 | During the early 1900's, Communism became a symbolic eutopia for the poor. It offered an economic theory where all property was held in common and all citizens shared all the wealth. At the time, Capitalism was cast as a dark greedy villain which had no mercy for the underprivileged. Of course, after eighty years, Communism and all of its false promises has failed miserably. In contrast, the hidden hand of Capitalism, continues to baffle economists as it remains strong and constant despite all of its built-in selfish ideals.
|
Similarly, those who advocate world peace and protest against military confrontation are misguided at best and dangerous at worst. The world peace movement is an idealistic group consisting of nations and people who see no value in ever having to fight a battle. The tool of choice is negotiations and its only weapon is ignoring rogue states through sanctions.
In contrast, there are those who believe that war is a necessary evil. This group believes that freedom comes at a price and that price is confronting tyrants and totalitarian leaders with military action. Despite its very high cost in human life, this group believes conflict continues to be the only known check on those who would rob mankind of personal freedom.
Like Communism, the pursuit of “world peace” fails in practice. When a free nation is forced to war, however, after the immediate cost of war is overcome, the result is an increase in liberty and a renewed desire by all to try to keep the peace as long as possible.
In face of the conflicting theories, President Ronald Reagan decided that he would guide the world towards peace through increasing the strength of the United States Military. It is time we revisit Peace Through Strength. It may mean the reinstitution of the draft and increased spending, but we cannot afford to lose our position of strength.
We know Peace Through Strength works. Imagine where we would be today if Manuel Noriega would have been able to continue in power in Central America or if Lybia had not been confronted for its role in exporting terrorism. Instead of sitting on our hands, at the time, we took swift and decisive action. The loss of human life was tragic, however, in the balance, if these governments had been left in power to grow like a cancer, in the long term, the cost of life would have been much greater.
We find ourselves in difficult circumstances today because of the desire to maintain peace and avoid conflict at all costs. Totalitarian nations and terrorists act without reservation because they know that they can act without concern about the United States intervening. Somehow, over the years, the slogan “DON’T TREAD ON ME” has become “DON’T COUNT ON ME” as many politicians and a significant minority of Americans lack the courage to take a stand against anything that involves war or conflict.
Even under George Bush Sr. the war against a Saddam Hussein was stopped prematurely and under conditions that would result in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Shiites in the south. The same could be said about the Vietnam War and the Korean War when the United States sued for peace rather than continuing the battle for freedom. In each case, the seeds of trouble were cast into the soil and now we are reaping the rewards of prior failings and cowardice. Now trouble has taken root in Iraq and North Korea.
Some may say that neither of these countries are an immediate threat to the United States, yet North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and long-range missiles that will eventually allow the delivery of these nuclear devices over into freedom loving nations. Imagine in fifteen years if an atomic weapon levels San Francisco from North Korea. Who will look back and dispute whether we should have continued the fight in the 1950's instead of suing for a cease fire or whether in our current circumstances we should have been more bold and direct about disarming the North Koreans.
Tallying the losses, and a future attack on American soil, perhaps it would be wise to act now when North Korea is weakest and cannot reach the western shores. Given the fact that North Korea is also sharing its technology, it seems that immediate action will also prevent this technology from being shared.
One can imagine entirely different outcomes had the United States been bold enough and had the courage to continue these respective wars. Where a free country has prevailed in war, the result has been an expanded freedom of the people within the occupied country. Japan and Germany are the best examples of where freedom has taken a foothold long after our totalitarian enemy was vanquished.
In contrast, both North Korea and Iraq became more isolated and more controlling over their own people after a truce had been struck. Their citizens in essence became victims of the march for “world peace.” Millions of North Koreans are near starvation daily and Iraqis have had to endure Saddam’s death squads and now are faced with death at the hands of terrorists. The count has clearly been more devastating in terms of human tragedy and loss of life than finishing what was started at the time of the original conflicts.
The wrong-thinking advocacy for world peace is essentially resulting in the empowerment of totalitarian states and terrorism. In the end, the cost in suffering and loss of life is much greater in the long run.
This leads us up to the prosecution of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Wasn’t this the prosecution of our interests abroad?
At first glance, it would be simple to use Iraq as an example of why we should avoid throwing our military might around, but Iraq is a bad example. Indeed, Iraq is the culmination of very bad policy from many years before. We are currently fighting enemies that should have been dealt with in the Clinton administration and the presidency of George Bush Sr.
No one disputes that we could have and should have taken Bin Laden when given the opportunity to do so or struck at the terrorist cells in Afghanistan when we had the opportunity. In addition, significant anger arose against the United States when we failed to assist the Shiites in southern Iraq when they revolted following the Gulf War. Essentially, we were best friends with the Afghan rebels when they were fighting the Russians and the Shiites when we wanted to win the Gulf War, but then abandoned them all when it was no longer convenient in the name of “world peace.” We wanted to avoid conflicts and war and stepped away from the actions because we didn’t want to look like imperialists. The lack of courage is now costing us greatly in Iraq as our previous allies now have a great hate for us. Again, prior action would have destroyed, neutralized or even befriended the very enemies we are fighting today.
So the War in Iraq is not about the “War in Iraq,” but rather our foreign policies in prior engagements which caused more radical elements within these groups to reach the highest levels out of their hate for America. Given our support of Saddam Hussein in his earlier fight against Iran, one must wonder if we are not creating our own grief.
The better approach would have and should have been military action directly with offending parties. Years ago, if we had an “issue” with Iran, we should have engaged Iran at the time controlled the outcome in our best interest. In the name of world peace, however, we chose to fight through a surrogate and in retrospect, that was a very big mistake.
We are now faced with terrorists and dictators throughout the world who are emboldened by our inadequacies. We are the ones responsible for this mess and we have a duty to ourselves and to the honor of freedom to work our way out of it.
So how do we fix all of this? First, let’s agree that our solutions don’t lie at the foot of the United Nations. What is in the best interest of the United Nations is not in our best interest time and again. The United States does not need permission of the UN to pursue its own objectives. Far too long, we have sought permission from our neighbors while other rogue nations seek only the approval of their bottomless bellies. Instead, it is time for new foreign policy and a new approach.
The doctrine of Peace Through Strength is a renewal of the original Reagan doctrine. Like “Reaganomics” of lowering taxes to improve growth, it has been proven true and valid through the years. The only reason it is not working currently is because the President does not want to appear “hawkish.”
President Bush was wrong not to increase the number of troops in Iraq earlier to control the threat of terrorism. The troops were willing, but they were clearly spread too thin. Had Bush put in larger numbers, the situation would not be spinning out of control. Many in Congress begged him to increase troop levels, but because they were Democrats or more liberal minded Republicans, their pleas were met with accusations of being non-patriotic.
President Bush did the right thing in prosecuting the war, but he has made many blunders since. Many of the most recent problems have arisen because he has been unable or unwilling to simply take a stance on the world’s stage and back it up militarily. Instead he has spent thousands of hours at the UN trying to convince other nations that the US policy is the correct policy. Regretfully, most of these other nations have financial or political dealings with these rogue nations and intend on protecting them at the United Nations.
Here’s a better idea. Pursue US policy regardless of what the world thinks. If it involves the military, and it is in our best interest, then do what needs to be done. Certainly we should tell our neighbors why we are doing it, but then let’s just do it. Soon those who are blocking our positions in the United Nations will learn that if they don’t move to compromise, then there will be no compromise and they will have little or no say in the outcome.
If you hadn’t noticed, the United States is not currently feared or respected. Though we are a superpower today, it cannot be said that our reputation will last much longer given the current circumstances. If we lose our status as a superpower, the entire free world loses. To that end, we need a strategy that does not look upon power as something that should be shared. Who would it be shared with? Russia? China? Those countries are doing everything possible to match us in technology and strength so they can become what we are today. Is that something that is actually in the best interest of the United States. The answer is no.
The War in Iraq has shown the world our vulnerabilities. Frankly, our lack of courage to fight this and other wars is are weakest point of all. President Reagan temporarily restored our position after Vietnam, and certainly the Gulf War also helped our image, but much of that good will is now gone. Who is to blame is less important than what we need to do now to change the perception of weakness and vulnerability.
Solutions are hard to come by – especially when you find yourself in a very deep mud pit with no way up or out. Obviously, at this juncture, we need some friends and some support. The ones most likely to give us the support we need are other free countries who understand the necessity of a democratic superpower. If that were to ever change, the outcome would be catastrophic, so we should have a fair number of partners.
Next, with a block of free governments moving in the same direction, we need to end the Iranian, Syrian and North Korean crisis on our terms, not those of China and Russia. It is in the best interest of China and Russia to delay and postpone these solutions. Hardball antics would require a unified front against the rogue countries as well as their obstructing pals China and Russia. If we want solutions, we need to do something different than we are doing now. What we are doing is not working and hasn’t worked for the last ten year, so we need to do something different. In common sense terms, someone has moved the cheese and we need to move on to find new cheese because the old cheese station has been empty for the last five years.
Finally, a new alliance between sisters democracies similar to the United Nations needs to be formed, but this organization needs to have teeth and a joint army of freedom loving nations. In essence, this organization needs to consist of the “willing” so often referred to by President Bush. It should have the right to expel members if their internal status changes, such as the elimination or restriction of the free press or open elections. Such an organization should have the long term objective of replacing the United Nations or at least have the ability to influence it dramatically. In short, it would be similar to NATO, but would be world-wide.
As it stands, the United States can no longer tolerate rogue states controlling our destiny and other non-democratic countries getting in the way. If Iran has the absolute right to nuclear technology, then we have the absolute right to stop them – and any other state that threatens our interests. For those who would rather choose world peace through negotiations, I have a one-way ticket to Iran for you waiting in my office. You can negotiate with your captors ‘til your heart’s content. I’ll send the pine box shortly thereafter to pick up your peaceful remains.
