Why the Current U.S. Foreign Policy Debate Doesn't Make Sense and How to Fix It
For example, the United States gives billions to Pakistan. This is a bad big-spending idea. The United States doesn't even need to keep troops in Europe any more. (Now there’s a good money-saving idea!)
To critique Obama foreign policy is not to say that more intervention or starting wars is good. It is to raise the question: who do you help and support when you intervene on any level, even in the words of a speech?
Helping allies indirectly -- even verbally -- is a way of avoiding direct intervention. There isn't a single case I can think of that calls for sending U.S. troops or spending massive amounts of money. On the contrary, it is when American leaders ignore current threats will the country end up fighting more wars and spending more money later.
The real questions revolve around things like these:
-- If you have some money appropriated in Egypt to spend on training people politically, who do you give it to: the Muslim Brotherhood or moderates?
-- If you are going to put together a Syrian opposition leadership and direct weapons -- paid for and sent by others -- to Syria, who do you favor being the leaders and getting the guns?
-- Do you call for the overthrow of the Bahraini government knowing that even though the Shia majority has genuine grievances, this might result in an Iranian satellite regime?
-- When Americans are attacked by terrorists in Benghazi, do you rush to their defense, or find ways to blame America for the assault?
-- Do you send armored personnel carriers to a Lebanese army under Hizballah-Syrian control?
-- Do you make a speech saying that Iranian dissidents are heroes, or do you rush to send a congratulatory letter to Ahmadinejad after a stolen election?
-- Is it smart to dispatch billions of dollars to a Pakistani government that gives safe haven to al-Qaeda terrorists, supports the Taliban against American forces in Afghanistan, and sponsors terrorism to murder Indian civilians?
-- Do you see Colombia or Venezuela as the good guy? In other words, do you hold up Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez as a role model or denounce him as a corrupt dictator?
-- Is it better to make a Turkish Islamist prime minister your hero, or hope that the opposition gets it together to stop their country’s fundamental transformation?
-- Do you keep your promise to the Czechs and Poles to put defensive missiles in their countries -- after they agree to do so at considerable risk -- or try (and fail) to make Russian dictator Vladimir Putin happy?
-- Do you cheer on the brave people of Georgia to defend themselves when they are attacked by Russia, or do you blame them as being allegedly provocative because they shot back when they were fired on?
-- Are you rooting for Israel or apologizing and saving Hamas?
-- Even if you try to maintain normal relations with an Egyptian government dominated by the Brotherhood, are you saying among yourselves: "This is bad. We cannot trust these people at all and we must limit the damage"? Or do you say: "We must be nice to them and make them like us and they will be more moderate"?
-- Do you accurately inform the American people, or do you feed them misleading ideas about what’s going on in the world?
Article printed from Rubin Reports: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/1/10/the-totally-new-american-foreign-policy-debate-no-its-not-about-america-fighting-wars-and-intervening