The United States and the World. As the superpower in the international arena, the United States usually paves a democratic path for other nations.
Let’s wake up from our dream, and look out the window. In a post 9/11 world, it seems like war has become the motto for the current administration to offer security to our people. That makes sense. I support an effort to destroy governments that oppress its people and create diplomatic hurdles for the world. I support an effort to push democracy into parts of the world so people can have their basic human rights. However, being democratic is exactly what the situation overseas is lacking. The United States is now militaristically dictating the neighborhoods of Iraq and Afghanistan, where governments that once revolved around fundamentalist, religious principle are now being run by oppressive forces in a new mask. See the difference the war has made? I don’t.
The US treads a thin line while in combat in the Middle East. It is beyond the scope of differences that exist between two nations; it has become the cultural clash between two philosophies and religions. Again, the US is dealing with forces way beyond the military’s comprehension of running governments and societies. The main goal of our government is to ensure national sovereignty, by any means. However, with the current state of affairs in the influential regions of the world (the same in which we are ironically involved), people have their button on the trigger to unleash a pandemonium of conflict that would not only threaten our sovereignty, but our own safety.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates mentioned in late October “the Army needed to improve its ability to train foreign militaries and to prepare for other unconventional conflicts that it was likely to face in coming decades.”
Our military must observe how it acts in regard to each conflict, as the list of interventions increases. Having the same approach and policy of aggression and military control makes no sense, when the conflict is with different people, different cultures, and for different reasons. The biggest consequence for the United States (and our military) is a backlash of a civil rebellion. As of October 11th, 2007, nearly 655,000 “extra” Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion. To be reasonable, most of those deaths are innocent individuals caught up in the US Army’s policed actions. The United States must draw a line in its military policy to maintain a stronger image of our federal government.
The reason behind the high toll of Iraqi deaths’ and growing US deaths is simply that people don’t like to be told what to do by strangers, and the Islamic world for instance, maintains a high standard for respect and tradition. The one thing an administration should do to respect the sovereignty of other nations and cultures is to simply step back and limit the role of our armed forces in other nations. We still need to have a strict foreign policy on oppressive governments, but limit ourselves from being a parent to others. The consequence of this philosophy is a stronger focus on our economy and reaping the benefits of globalization. The United States can thus keep pace with growing economies of the East by maintaining a check on its foreign affairs, through restricting the role of our armed forces. As for individuals like you and I, the best benefit of a more controlled international role is our safety. In today’s world, with varying views on government and culture, respect, tradition, and diplomacy are the key elements for the current administration to establish a legacy.
A more hidden issue that Gates’ views have uncovered is the effect it has on our government and the GOP’s role in the 2008 elections. The current administration has defined itself through aggressive, sovereign and spirited actions. Moreover, the right side of our government must try to present an appealing platform to counter a growing balanced attack from the left.
Frontrunners such as Rudy Giuliani must understand the constitutionality of the current administration’s policies. Instead of targeting Democratic nominees, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the GOP must develop a platform that outlines the ‘new and improved’ conservative policy. This includes addressing the conflicts abroad. Robert Gates will likely be replaced; likewise, the military will need new guidance and mentorship from an administration that must limit the military’s role abroad. Of having chance to win the elections, they must establish stronger constitutionality to the military that involves limiting its diplomatic roles and empowering its sovereign and safety roles.
More and more Americans today believe that the Iraq war is growing out of the government’s control. According to an October Gallup Poll, 6 out of 10 say US involvement in the war was a mistake. This is a burden that will carry into the next administration, regardless of affiliation. Understanding the constitutional limits to our policy abroad (not policing the streets of other nations, influencing the development of diplomacy in other governments) is crucial towards developing support for the federal government. On a brighter note, American troops begin withdrawal soon, meaning we could see a shift in policy in the Middle East. A more constructive move in the Middle East will enable the left side to establish a conservative, constitutional, and sovereign policy that will support the Republican candidate, as well as help improve the tarnished image of the US Military’s ethics.
In retrospect, our freedom fighters have done a courageous job ensuring the safety of Americans by eliminating institutions that pose a threat to our freedoms. An administration that supports a strong, aggressive military approach towards maintaining our sovereignty and safety is tactical. However, drawing limitations around the military’s role beyond resolving conflict is a key step for the current and future administration to maintain our constitutionality. If we could live in an era where the world respected the basic human rights of every human being, diplomacy would be a child’s game. Robert Gates must establish a more strategic option for the U.S. military in handling the civil conflicts that exist within operations abroad. That option is simply becoming more tactical and utilizing the military’s resources for defeating oppressive institutions and hurdles that exist towards creating a democratic society for many human beings, who simply deserve their basic rights – the right to live.
-Sandeep Shah
Recent Comments