armies of drug dealers that undermine the ability of those nations to foster civilization and progress. Decades of failed drug policies have funded drug dealer backed dictatorships in response to America's demand for drugs and motivated other dictatorships that rise in response to America's demand for drug policy compliance. This problem is compounded when you remember that the Taliban uses money raised from the sale of heroin products to fund their efforts to oppress or re-oppress vast swaths of the Middle East.
Money fuels these tragedies. Drugs have such a high "street value" precisely because their are illegal. Legalizing, regulating (and taxing) currently illegal substances would be the best way to foster civilization and progress among our friends and allies within the western hemisphere and to de-fund our Jihadist enemies.
But of course, Central and South America barely got the briefest of mentions. The foreign policy implications of our failed War on Drugs were simply never on the table for discussion.
The flotsam and jetsam that follows from these debates can be entertaining. The most recent bit to float my way has to do with whether or not Mr. Obama ever apologized on behalf of the US during his post election tour of the world.
The fact is that he never used the words "apology" or "apologized".
The other fact is that those are about the only words of atonement and humility he didn't use. Those that followed the tour at the time widely noted his various pronouncements that were aimed at effectively saying "we in the US should learn our place". Jennifer Rubin has linky article on the subject. Follow her links for more.
This is an issue where I significantly differ from Mr. Obama.
The blood and treasure of the United States liberated over 15 million Afghanis from the oppressive imposition of Sharia law by the Taliban. We gave them a chance to step out of the stone age and take a few steps forward. Should we apologize?
The blood and treasure of the United States liberated roughly 30 million Iraqis from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. We not only gave them a chance at have an Iraqi version of democracy, they accepted the opportunity and still hold competitive elections to this day. How long they are able to hold their democracy may be a function of meddling by the mullahs in Iran, but Iraq has an opportunity at democracy and freedom while it lasts. Should we apologize?
We were able to effectively bully Syria out of Lebanon a few years back. Primarily because they saw that we were unafraid to spend our blood and treasure in defense of human rights and individual liberty. The best way to keep U.S. Marines out of your cities is to not meddle in your neighbor's affairs. Should we apologize to the Lebanese?
We spent some treasure and little blood helping the Libyans turn out Muammar Gaddafi's oppressive regime. While I do have questions about our use (or non-use) of force in that conflict, I generally support our efforts....led by Mr. Obama....to foster individual liberty and democracy in that country. It is my understanding that while the Libyans would have appreciated more support from us, they are grateful for the assistance that we did provide. The recent terrorist attack on our Libyan consulate was not representative of Libyan sentiments. Should we apologize to them for our recent assistance?
The punditry will bat this issue back and forth quibbling over whether the use of some variation of "apology" is required to make Mr. Obama's apology tour an "Apology Tour". For my money, he sought to denigrate our past efforts and leadership on the world stage under the theory that reducing our leadership role would somehow transmute our enemies into friends.
As our ambassador to Libya briefly learned a couple months ago, that theory is misguided. To put it politely.
2 comments:
Just as a matter of foreign policy interest, a friend posted this link to an article by a former director of Mossad and Israeli National Security advisor, and it kind of surprised me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/opinion/who-threw-israel-under-the-bus.html?_r=0
Hi Ruth,
Interesting article. Doubly so when you consider that the concessions pushed by Mr. Bush were precisely the sort of thing that many of his current detractors prefer.
I also recall that we got a couple of Iraqi PMs that we didn't want because we refused to have people excluded from elections.
Rightly or wrongly, I think Mr. Bush believed that we should work with democratic processes as much as possible rather that continuing the Cold War mentality of working with dictators that would support our interests at the expense of the local population.
It is the harder of the two options in terms of having policies that we favor, but when we have the support of local individuals, then the sort of policies we seek have greater permanence.
Regards,
Dann
Post a Comment