Re: increased terrorism risk
This is the mindset that the US will have to try and ween itself off of if they want to stop being the target of attention and opportunity. I’ve no doubt that the US only gets involved in something when it believes it is doing it for the greater good. I’m sure with the invasion of Iraq there were nothing but good intentions. And of course the US takes heat for the failures.. it’s funny how quiet the media, and other nations are at the many successes the US has dabling in international affairs. But…there are better ways to your good work. Constant talk of fight, and showing weakness, and standing your ground, etc…..is this approach practical, or even realistic?
-Getting into international disputes/wars like Iraq, then scratching your head wondering why you have increased terrorist threats and more soldiers getting killed is short sighted. If the US was to slowly change it’s approach and use more diplomatic/economic pressures in lieu of shooting from the hip, it will mitigate the target it seems to always puts on itself. Premptive strikes and tampering in foreign affairs because your concerned of future countries that may attack the US is a long way away from invading existing countries that posed no threat, but now have created groups with you on there radar in revenge. No one deserves to die, and in NO way am I defending or reasoning away attacks against the US or any other state, and I shed no tears for Osama Bin Laden’s death….but terrorists, or foreign states do not spin the globe, let there finger land on the US and say thats the country I”m gonna centre out today.
-No one is talking about isolationism, or the US ignoring other people’s plights…but changing the approach you choose to “help” maybe worth a try. The approach that “we are going to help these people, give them our concept of democracy”, etc…..and sincerely believe you are doing another nation/people a favour…well…sometimes your not. I agree that once your there, like Iraq..it would be worse on the nation now if you up and left than staying the course. But not because you are showing weakness, or “moral endurance to fight” (oxymoron?). I doubt the general public gives a **** about your moral endurance more than they care about feeding there families and eeking out a decent life in Iraq. You have to remain or else it will get even worse for the general population if you didn’t. Thats not an argument for going there in the first place though.
-Stop acting unilaterily. I don’t know what that “your either with us or against us” crap was about, but that won’t win you any international points either. And not only gives fuel and resentment to foreign enemies, it also isolates and irritates your closest allies. Canada is usually the poor little brother you have to take along with you to all your international conflicts. We know it, and we know our military is for the most part a lot of over paid uniformed civil servants living off the sentiments of the publics longing of traditional “good guy bad guy” wars like WW II…..but…we didn’t follow you to Iraq. There was a reason for that.
-Historically…if you want to play the role of foreign occupying power. Even for good or noble reasons…you have to win the hearts of the people. If not, you’ve already lost, you just don’t know it yet. Think about whats happening right now where the US has decided to plant its flag. There are some great examples where it has worked out all right for the US. Peurto Rico, Hawaii are excellent examples. But where it isn’t…all it has done is galvanize groups of people otherwise disgruntled but now have a direction to throw there anger at. Napoleon, Alexander the great, etc. had great success. They gave the occupied countries something. I recommend you read: “Napoleon on Napoleon.” His autobiography. That’s Napoleon Bonaparte…not Dynamite. Look at longer term goals, and the bigger picture of protecting the US, it’s allies, and how about everyone else for that matter too….and stop drawing lines in the sand which is true isolationism.
