How many tomorrows does America have left?
December 30th, 2009 in Foreign Policy ~ No Comments
Ben Stein claimed Ron Paul was using an “anti-Semitic argument” when Congressman Paul (R-TX) argued the United States should refrain from bombing Yemen in a December 28 interview on CNN’s Larry King Live.
Rep. Paul has argued for removing U.S. troops from the Middle East because the American presence there is increasingly seen by many Muslims as a foreign occupation force. Responding to his argument that we should mind our own business and not become the policeman of the world, Stein argued: “No, we’re not occupiers. That’s the same anti-Semitic argument we’ve heard over and over again.”
While I have never thought of Ron Paul’s foreign policy as anti-semitic, I do believe it is naive to take Ben Laden at his word, and that doing so demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what orthodox Islam is all about. That, however, does not mean we are doing everything right.
Another libertarian, Ret. Army Sgt. Richard A. Correa, Sr, recently shared some thought-provoking comments on the Tea Party Patriots Google group and with his permission I would like to share them below.
As to the isolationism of the Libertarians. Though I have no problem with finding and killing terrorists or going to the fight when the fight is ours I would ask you to consider the following:
1) The cold war with the Soviet Union is over. The rational for NATO no longer exists. Why should we continue to spend billions of dollars maintaining bases in Germany for a war that will never happen?
2) We are in a de facto cold war with China, and they are making some brilliant strategic moves. China is attempting to align India and Brazil against us, and thanks to the clowns in DC they will probably succeed. Shouldn’t our focus shift to meet the real threat?
3) Thanks to the progressives in both parties we blew our chance to really change the relationship we had with Russia which, to some extent, has led to the rise of Putin. Why did we do that?
4) Because of NATO actions, directed by the European Union, we are starting a new stand off with Russia. One that is a detriment to both countries. Because of these NATO actions Russia is aligning itself with China and encouraging Venezuela to become more aggressive. This is definitely not good for us and it didn’t have to happen. Why are we letting NATO put us in this position?
5) The European Union has been war-gaming fighting the US Navy for control of the Atlantic Ocean since the late 1980s. Why are we even considering continuing an alliance with these backstabbers?
6) While we are paralyzed by the progressives and their allies over developing oil resources the Russians and China are taking advantage of the situation. Russia is now claiming oil reserves under the arctic ice that rightfully belong to Canada, Finland, Norway and the USA. It seems to me if we were to pursue a balanced policy with Russia we could head off the conflict that will come of this. I have no problem in fighting a war if it can’t be avoided but this is nuts. By simply asserting our sovereignty and working with Russia and the other countries involved it wouldn’t happen.
7) I fully understand why we sacrificed over 100,000 American lives during the cold war with the Soviet Union. It made sense as sad as it was. But why are we the worlds policeman today? Bosnia, Serbia etc. are European problems. It’s their responsibility. Why are we involved there? The war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda makes sense but the attempt to “nation build” in Afghanistan is a waste of treasure and lives. No foreign power will ever succeed in creating a viable nation state there. If it is ever going to happen it has to come from within Afghanistan, not from without. Until they voluntarily change their 13th century mindset they will remain a tribal society.
I’m borderline on the invasion of Iraq but the nation building attempt is again misplaced pride and arrogance on our part. Taking down Saddam, his family and their ilk was noble. Trying to remake Iraq into a modern western nation is foolhardy. Now this administration is attempting to seize “defeat from the jaws of victory”. The surge and the awakening worked so now we are “redeploying” our troops and screwing over the people of the awakening by letting the Iraqi government take over responsibility for the members of the awakening. That means the policies that drove these people to fighting us and the Iraqi government are back in play, hence the increase in violence. How is this worth the life of one American soldier?
9) Has anyone out there ever looked at a map of Afghanistan and noticed who is on their borders? As happened in Cambodia during Viet Nam, our war has spilled across the border into Pakistan. The only problem is that there is no beautiful coastline along Afghanistan for our people to withdraw to and so our navy could bring them home. If Pakistan falls to the Taliban we are surrounded by hostile nations and completely cutoff from supply or evacuation. So is Afghanistan worth the complete annihilation of 80,000 American and 30,000 NATO troops?
Perhaps a realistic approach to foreign policy is a little over due.
Added to all that, we have taken down our ballistic missile defenses in Europe and cut the F-22 Raptor program. We have very little manufacturing left here in the US, Congress is spending like there’s no tomorrow, and we are still on the chain of foreign oil dependence.
When will America see the handwriting on the wall, like another great nation who thought they were invincible? Belshazzar, King of ancient Babylon, caroused with his nobles while King Cyrus of Persia diverted the river Euphrates and entered underneath the great walls of Babylon in a brilliant surprise attack. America may not have many tomorrows left.