This is an interesting view on the direction that our country is going, do you agree or disagree? Foreign Policy should be just that. A well thought out policy. We should consider the pros and cons of certain policy actions in the light of how effective those policy actions are in allowing us to meet our foreign policy objectives, which should also be defined and well thought out. Therefore, foreign policy should be a byproduct of a well thought out set of objectives, and if the objectives are flawed, then there is no doubt that our foreign policy will also be flawed. You cannot have a sound set of policies if they are designed to meet flawed objectives. Take for example our use of drones as a likely flawed policy. I would think a good foreign policy objective would be to make it as difficult as possible for the Taliban to recruit more followers into their ranks. Difficult? Yes. Understandable? Also yes. But this is an example of a clear objective, which should lead to a sound policy which should help us to meet the objectives, in this example, to make it more difficult for the Taliban to recruit. Now look at our policy of drone use and how it would impact this objective. We fire a missile from a drone into a sovereign nation, violating their air space and if successful, we kill a member of the Taliban and hopefully, not too many more people. However, this policy angers that targeted nation. Because of this, the Taliban have a far more easy time recruiting followers. Net effect of this flawed policy is that we kill a few Taliban and the Taliban recruit by the dozens or even by the hundreds, therefore, our policy makes the Taliban more powerful rather than less so. This is an example of a metric that would indicate that our policy is flawed, at least it should, but apparently, it has not yet registered. The net effect of our policy is most likely to expand rather than reduce the ranks of the Taliban because that is the end result. The bad policy is coming from poorly thought out objectives. Our objectives seem to be to kill a member of the Taliban even if in a foreign country, and our policy follows this objective. We need to embrace an objective that would make it more difficult for the Taliban to recruit and other such objectives, but that is not what we are doing. Since we have the technology to cross a border and deliver the explosives via drone, that is exactly what we do. They have the technology to cross our (open) border and deliver an explosive device via pressure cooker bomb or similar device, so that is what they do, or they bomb one of our allies with a similar device. Then we respond by firing more missiles in response to their response to our missiles. The result has to be a state of constant and perpetual war until one side can no longer stay on the mat so to speak. It just goes on and on and on. It never stops. Our politics get wrapped up in National Security and secrecy due to being in a state of perpetual war and our freedoms erode as a result. This will guarantee that we fail and fail big economically and politically. We reach out and touch at long distance using a drone while the enemy can reach out and touch with a pressure cooker bomb or similar device. But in reality, neither of us have the moral high ground because one is a terrorist to the nation attacked via drone and the other is a terrorist to the nation attacked by a much lower technology bomb. But what difference does the technology used really make to the ultimate outcome? Are drones somehow more morally pure? I don’t think so. It reminds me of how stupid our objectives were in the Viet Nam era and the flawed policies that resulted from those flawed objectives. In Vietnam, we fought the war because we thought we were stopping the dominoes from falling, which was wrong because it was actually a civil war and we got involved in a civil war without knowing it was really a civil war thinking wrongly that China wanted to conquer the entire pacific rim. The Vietnamese fought back because they thought we were just another imperialistic power that was replacing the French which was not the case either. Both sides never saw the fight for what it was, which was simply a civil war that neither the French nor the USA should have been a part of. But then that fate was decided with even earlier bad objectives and policy when we turned our WWII ally (Vietnam) over to the French following WWII. We should have learned something but obviously, we haven’t. So now, we fire missiles from drones into a foreign nation making a mockery of their sovereignty, pressuring their leaders to do something to stop it, while killing their citizens, and then when they strike back with much lower technology, we call them terrorists and respond to the provoked response by firing more missiles into their sovereign space ultimately guaranteeing they will strike back again somewhere, either at us or at our allies. The only outcome of such stalemate policy is either status quo or escalation, but either way, perpetual war. We have learned nothing and we are now becoming the enemy to ourselves. We now eavesdrop on our own communications, we have damaged the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, and we now use government agencies to enforce political thought or to put down dissent, and all of this, is an outcome of being constantly at war which polarizes the political process. If a nation is a threat to our sovereignty, then declare war and bomb them into oblivion. But if the nation is not a threat to our national sovereignty, then how do we have the right and lawful ability under treaties and international law to invade their air space and kill their citizens? And how can we expect to carry out such a flawed policy without retribution? And when the retribution comes, how can we then expect to be able to avoid the natural political pressure to bomb them some more? Bad objectives make bad policy which leads to very negative results. We seem to lack any metrics to measure our progress, just as we lacked any meaningful metrics to measure our performance during the Vietnam era. Back then we used the metrics of bombs dropped, enemy killed and wounded, bridges destroyed, anti-aircraft artillery destroyed, Etc., etc. and none of that made any difference. On paper, using our metrics, we won the war over and over. But the metrics were flawed, the policies flawed, the objectives flawed, and we sought “Peace with honor” whatever the hell that meant. Can we expect a better outcome by using the wrong metrics now to measure our progress of achieving the wrong objectives through the wrong policies? I think not. We as a nation deserve better!
Posted on: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:34:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015