Another Bush Enters the Race for the White House: Can you hold fast enough to your task dollars if you know it may fall to another foreign war?

Keywords or Terms: Jeb Bush; foreign voyeurism; cataleptic financial meltdown; National and Global Security; Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz; Arab World; Diplomatic Relations; AIPAC; US Congress; Smacks the brilliance of Innovation; Commerce; International Trade; Republican Conservatives; US Department of State and Defense; CIA; Irish Republican Army; Emerging Former Soviet States; Liberty Diplomacy; and, National Security Agency’s Mass Surveillance of America; CIA sanctioned interrogation techniques; Water Boarding; Civil Liberties and Freedom

If you are contemplating supporting or voting for Jeb Bush for the Presidency in 2016, I implore you to think again. The team of foreign policy experts and cabinet members milling around his campaign are replicas and extensions of his brother’s and father’s cabinets that led the nation to the two Iraq wars: Michael Chertoff, Paul Wolfowitz, James Baker, George Shultz, John Negroponte, Stephen Hadley, Tom Ridge, Porter Goss, Michael Mukasey and Meghan O’Sullivan. With all the attempt to distance himself from the 41st and 43rd President of the United States, Jeb Bush has shown that he is either shallow in his search for alternative competent team of advisers; or, he prefers bureaucrats who were either remotely or directly connected to policies that led the country to foreign voyeurism, detainees' torture and water boarding, cataleptic financial meltdown and a barrage of abuses of political powers.

Never mind the, ‘I- love-my-father-and-brother-but-I-am-my-own-man’ message, his campaign team of advisers is emblematic of hawkish foreign policy experts from the 41st and 43rd's Presidency theatrics; “experts” whose only aim is to lead the nation possibly to another foreign war and violation of international laws. If a man’s speech on national security boils down to restraining them [terrorists], tightening the noose and taking terrorists out, concepts shy of a world’s view of interplay of power, civil liberties, international law and national security, vis-a-vis, the shifting of world order on global security, that man is not ready to stand up and claim a place in the sun.

Combating terrorism demands that as President or candidate, you understand the key players and power brokers in the fight against terrorism, nationally and internationally; and able, to appreciate rules and regulations of international law, including the nuances and decipher realities from illusions as advises are offered by your foreign policy “experts”. Did Jeb ever think that President Obama’s consolation visit to Saudi Arabia at the instance of the death of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz had nothing to do with stability in the Arab World, Oil and Gas Trade, Global Security and Playing to the Gallery? If he doesn't, then welcome to reality, Virginia. Commerce, International trade and combating terrorists are all intertwined in global security; including discountenancing suspicion that an ally may have prior knowledge of the events of September 11, 2001. 

The debate on national security has been galvanized by global security; old assertions that America is far away geographically to experience the dastard act of terrorism or invasion are now dead. America has an interest in global security and stability not only because they are helpful to our national security, but also, to our friends and allies. Maintaining diplomatic relations or supporting agreements between Israel and Palestine over their unwinnable and persistent wars, is a way of promoting global stability as well as national security for America. If in doubt talk to AIPAC; call up Netanyahu and ask him why he wants to come and plead his case before US Congress over issues concerning his country’s national security. There are historic, national and regional rivalries that impact America’s security; that is why the State Department is all over the world, pouring waters on political fires, before they en-flame regional stability that may impact national security of our allies; and by extension, ours.

The emerging shift from state-sponsored terrorism to new splintered groups as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Lashkar-E-Taiba, Irish Republican Army, Moro National Liberation Front, Bodu Bala Sena, Boko Haram, and others, demands a worldview interpretation of national security and a President who is able to articulate America’s National Security in the context of global security. The nation no longer has the luxury of raising another leader with a myopic view of the world, who sees America’s national security strictly on the ability of the nation to wage foreign wars to make others comply. The nation can no longer afford a governor with a steeper learning curve on foreign policies and international affairs; who is finding it hard to define himself in seeking the highest political office in the land. Coming to speed and articulating dynamic foreign policies are no longer options, they are requirements of anyone attempting to become the President of the only global power left standing: Our beautiful and graceful America.

The fact of the matter is Jeb Bush’s speech on national security smacks the brilliance of innovation; rather, it seems more of a hodge-podge of recently parroted message of Republican Conservatives, who believe they can bomb the daylights out of terrorist groups and achieve national and or global security. Maybe his first run at the National Security Speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a trial run at bigger and better speeches to come; however, if Jeb Bush wants us to differentiate his candidacy from his dad and brother’s time in office, he has to show that he is at least versed in international laws, foreign policies and our national interests beyond a fifth grader. Allowing old hands to forge rejected foreign policies that have failed and created more terrorist activities across the globe is no longer good enough. America wants a President who understands alternative ways of combating religious radicalism, counterinsurgency, and how best to relate to formal and informal diplomatic relations that will yield lasting national security and global stability, in the absence of committing troops to unnecessary foreign wars and expenses.

Furthermore, because foreign policies are strongly identified with the image of a country, talks about viable national security and global stability policies are particularly intractable when seeking stronger and mutually beneficial and enduring national and international security. America’s interest in global security is not limited to curtailing Islamic terrorist insurgencies in the Middle East, it encompasses addressing issues related to stability of emerging former Soviet States, Settlement of the grievances of the Irish Republican Army, Confronting mutual objectives in US-Russian relationship on the New START talks Initiatives and expounding US foreign policies to Asia Minor and Eastern Europe. There is no reason to assume, for example, that direct bombing and annihilation of terrorists across the globe will guarantee national and global security. Each day, new terrorist gangs are metamorphosing into formidable national security threats for many of our friends and allies. A worldviews of ‘liberty diplomacy’ as defined in Jeb Bush’s National Security Speech seems more in the right direction; however, America is no longer ready to travel the road of losing their personal liberty at the expense of their leader’s choice. To subscribe to the National Security Agency’s Mass Surveillance of America started under Bush 43rd Presidency, is a no go area; and for many, grounds to reject Jeb Bush’s candidacy.

What the 43rd did as President that has irked men and women who cherish their civil liberties is, create avenues to doubt the efficacy of the government to be honest and truthful in policy implementation. Civil libertarians not only questioned the intension of government as George W. Bush went about net-email-wire-tapping of innocent citizens, the character and consequence of fighting terrorism abroad degenerated to a design of national eavesdropping on Americans, a behavior the constitution explicitly frowns at. At inception, fighting against global terrorism after September 11, 2001 dastardly act, was seen as a component of the CIA, State and Defense Departments function; the interplay of the National Security Agency introduced a quagmire that degenerated to government unwritten policies to play big-brothers to Americans, within and without. Whether this was a good policy or not is better left to history to judge; however, from what we now know, the 43rd committed what is construed as war crimes and broke international laws in the process of fighting terrorism. The two legacies of the 43rd’s administration: CIA sanctioned interrogation tactics and CIA’s use of waterboarding techniques in 2003, were not used within the (national and international) laws and hardly protected American citizens at home and abroad. Any Presidential aspirant that subscribes to these outlaw behavior as recently articulated in Jeb Bush’s speech, is not worthy of the US Presidency.

Some saw the 43rds Administration’s aggressive quest to fight terrorism as an embodiment of un-American values; one that civil libertarians are not at peace with. General Michael Hayden’s vast knowledge of security which may have been invaluable to the 43rds, was railroaded by insiders, some say his Vice President Dick Cheney, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, for more aggressive option to fight terrorism. Popular reactions to the damning Senate report on interrogation techniques of the CIA, cross-purposed the need to fight terrorism against the liberties and freedom granted under US constitution. Whether foreign terrorists should retain the same rights as Americans during time of hostilities is a subject for another day. What we know now, again,  is that the techniques of fighting terrorism, including water boarding and extended interrogation are torture and no American is willing to go to bed, knowing these actions were taken in their name. If Jeb Bush fails to recognize this position of Americans, then, he hardly needs to run for the Presidency of this great nation.

Before Jeb’s Bush announcement to seek the presidency of the United States, critics have wondered if America has some sort of ascendancy to the Office of the Presidency. After his announcement, a few neo-conservatives saw the name brand of Bush as an advantage and a possible choice to outlast or give Mitt Romney good run for his money if he chooses to run. Romney’s choice not to run, seem a great opening for Bush’s clan; however, with yesterday’s speech and the roll out of Jeb’s foreign policy advisors, many Americans are saying Jeb may be more dangerous than the 43rd President of the United States, who just happens to be his brother. There are other concerns from the public regarding the candidacy of another Bush for the White House, many of which I intend to shine light on as we travel the road to the 2016 general elections. 

For now, merely subscribing to the notion that the 43rd President faced agonizing choices about how to pursue Al Qaeda and prevent terrorist attacks against the country, is tepid and does not sit well with many people; consequently, civil libertarians do not want anything to do with such accommodation. Aggrandizing any sympathy for outlaw behavior in governance sabotages any chance for Jeb Bush or his ilk from becoming our next President. 

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SECOND 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: A New Development in possible Use of Presidential Power?

Events and Narratives in American Presidential Campaigns: Are Americans listening to either of the Presidential candidate for 2016 White House?

President Barack Obama: Farewell Address as he rode to sunset!