Skip to content

Rejecting McCain & Obama

September 15, 2013

U.S. Senator John McCain is hot to trot us into another war.  Do you suppose he would want us to bomb China or Russia if they — instead of Syria — were suspected of gassing their own citizens?

How ironic will it be if Barack Obama’s ineptness leads to the most significant achievement of his presidency?  His indecisiveness about Syria (coupled with the lack of respect other nations have for his leadership) is allowing citizens to rethink the circumstances under which American military aggression is appropriate.

Obama and McCain want us to force our will on the rest of the world — right or wrong, and regardless of whether other nations are willing to stand with us. As usual, the American people are showing that they have better judgment than the power-obsessed, money-driven and ego-inflated Washington elite.

Why does Washington continue to waste so much energy and money on the United Nations?  We should continue to be willing to talk with anybody.  But why invest so much hope in an organization that grants veto power to dictatorships?   Perhaps long-term world peace would be better served if the U.S. instead concentrated on setting a good example of freedom, opportunity and prosperity at home.

From → Citizens, Military

3 Comments
  1. Robert Rogers permalink

    Leaders who would consider involving the United States in Syria’s civil war against the will of the American people should weigh their decision against Ronald Reagan’s four principles for “the application of military force abroad.” He listed them in his autobiography:

    1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

    2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

    3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

    4. Even after all these other combat tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.

    Like

  2. I agree. You even changed my thinking a bit. I definitely agree about the UN. But you have not answered your implied question: when is American military aggression appropriate? Is it only when national security is DIRECTLY threatened? WMD are horrible, especially in the hands of unstable dictators. (We are doing nothing about North Korea’s nuclear capability — and now its delivery development, so does that mean we should ignore Iran?) What about genocide? (Was America First & Lindbergh right prior to WWII? Not in hindsight.) Answers are not clear to me.

    Like

    • Excellent questions, Chris, with no easy answers.

      Ronald Reagan’s four principles, as expressed in Robert Rogers’ comment (above), are pretty sound, it seems to me.

      The situation has changed dramatically since World War II. As tough as that war was, times were a bit simpler then. After Pearl Harbor it was clear who the enemies were, and who our key allies would be. It was also clear that we were engaged in a must-win war.

      Today, it is already clear that — try as we might to slow the pace — we will NOT be able to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists and ruthless dictators.

      If you accept that reality, we’re left with one hope: the “mutually assured destruction” that kept the Cold War from becoming hot. The Soviet Union didn’t attack us because they knew our retaliation would be devastating to them. Maintaining our ability to strike back hard — if attacked — should become our top military priority.

      In recent years, we have repeatedly tried to use our military might to win freedom for others. As well-intentioned as we might have been, it is interesting to note that we don’t do this in China, Russia or North Korea — perhaps because they also possess the ability to inflict “mutually assured destruction”.

      But even in wars with smaller and weaker opponents, don’t our experiences in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate that the human price is high — for them and for us — and that the task isn’t easy? And aren’t we learning that the people we are trying to help may not be ready to embrace vital concepts like democracy, individual liberties, human rights, minority rights and separation of church and state?

      If the USA maintains the individual liberties that have made America exceptional, I like our chances in any future Cold Wars. To compete with us economically and technically, the Soviets had to educate their citizens. Educated citizens always develop a passionate thirst for freedom. At the risk of over-simplification, this is essentially why the Soviet Union was doomed to self-destruct.

      A similar fate of internal collapse inevitably awaits other repressive governments unless they reform internally. Is it possible that our military threats serve only to cause those governments to try harder to achieve their own weapons of mass destruction — so they can become “untouchable” like China, Russia and North Korea?

      Our best chance of promoting world peace may be to provide a shining example of what can be achieved for an entire society when individual citizens are free to pursue their own prosperity. Indeed, isn’t that why so many people from around the globe dream of becoming Americans themselves?

      I wrote this book because I worry that America is sliding away from many of the guiding principles that made us great. This may be a bigger danger to us than any military threat we could face. If our internal decline continues, the world will no longer have a shining example to emulate. And history may conclude that we deserved our fate.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: