As America enters the 21st century, this country finds itself burdened with many troubles.
One simply has to watch the nightly news to witness the current state of our country — from soaring unemployment to mass income inequality to unchecked illegal immigration.
However, at the top of this huge pill of problems and debacles lies one issue that reigns supreme over them all — the inconsistency and illogicalness of America’s foreign policy.
Foreign policy is one of the most important issue in today’s political pantheon of discussions because it involves not only our military — who represent the best among us — but foreign policy is also directly tied to our economy and perhaps, most importantly, our standing before the communities of an ever increasing global world.
Because of this great significance, citizens of America deserve a foreign policy that works, is logical and humane and, most importantly, one that does not change from president to president.
However, since WWII, America has wandered in the dark regarding its foreign policy.
The government has failed to inform its citizens as to the reasons why we find ourselves intruding into the affairs of foreign countries.
One of the biggest problems I see is that every president brings to the table his own foreign policy viewpoints irrespective of our laws.
For example, America spent eight years living under former President George Bush’s neoconservative approaches to foreign policy, and, now, we are living under President Barack Obama’s more U.N. friendly foreign policies.
This, in the long run, causes tremendous confusion for most American citizens as it most certainly makes them distrust and question their government.
America deserves a clear and principled foreign policy, one that respects our military by only deploying them when America’s immediate interests and security are at stake.
America’s foreign policy should be one of only intervening in foreign conflicts and affairs when a foreign threat has been made and when it has the ability to be carried out.
Our country should only engage ourselves in war when the U.S Congress, in both Houses, passes a Declaration of War.
After this has transpired, the president should go before the country and lay out the exact, specific reasons for military engagement, as well as the major goals of our operations.
Our troops should then carry out these missions and then immediately return home. No more nation building — let the U.N. and other organizations tend to those needs.
Under this type of common sense of constitutionally-based foreign policy, it would not be the United States’ obligation to rebuild the infrastructure of an enemy who, prior to conflict, wanted to destroy us.
Ultimately, the most important change needing to be implemented in our foreign policy is that we stop changing it to fit current political climates.
How can we, as a nation of laws, be invading Afghanistan one minute, air striking Libya, ignoring a violent Iran and be turning a blind eye to the mass executions in Syria?
This is precisely why American’s are confused and angry and are losing trust in their government.
This is precisely why our foreign policy is flawed and needs to be changed.
It is a real shame that America’s attention is so focused on getting Joe’s factory job back from China that we are ignoring the most important issue of the day — maintaining a good standing with the world community.
As long as the United States refuses to adopt a constitutionally based, common sense foreign policy that focuses solely on our interests, then why should we allow this same government to provide things like our health insurance?
Critics of my position will argue that if we are not the police of the world, who then will spread democracy and protect the innocent from oppressive regimes?
These are fair points, however, I think they become irrelevant by the simple fact that we cannot afford to be the police of the world — we simply do not have the resources.
After all, we can still help foreign countries rid themselves of dictatorships by using non-military means.
There is a big difference between stopping a dictator from killing his people, with the help of our allies by non-military means, and randomly inserting ourselves into the affairs of foreign country after foreign country with no clear objectives and no exit strategies.
Sure, this part of the “conversation” on foreign policy is the most difficult, but that is what our leaders get paid to do — solve these types of problems.
We must demand of our leaders, not that they always make decisions we agree with, but that they make consistent, principled decisions based on our laws because the alternative is for every future generation to experience war and conflict in the context of confusion, despair and lawlessness.
By DAVID WOODSON
Newscast Editor
dwoodson@imail.iu.edu
