During the current campaign,
no issue has been too
trivial to discuss. Contraception
debates and murmurings on
food stamps have been mentioned,
it seems, more than the
economy. But the one issue that
has failed to gain hardly a notice
is perhaps the most important,
and that is foreign policy.
R i c h a r d
Nixon and
John Kennedy
both entertained
the theory
that
domestic policy
could take
care of itself,
but a president's
chief
preoccupation
must be world affairs. For Republicans,
solutions are easy.
Newt Gingrich believes in
bombing, whether directly or
by proxy, Iran. Ron Paul's is to
ignore America's role in the
world and center on bankers
and the Federal Reserve. Rick
Santorum offers few specifics,
but is loaded with bellicose
suggestions, and as usual Mitt
Romney says nothing of substance
and hums patriotic
tunes.
Indeed the vacuousness of
the discussion hearkens back to
the Ohio Senate race of 1950,
when Robert Taft accused his
opponent of having one foreign
policy, "beat Michigan." Every
notice of diplomacy is to get a
rise out of the electorate rather
than to provide a picture of
what the United States' role
will be in the future. All pander
to pro-Israeli sentiment with
the exception of Paul, but offer
no solution, short of military
action, concerning the Middle
East.
Giving a blank check to any
power - including an ally -
is risky business. President
Dwight D. Eisenhower was
quite right in 1956 to quash a
British-French scheme to siege
the Suez Canal. They left the
United States out of the loop,
used the Israelis, and Ike felt no
compunction in leaving them in
the lurch. That was a responsible
action that averted a wider
war.
Within the Democratic
Party, there are clamorings for
intervention in Syria. Hawks
used that clever device, human
rights, as a foot in the door.
However, President Barack
Obama and Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton have smartly
avoided taking their advice.
The Libyan incursion may have
created a worse situation than
under Muammar Gadhafi.
Egypt is still a big question
mark. Al Qaeda is strong in
Syria and is now backed by
Hamas. Israel, to its credit, has
not gone starry-eyed over the
so-called Arab Spring. By all
appearances, it looks like a radical
Sunni attempt at a comeback.
Domestic demands for intervention,
whether used as a
campaign device or by a media
outlet, CNN, for its own purposes
is not a good approach to
foreign policy. Despite the
facile declaration that the
"camera never blinks," it does
not explain circumstances leading
up to a crisis. Only after the
United States intervenes does it
become clear what the complications
are and, as a result,
Americans pay the price in
blood and treasure. Passion
rarely rules wisely and the offending
power suffers the consequences.
George W. Bush's
intervention settled nothing
and, if anything, left Americans
with a reluctance to engage in
wars.
Wolf crying only confuses
the issue, particularly in regards
to Iran. After the
weapons of mass destruction
claim in Iraq, who believes the
United States? Afghanistan, as
well, points to the perils of hyperbole.
Our nation-building
efforts have been so successful
that Americans deal with their
Afghan advisers at their peril.
Perhaps Paul is right on this
front and Obama would be
wise to draw down and leave
the situation to the locals. In the
end, it is their war - if Hamid
Karzai wants it that way and he
says he does, grant him his
wish. Allow nations to conduct
their own ambitious project,
just don't expect Americans to
underwrite the expense.
Dr. David Turner
The U.S.
cannot be
a lender
(Editor's Note: Turner is a
professor of history at Davis &
Elkins College.
