I know this is off subject for this blog, but I am shopping an article to be published and I wanted out there in this forum first.
As always, I welcome any critical commentary..rest assured I will respond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Defense of our Foreign Policy
The events on September 11, 2001 polarized the world into good and evil. America, naturally took the role of the good, and some nation states became evil. In the aftermath, the American foreign policy changed it's stance dramatically, adopting an are 'Are you with us or against us?' attitude. America opened a blackened, but very critical eye and began to re-examine the relationship it had with those nations that turned up in the post event investigation as being either directly involved, as in the case against Afghanistan, or indirectly involved, such as our own friends the British.
Some policy makers had the forethought to look into the mind of a people who committed these attacks and saw that religious zeal and xenophobia is to be defended against with extreme prejudice when it comes to the home turf. This leads into one of the essential elements of our current foreign policy- to occupy the nation states that harbor our enemies in order to seek out the heads of the perpetrators. The means to achieve this policy, when spun out to the American public was met, initially, with jingoistic enthusiasm. After a couple of years and no real measurable success, according to popular press pundits, the popularity had diminished to the point where the next presidential election my cause America to change tack and sail in a new direction.
In defense of our current policy, one must look at the yardstick by which we measure success. By occupying foreign nations in order to seek out the groups that committed the attacks on U.S. soil, we have desecrated their hallowed ground. To rid their hen house of the American wolf, all chickens must come home to roost. From another point of view, this means that no significant terrorist attacks have occurred on U.S. soil since adopting this policy. There are those who would argue that perhaps there was no intent for further attacks, or that there may have been attempts that have been foiled by our intelligence or investigative operations. Hogwash. If ever an executive needed a boost in popularity, especially in midterm, now would be the time to parade that down Pennsylvania Avenue.
The other measure for success in our current policy is serving up the heads of the perpetrators. There is only one head the American public is interested in, Osama Bin Laden, as he has become the face of 'Evil'. Sadly, the majority of this country do not understand that he is but a godlike executive, surrounded by generals, captains and foot soldiers. Yes, to serve him up on a platter would be a public relations bonus for the current leader of the free world, but lest we forget, Osama is a lonely executive who only sets the goals and policy; it is the lesser ranks that recruit, train and execute that policy. These are the heads we seek. A leader who hides in a cave is no leader, merely a preservationist.
Arundhati Roy wrote an article for The Guardian of London on September 29, 2001 entitled "The Algebra of Infinite Justice”, in which the essential commentary on American foreign policy at that time was seriously flawed and the resultant anger by so many nations produced an exponentially negative sum. The culmination being that Osama Bin Laden was trained in warfare by the United States in an effort to free Afghanistan from its Russian occupiers then turned and used that training against the United States. The young date at which this article was written makes it apparent the author chooses to paint a policy formulated in the 1970's as current. Compound this with the assumption that what policy is applied to one nation is applied to all and the product is a giant smoking hole in lower Manhattan. This is a sad dissolution of facts and personal interpretation. This author neglects to acknowledge that foreign policy is in constant evolution. Yes, policy is considered with an eye towards the future, but as events unfold, borders move and needs change, so does the guidelines to conduct with foreign nations. It is all too easy to say the result of a particular policy produced a monster, twenty years after that seed was planted. Would this author have offered this same opinion twenty years prior? How fortunate it must be to be able to predict the future, retrospectively.
In the conclusion of this article the author writes, "President Bush's ultimatum to the people of the world- 'If you are not with us, you're against us'- is a piece of presumptuous arrogance." This one sentence, quoting the president, is charged with emotional content, most likely derived from the nearness to September 11 and is out of place when discussing the cold hard facts of the world political arena. The author has used imagery and characterization as a vehicle to develop a response of shame and loathing in the reader. Any characterization of the output of American foreign policy as a 'You get what you deserve' poke in the eye will in fact create a strong emotional response, but not the one intended. Readers on this side of the pond would most likely respond to the author and the article with anger. As an aside, the mental imagery Arundhati Roy paints of a hobbling stampede of one-legged villagers under an airdrop of artificial limbs although sad is not without its Pythonesque overtones.
To infer that Mr. Bush made an ultimatum, a final statement on diplomatic terms being offered, according to Funk and Wagnalls, to a people and not to any nation is another path leading the reader in the wrong direction. To assume that all words emanating from a head of state are directed at a specific people or persons is a poor attempt to keep the article focused on the personal while attempting to dissect the national. The policy of reacting to a very large attack on our nation is a national policy. As a democracy, the people, through various cameras set this policy, not in stone but on parchment so that it can be scratched out and re-written as needed. Many believe that the sound bite of 'with us or against us' was intended more for a six o'clock news lead than a statement with a specific intent. The author of this article wants to lead the reader into believing any and all verbiage coming from the executive branch is a statement on policy which is seldom the case. More is the likely that spin and sound bites are.
Donald Rumsfeld is referred to in this article as having said that Americans must be allowed to continue with their way of life. Any interference with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as it is written in one of our founding documents, will be dealt with. We have laws to protect this within and policy to address this outside our borders. What kind of a nation would we be if a summary of our foreign policy was "Please do as you like and we will try to fit in". We, as a very powerful sovereignty, have every right to our way of life, as does all other nations and peoples. Outside our borders, we are more than willing to tolerate the differences. It is the other side of this coin is causing the problems, namely that other nations and peoples are not willing to tolerate us. True, our policy sometimes interferes with the plans of other nations, but the intent is always to preserve the American Way. When Roy implies that the Bush ultimatum is a demonstration of American arrogance, she neglects to identify which side of the coin she is on. One would suspect perhaps that the author might have been the recipient of some of the intent focus that the Good vs. Evil plan has produced. Yet again, the author may be simply ignorant enough to not realize that as the big kid on the block, we try to do good and treat all nations states equally and fairly. True, mistakes have been made, but when you give him a black eye, it's gonna hurt and punishment now has a very high priority. Arrogance is how the enemies of state wish us to be perceived. Statements on American arrogance implies jealousy by neglecting to identify the arrogance of other nations and tribal groups foreign policy which led to the attacks on September 11.
Our foreign policy must be defended as much as our borders and way of life. As a nation, we can not let the errors of past administrations override the course we set for our nations future, as such half hearted attempts in the past have. As a nation, have every right to pursue our way of life within our borders and when that is disrupted, we, as a democratic nation, will respond. This is a war on terrorism. Our policy is to take this war off our shores and place it squarely in the front yard of our enemies. There, not here. Today, not tomorrow. Diplomacy and genteel exchange ended with the first airliner crashing.
We as a sovereign nation have every right to defend ourselves against acts of terrorism and punish those who committed them, by any means possible, and we will. Defending this policy was not necessary in the months following September 11, 2001, but it is now. Americans have been led to believe that our foreign policy has nothing but a negative outcome. Perhaps. So when the naysayers gather freely in public and express their dissent, are they not in fact, speaking because of the protection our foreign policy affords them? It may be in President Bush's best interest to disclose some of the elements of our foreign policy so that Americans can truly understand where we have come from and why we went there. At the inception of this policy, it would have foolhardy to disclose any element that gives away the greater plan. Now that this card has been played, it is time the general populace understood so that it would become unnecessary to defend the the foreign policy of the United States, especially from within our own borders.
