Gorilla Ends Its Silence: America's Foreign Policy Conundrum

Two weeks ago, I made the claim that I would act solely as a news aggregate. But on the eve of the Inauguration and after only generating one comment in weeks, I have decided to write an op-ed.

The topic is foreign policy and why a less intrusive American approach benefits the millenials.

Here's the article that spurred this action:

America: What in the world does it want

By TED ANTHONY – 1 day ago

NEW YORK (AP) — George Washington, first president, said this: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

Eldridge Cleaver, civil rights leader, said this: "Americans think of themselves collectively as a huge rescue squad on 24-hour call."

Toby Keith, populist country singer, said this: "This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage — and you'll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A."

Now: Place those three divergent sentiments in a large bowl. Whip vigorously until blended. There you'll have, in one curious, often contradictory recipe, the world-changing, world-shaking world view of the quixotic species known as the American people.

When 21st-century Americans contemplate their place on the planet, they confront a complex history of isolationism and engagement, a deep instinct to live and let live that coexists with an equally fervent desire to be a robust beacon of freedom — sometimes by any means necessary.

That means that, while a presidential transition offers many limbos, none is quite so stark as the expected change in the approach, method and technique of foreign policy that will come with the inauguration of Barack Obama on Tuesday.

"It's a very plastic moment," says Eric Rauchway, author of "Blessed Among Nations: How the World Made America."

The arrival of Obama and his secretary of state designate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, represents a baton-passing between two distinct versions of the American world view — George W. Bush's interventionist, we-know-best foreign policy and Obama's vow to "restore our moral standing."

continue reading

I think the most interesting part of that article is the top. The three quotes exemplifying the evolution of America's foreign policy represent a fundamental problem in this country.

We don't have a clear plan on foreign policy.

I picked up Ron Paul's book, The Revolution, a few weeks ago. I've been a pretty pathetic reader, only getting through the first 30 pages. But it was enough to get through his foreign policy proposal.

The next Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she will implement a system of smart power. I don't know what the fuck that garbage means, but Paul's plan of leaving everyone the hell alone makes sense to me.

Sure, smart power as I understand it (picking and choosing when to intervene in other country's affairs) is a step in a better direction from President George Bush's shoot now, ask later technique. But why can't we just focus on our own problems?

Here's a counter for how much the Iraq war has cost this country:



The Web site Cost of War has this function that puts the war price into perspective. Check out how many teachers could be employed in Athens, Ohio if we didn't have to pay for this war.

Then there is the other major advantage. The nations that hate America usually do so because we intervene in their business.

Sure, there are instances where there is more of a moral obligation to do the right thing (the whole genocide thing comes to mind). But aren't there better ways of doing so then going all Team America?



Here's an idea, why don't we just support global groups that help these situations like the UN or the Peace Corps? I don't know, there just has to be a less intrusive way of helping people in moments of tragedy and in all other matters we should just let people deal with their own problems. God knows we have enough of our own.