Keywords or
Terms: ISIS; Gov. Scott Walker; Terrorism; Computer virus; Foreign Policy
Craft; YOUTUBE; Minnesota; Texas; Berlin; Belgium; Middlesex; London; Paris; Middle-East
Conflicts; Former Governor of State of Alaska
2016 White House
Republican aspirants’ ignorance of foreign policy issues has moved from party
hallways to the front page. No longer can at least one of the candidates,
Governor Scott Walker, be overlooked as merely fallible in a challenging world,
where journalists are beheaded and broadcasted on YOUTUBE by ISIS and or Al-Qaida
in Arabian Peninsula to the horrors of millions across the globe. Nor can his
interpretation of how to combat global terrorism likened to a sound
understanding of the new cankerworm on the world’s stage.
Just Saturday,
March 14th, Governor Scott Walker, one of the Republican aspirants
for the 2016 contest, likened combating terrorism to a computer virus. It is
becoming obvious that the Governor does not have a basic grasps of what
terrorism is and what a huge challenge it has become on the world’s stage. For
the records, terrorism is not a computer virus; neither can it be interpreted
in a very narrow sense, as a mere problem that can be eradicated by ground
hostilities in faraway places. Broadly defined, terrorism is a systematic use
of violence, terror and intimidation to achieve an end. It is neither a computer
virus susceptible to MacAfee antivirus eradication; nor a tangible object that
could be flushed down a drainage pipe of foreign policy.
The diplomatic
policy of interaction with other nations is complicated; the use of violence to
accomplish this policy has been embraced by neoconservatives; however,
experience has shown that neither the use of violence of war by state nor intimidation
by extremist groups can accomplish this selfish end. The trade craft of foreign
policy has been complicated with the rise of terrorism on the global stage. It is no secret that global terrorism has
become hard core, with religious alliance of multiple groups from several parts
of the globe. This is why an aspirant to the highest office in the
land must show a sincerity of purpose in understanding the new world’s
challenge; alternatives to violence in combating it; and, the innermost secret
that drives groups into alliance to fight for a dastardly common course.
Nearly everyone
involved in this modern day gore feels he is fighting an entitled religious or philosophical
war that will lead them to martyrdom. Further, many in the forefront of this
bloody enterprise will be classified as having blind faith; however, a few are in
revenge hostilities for many foreign policy blunders of leaders in both the
western and eastern bloc. As a matter of note, there is a present and
anticipated revolutionary commitment of both young and old people, whose only answer
for failures in life’s choices has been to default to this unfortunate
enterprise that gives them some sense of accomplishment(s). To have a
Presidential aspirant label this horrible nightmare as a virus that can be
eradicated by additional violence, is rather unfortunate.
I have never
belonged to the sanctum sanctorum of religious extremists, let alone understand
the inner secrets that drive a youth born or raised in the heart of Minnesota,
Texas, Berlin, Belgium, Middlesex, London borough, or Paris, to succumb to propaganda put out by extremist groups in the name of religion to recruit for
devious purposes; or, an un-winnable war. Neither have I dealt with
counter-intelligence agencies fighting the new wars of the twenty-first century;
however, as an observer of terrorist events that have taken place in the past
two decades, here and abroad, I can say convincingly, it is going to take
more than physical wars or annihilation, to win the hearts and minds of terrorist
groups splintered across the globe. Revolutionary groups with religious manifestos are hardly interested in finding a common ground or settling for
peace; rather, they have greater determination to have their voice heard,
either through continuous violence or insistence disorderly behavior that are difficult to explain to the average person. A determination to avert further destruction
are better met with negotiated diplomatic relations rather than meeting their
force with another force. Examples of this last assertion are found in Iraq;
Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria; Lebanon, Indonesia, Malta, and more.
I do not want to
sound as if, from the point of safety and convenience of my northwestern suburb
home– far from the tragedy of the World’s Trade Fair Center or the daily
machination of Middle-East conflicts– that I am indifferent to the impact of terrorists’
violence; however, insurgency of any kind, are symptomatic of deeper issues,
including past international confrontations, unsettled execution of treaties or
settlements, and an unexplainable commitment of people to ideas that they
probably hardly understand. I listen with immense delight or displeasure to characterization
of serious issues as mere virus or excusable challenge that can be solved with
violence of war; and ask, where has all these people been? Are they living in a
different planet from me? Politicians seeking office have tendency to make superfluous
statements to arrest the moment or get attention; however, when the statement
rise to the level of ignorance of what is being discussed, I have no option but
to see the politician as unfit for the political office.
It may not be naïve
to consider Governor Scott Walker as unfit for the Office of the US Presidency
with his characterization of terrorism as a computer virus. Most Americans who
are assessing candidates for the 2016 White House contest are probably asking
themselves the same question: Is Governor Walker really serious, or was he in
jest, when he said fighting terrorism can be symptomatic of fighting a computer
virus? The wisdom of admitting that he is in error over the weekend in New Hampshire
may help salvage his image; however, if Governor Scott Walker continues to
honker down on this trail of mis-characterization, he will probably end up like
that Governor from the State of Alaska, who sounded just too incoherent at the
meeting of Republicans in Des Moines, Iowa, a few months ago.
Not even in
Republicans’ wildest dream would they have thought one of their champions of
conservative values, would end up mis-characterizing terrorism. Many Neo-conservatives
probably thought a few months ago that Governor Scott Walker displayed tenacity
and valor in fighting trade unions in Wisconsin that could be translated to the
whole country. However, with the current misstep over the weekend in foreign
policy, they are probably realizing that this unicorn has lost his horn. The
good news though for these neo-conservatives, there are abundance of other
neo-conservatives among the field of Republicans aspirants seeking nomination
as Republican Party flag bearer; it may just be time to move on to give these a
closer look. The others preach economic freedom and rugged individuality,
values that the neo-conservatives cherish. It may just be time to move on to
them!
No comments:
Post a Comment