Keywords or
Terms: Gov. Scott
Walker; Presidential Aspirants; ABC This WEEK Program; Militarization of America’s foreign policy; ISIS, Al Qaida in Arabia; White House’s action; National Security
Agencies; Israel, Netanyahu; Gaza Invasion; Simultaneity; Jemaah
Islamiyah (JI) and Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT); National Counter Terrorism Center; Al Awake;
Charismatic Leader; and 2016 Elections
Why are Republicans willing
to sign on to military intervention anywhere across the globe, even when and where
the direct interest of America, or American lives, is not at stake? Is military
intervention always the answer to all Foreign Affairs issues; or is there other
options to foreign wars? Is current
White House strategy against the terrorist groups like ISIS, Al Qaida and
others not working as claimed by Republicans?
There are several possible
explanations to the first question. The most important one is the perceived
decline in the power and influence of the United States in a dynamic world,
where terrorist groups release videos of beheading or decapitation of human
beings with little immediate consequence. The perplexing horror of watching the
head of a journalist severed or a Jordanian pilot set ablaze by ISIS has made
some Republicans conclude that President Obama’s strategy on foreign policy is
not working. A 2016 Presidential aspirant, Governor Scott Walker’s response to
foreign policy question on ABC’s This WEEK with George Stephanopoulos, confirms
the suspected resolve of establishment Republicans to militarize America’s
foreign policy. Martha Raddatz, the moderator of the ABC This WEEK with Stephanopoulos
on Sunday February 1, 2015, had asked
Governor Walker for a big idea on Foreign Policy, precisely on Syria's civil war;
and, the governor says: “Don't Rule Out 'Boots on the Ground' Against ISIS.”
A next generation Republican
leader, Scott Walker, who is eying the presidency, wants to find a way to
resolve radical terrorist groups’ cowardice by sending Americans to war and unleashing
US weapons in a country like Syria; a strategy many Middle-East experts and governments affirm is unrealistic. To the governor this action will signal to all allies
across the globe that America is going to go anywhere in the world where the US interest is suspected to be at stake. This is probably the reason for a
scornful comment from another hopeful, Ron Paul: “Some Republicans think a
couple of trips to some foreign cities confer on them, an understanding of the
complicated world of foreign policy.”
President Obama’s strategy
is to adopt a neutral posture to some foreign policy issues where the direct
interest of the United States is not at stake. Republicans have consistently antagonized
that strategy, claiming a broader strategy is called for and this must include
military intervention. Contrarily, there are those who maintain that the President probably has some national security information which his critics may not have, which advises against drawing America into another
foreign war in Syria. Instead of seeing the wisdom in the White House's action, Governor Scott Walker and some other Republicans would rather commit us to war.
No one has taken the pain to
call one of the next generation Republicans to order; however, it behooves the
voters who are weary of wars to ask logical questions: Is America better off being in constant overseas wars or not? Does conquest in foreign wars bestow
victory on what currently is seen as a clash of philosophic-religious ideological war, the type that
is being fought over in some Middle-Eastern countries? Americans have the
obligation to ask their leaders to show them a plan, entry and exit plan,
whenever they commit our troops or go into foreign wars. Refusal to be explicit or
explore other options that are effective is grounds for rejection; and in the case of Presidential aspirant Scott Walker, good grounds to make
his dream of becoming the US President, moribund.
History has shown us that
some foreign countries, even our close allies, have tendency to go it alone on
issues that our government advised they be circumspect. A recent example to
note: Israel’s invasion of Gaza. Instead of working with the US government,
Prime Minister Netanyahu surprised the Obama’s Administration by going into
Gaza and slaughtering children, in a bid to take out suspected terrorists.
Plans for cease-fire initiatives from Secretary of State Kerry were
re-buffed. It does not call for genius in a President to be circumspect of
foreign conflicts or chronic disputes between parties; and, especially when the parties’ resolve to
find solution to their problem(s) or conflicts on their own terms. It also
appears that in some foreign conflicts, the principle of simultaneity adopted
long ago by the US State Department, requiring an end to hostility before
releasing foreign aid to allies, is hardly making an impact as
corrective action for halting further hostilities. And in the case of Israel’s
invasion of Gaza, had the President chosen to take actions that are somewhat punitive,
allies of the State of Israel would have cried out foul.
But the reaction of Prime
Minister Netanyahu was to choose, ‘my way or the highway’ approach; and, that
led to some frosty relations with the current White House. Republicans opposed
to Obama’s Administration on foreign policy, who oppose the current plan not to
commit American troops to Syria or Libya’s wars or any other hot spot across
the globe, must be careful not to treat all foreign conflicts or hostilities, as
emblematic of America’s weakness not to act. Sometimes in foreign policy,
waiting and watching, is probably the best answer to resolving a very dicey situation.
There had been instances in which US proposals to resolve foreign conflicts had
been rejected by both parties in the conflict because of the weight or political
implication of concessions to bring about peace. No one is rejecting committing
troops to conflicts where America’s direct interest is at stake; however, a
negotiated settlement that protects America’s interest is probably what is
needed in some cases.
2016 Presidential aspirants looking
at a mandate to commit troops at any hot spot across the globe must be specific
about their plans; running campaigns with unspecified or bogus plans to commit
American troops to wars, is tantamount to irresponsibility. And of course, if
there are no provisions to explore alternatives until failure or noncompliance
with agreement is imminent or obvious, there is hardly anyone who should take
a war mongering aspirant seriously; including Governor Scott Walker. As long as
negotiations to resolve conflicts without shedding blood are available, a true
hawkish leader must always default to commonsense: No Foreign Wars! If any
aspirant is listening, exploring negotiations rather than troops on the ground,
is the first preferred option for America today. The nation needs a breather from
foreign wars!
Another issue to contemplate: Is current White House strategy against the terrorist groups like
ISIS, Al Qaida and a host of others not working? There is no current hard data
to support the argument that current White House initiative on foreign
terrorist’s policy is a failure; neither is there data showing that had we been
to war by committing troops on the ground in Libya, Syria or Egypt, alternative
results would have been obtained. First, our intervention in Iraq has not
yielded a stable or democratic Iraq. Instability and constant barbarous
behavior are still percolating day-to-day life of Libyans, Syrians and
Egyptians.
At this time, ISIS, an off-shoot
of a prison gang and a combination of religious fanatics, has turned up to
be more of a problem for countries where this group has germinated. Other
terrorist groups as Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and Jemaah Anshorut Tauhid (JAT) in
Indonesia have been taken out by their nation’s counter-terrorism team. A host
of others as listed on the active roster of the National Counter Terrorism Center, including Afghan Taliban, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qa’ida in the Arabian
Peninsula, Greek Domestic Terrorism, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL), are actively being watched or decimated by alternative means through
the State Department and National Security Agencies. Information regarding the methods and ways that these diabolic
groups work, including assassination, biological threats, chemical Incidents, common
explosives, false travel Documents, Use of Sarin or Racin, TNT equivalents, are
constantly being publicized and closely monitored. The Obama’s Administration has
been relentless in using the drone technology as an offensive. In all these
efforts, one thing we have learnt since fighting this rather unconventional war
is that: Until you take out a couple of the charismatic leaders that head these
terrorists underclass, it is close to impossible to eradicate this canker worm.
Our government is working to deliver a huge blow to extremist organizations;
but this takes time; and for now, patience is on our side.
Perhaps the best indicator
of America’s success in countering terrorism is the ordering and taking out of Al
Awlaki, the American Cleric who became a thorn in the nation’s flesh. The
legality of the President’s right to take out the American was challenged in
court because of its legal implications. However, the legal argument that Al
Awlaki joined a foreign army and engaged in hostilities with the US, thus
becoming a target of US military, persists and would have been upheld in a
court of law. No matter where each of us stands on this legal implication, current developments, where Europeans, Canadians and some American citizens are known to have traveled abroad to fight side-by-side with terrorist groups, shows how
complicated and challenging fighting terrorism has become in a short number of
years. Al Qaida has not been able to strike on American soil because of our vigilance
and constant monitoring. We understand that since September 11, 2001, over
eighty terrorist attacks have been foiled on US soil. Now, to go about blaming President
Obama as if the fight against the terrorist was manufactured by him; or he has
not constantly been on the hills of these ilk’s, is untenable in a presidential
campaign.
American voters must
critically evaluate any 2016 presidential aspirants who claim he or she is
going to bring a permanent solution to the terrorism crisis the world faces.
You must ask him or her, how they intend to go about their plan; or, what is their
long- term goal to eradicate terrorism; or, associated problems. The practical
question for any of these aspirants is how they intend to preserve the homeland
so that returning Americans from foreign terrorist camps do not attack all of
us in our homes and neighborhoods. This is a very important question for the presidential aspirants to provide answers, especially the trigger happy ones. Failure to do this is an automatic disqualification or rejection of campaign for the US Presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment