The Right’s Foreign Policy (Part I)
And it’s Modern ImplementationBy Tetracide
May 9, 2005
“Peace through strength.” We’ve all heard it, in some way or another. This broad concept has been used to label conservative foreign policy for many years, most significantly demonstrated during the Cold War. Although many have heard this phrase, only a few understand it. Can they step back from present day politics and look at the 2 party system and compare and contrast the major differences? To those who can’t, I’d be more than happy to share the majority of the Right’s views on foreign policy, and provide evidence of its success in the modern world.
Forgive me, but to fully understand the implementation of foreign policy, one must understand the positions the Right hold in homeland security.
“We're in for a long struggle in this war on terror. And there are people that still want to harm America. And we have an obligation to our citizens to work together to do everything we can to protect the people.” – President George W. Bush, 6/11/02
Intelligence/Military Readiness. Now normally, discussing this subject I would branch off on a rant about how Clinton slaughtered our military for eight years, but I won’t rant, only remind. The Right truly believes that if we are to meet a challenge, we should be ready, if not more than ready to meet it. It isn’t a secluded fact that conservatives and Republicans alike are more comfortable with a substantial military. But, they are often criticized as wanting too much power over the world, the citizens of this country, and the daily operations they undertake. Of course, this is just politics, and it is not the true intent.
That intent can best be demonstrated by the events of 9/11. No my Leftist friends, this isn’t scare tactics, this is just an example. I could very well use Pearl Harbor. However, 9/11 was a reminder that a stagnant intelligence community would be devastating to national security in today’s world. Intelligence failures have become apparent in the events leading up to 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. These potent operations have had their setbacks in the intelligence arena. If you are one of those people who like to get to the source of the problem, check out this Associated Press story from March 1999. Again, just a reminder that these setbacks cost the American people, and the journey they have undertook in defending it and defeating Terrorism. Intelligence is but one factor, and military readiness is another.
Having a military on its starting marks, ready to be deployed in one swift order should be a comforting sentiment. Knowing that hundreds of thousands of men and women that have volunteered to risk their life for this country, are ready to do so, has to be a comforting sentiment. In the 50’s and 60’s the threat was a nuclear war. In the world of today, the threat is international terrorism. The confliction between the ways of approaching these risks was drastically different.
Ronald Reagan had a vision. And with that vision, he was able to see the threat of Communism, and dealt with it in a way that caused significant controversy. Instead of appeasing, or meeting agreements, Reagan stood firm against the ideology, and using the patriotism and capitalistic society of America, he crushed the Soviet Union without firing a shot. While this was a magnificent victory for America and democracy, it was a completely different time, and completely different circumstances.
Bill Clinton had a vision. He believed that after his presidency, people around the world and in America would see him as some kind of hero; that is actions around the world would be considered compassionate like Clinton made himself to be. However, Clinton’s policy stretched our forces thin, over extended military recourses, and under funded the military all together. With this deadly combination, Clinton setback our military many years during his two terms.
George W. Bush has a vision. And with that vision, he is able to see the threat of international terrorism, and is dealing with such threats in a way that have spurred significant controversy. Instead of creating an iron curtain around the U.S., pulling diplomats, dismantling foreign embassies, and making any kind of sacrifices, he has and continues to wound the terrorist network that happily killed three thousand Americans on 9/11. While our accomplishments so far have been great, there is plenty more things to be done. With a strong military, strong intelligence, and an unwavering commitment to the task, our succession, and terrorism’s defeat will be the ultimate end.
“Peace through strength.” We’ve all heard it, in some way or another. This broad concept has been used to label conservative foreign policy for many years, most significantly demonstrated during the Cold War. Although many have heard this phrase, only a few understand it. Can they step back from present day politics and look at the 2 party system and compare and contrast the major differences? To those who can’t, I’d be more than happy to share the majority of the Right’s views on foreign policy, and provide evidence of its success in the modern world.
Forgive me, but to fully understand the implementation of foreign policy, one must understand the positions the Right hold in homeland security.
“We're in for a long struggle in this war on terror. And there are people that still want to harm America. And we have an obligation to our citizens to work together to do everything we can to protect the people.” – President George W. Bush, 6/11/02
Intelligence/Military Readiness. Now normally, discussing this subject I would branch off on a rant about how Clinton slaughtered our military for eight years, but I won’t rant, only remind. The Right truly believes that if we are to meet a challenge, we should be ready, if not more than ready to meet it. It isn’t a secluded fact that conservatives and Republicans alike are more comfortable with a substantial military. But, they are often criticized as wanting too much power over the world, the citizens of this country, and the daily operations they undertake. Of course, this is just politics, and it is not the true intent.
That intent can best be demonstrated by the events of 9/11. No my Leftist friends, this isn’t scare tactics, this is just an example. I could very well use Pearl Harbor. However, 9/11 was a reminder that a stagnant intelligence community would be devastating to national security in today’s world. Intelligence failures have become apparent in the events leading up to 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. These potent operations have had their setbacks in the intelligence arena. If you are one of those people who like to get to the source of the problem, check out this Associated Press story from March 1999. Again, just a reminder that these setbacks cost the American people, and the journey they have undertook in defending it and defeating Terrorism. Intelligence is but one factor, and military readiness is another.
Having a military on its starting marks, ready to be deployed in one swift order should be a comforting sentiment. Knowing that hundreds of thousands of men and women that have volunteered to risk their life for this country, are ready to do so, has to be a comforting sentiment. In the 50’s and 60’s the threat was a nuclear war. In the world of today, the threat is international terrorism. The confliction between the ways of approaching these risks was drastically different.
Ronald Reagan had a vision. And with that vision, he was able to see the threat of Communism, and dealt with it in a way that caused significant controversy. Instead of appeasing, or meeting agreements, Reagan stood firm against the ideology, and using the patriotism and capitalistic society of America, he crushed the Soviet Union without firing a shot. While this was a magnificent victory for America and democracy, it was a completely different time, and completely different circumstances.
Bill Clinton had a vision. He believed that after his presidency, people around the world and in America would see him as some kind of hero; that is actions around the world would be considered compassionate like Clinton made himself to be. However, Clinton’s policy stretched our forces thin, over extended military recourses, and under funded the military all together. With this deadly combination, Clinton setback our military many years during his two terms.
George W. Bush has a vision. And with that vision, he is able to see the threat of international terrorism, and is dealing with such threats in a way that have spurred significant controversy. Instead of creating an iron curtain around the U.S., pulling diplomats, dismantling foreign embassies, and making any kind of sacrifices, he has and continues to wound the terrorist network that happily killed three thousand Americans on 9/11. While our accomplishments so far have been great, there is plenty more things to be done. With a strong military, strong intelligence, and an unwavering commitment to the task, our succession, and terrorism’s defeat will be the ultimate end.
posted by Tetracide_ @ 4:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home