I honestly thought we could go one day without the current Republican candidates for the Presidency pitching a ridiculous position. Unfortunately, that did not happen today. Both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney decided attacking President Obama on national security was their opportunity to demonstrate just how oblivious they are to the reality of the world around them. To be fair, each candidate has the right to state any position they want. It just doesn't mean it will have any basis in reality (and it usually doesn't these days) nor does it mean I have to agree.
To summarize, Perry and Romney believe that America and our military interest should always rein supreme and although we should discuss our international military strategies with our allies it is ultimately our right to do as we please to protect American interests and never relinquish discussion or command of an operation to other allies. The Washington Post had the following quote from Rick Perry:
“We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened, and we should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom-loving people,” he said. “It’s not our interest to go it alone.” Perry added: “At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multilateral debating societies, and when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders.”
To me, this sounds inconsistent. Apparently, we should always work with our allies, however, we should always go it alone as long as what America perceives as it vital interests are at stake. Can anyone think of a time in recent memory when America has not implied its vital interests were at stake in international issues? Please do not mistake my position here - I am completely for protecting our country, our sovereignty and our citizens. But we are moving in to a new world and a new era. The world is a much smaller place these days and it is not enough to justify military action by any country by itself without the consent of its allies; at least where imminent threat to the country is not involved.
President Obama has taken a bold stand against the type of reckless foreign policy that started under President Bush. It was clear by the end of the Bush Presidency that flaunting America's prowess and throwing our military might in the faces of our allies did not do us any good in the end. If we can all remember, we were almost unilaterally hated by most of the world including our allies by 2007 and we needed a change. Obama brought that change and now the Mitt Romney has the audacity to state that “[u]nfortunately, when we look around the world today, we see a muddled picture of American’s foreign policy and our power.” The fact that we are no longer hated by our allies and actually work with them to resolve conflicts does not muddle our foreign policy but rather solidifies our coalitions.
Do you think we should continue the policies of President Bush and face the future alone? Or should we solidify our coalitions and face the future with our allies and the knowledge that we only seek to protect that which is right and just?
To summarize, Perry and Romney believe that America and our military interest should always rein supreme and although we should discuss our international military strategies with our allies it is ultimately our right to do as we please to protect American interests and never relinquish discussion or command of an operation to other allies. The Washington Post had the following quote from Rick Perry:
“We should only risk shedding American blood and spending American treasure when our vital interests are threatened, and we should always look to build coalitions among the nations to protect the mutual interests of freedom-loving people,” he said. “It’s not our interest to go it alone.” Perry added: “At the same time, we must be willing to act when it is time to act. We cannot concede the moral authority of our nation to multilateral debating societies, and when our interests are threatened, American soldiers should be led by American commanders.”
To me, this sounds inconsistent. Apparently, we should always work with our allies, however, we should always go it alone as long as what America perceives as it vital interests are at stake. Can anyone think of a time in recent memory when America has not implied its vital interests were at stake in international issues? Please do not mistake my position here - I am completely for protecting our country, our sovereignty and our citizens. But we are moving in to a new world and a new era. The world is a much smaller place these days and it is not enough to justify military action by any country by itself without the consent of its allies; at least where imminent threat to the country is not involved.
President Obama has taken a bold stand against the type of reckless foreign policy that started under President Bush. It was clear by the end of the Bush Presidency that flaunting America's prowess and throwing our military might in the faces of our allies did not do us any good in the end. If we can all remember, we were almost unilaterally hated by most of the world including our allies by 2007 and we needed a change. Obama brought that change and now the Mitt Romney has the audacity to state that “[u]nfortunately, when we look around the world today, we see a muddled picture of American’s foreign policy and our power.” The fact that we are no longer hated by our allies and actually work with them to resolve conflicts does not muddle our foreign policy but rather solidifies our coalitions.
Do you think we should continue the policies of President Bush and face the future alone? Or should we solidify our coalitions and face the future with our allies and the knowledge that we only seek to protect that which is right and just?
No comments:
Post a Comment