Undoing the Bush Years: Priority #1 for the Next Foreign Policy
It’s interesting to see what ideas topped the Democrats agenda in their recent debate. In his first hundred days, Edwards said he would “travel the world” and “re-establish America’s moral authority” while Clinton and Obama said they would bring home U.S. troops from Iraq. I think the visions the candidates laid out is telling for where the Democratic party currently finds itself, a position caught between laying out a positive vision for the future and acknowledging the mistakes of the Bush administration. All of the candidates tried as much as possible to envision a new role for America in the world where our country would lead by example. Yet, when asked about their first 100 days, the candidates all ended up saying in one way or another that their top priority in office would be undoing the harm of the Bush administration.
While I am generally one who seeks positive approaches, even I must admit that the top priority for the next President in foreign policy should be to undo the Bush administration’s harm. All of today’s major global challenges – Darfur, climate, poverty, terrorism – are hampered by America’s loss of legitimacy in the world. We must rebuild our credibility before we can begin to solve these problems. Many pundits seem to be disappointed that Democrats have focused so much on undoing Bush and so little on a positive future for the country, but I see the two as inevitably intertwined and the former as the necessary precursor to the latter. So, I enjoyed the debate myself and hope whoever is elected, Democrat or Republican, undoing Bush is the top priority on the agenda.
No related posts.
Any change in administration typically includes a change in priorities both foreign and domestic. Regardless of which party gains control in 2008, I’m certain that there will be sweeping changes in our foreign policy. Setting the goal of “undoing the Bush years”, though, does not truly address what needs to be done, nor does it necessarily set us in the right direction.
When we look at what the next president – and equally important, the next Congress – must face, it is essential that we first determine where we need to take this country. Let’s look at what has happened over the course of the past 6 years. India and Pakistan have both joined the nuclear club. North Korea has joined the nuclear club. Iran has reinvigorated a nuclear research program started under the Shah but abandoned in 1980 after the Islamic Revolution. Of equal importance is the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories and the apparent defeat of Israel in a military conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon. That is the landscape we must navigate in 2008.
In addition to the nuclear ambitions listed above, we face a Russia that is solidifying an economic grip in Europe through recent oil deals with the EU, a Russia that is currently providing Iran with nuclear technology and is working with them to develop a long range missile capable of hitting much of Europe, and a Russia that continues to be an adversary in the UN Security Council. I will submit that it is not in the US’ best interests to “rebuild our credibility” by ceding to the whims of the EU. Rather, it is in our best interests to reaffirm the Reagan doctrine of “Peace through strength”. We must recognize that the US and the EU are not following the same path, nor do we have the same objectives. We need to set our own priorities and follow the path that is in our own best interests.
Of the major challenges mentioned in the original post – Darfur, climate, poverty, and terrorism – only the last (terrorism) is, or should be, the primary concern of the US. As harsh as it may sound, Darfur has nothing to offer us. We need to stay out of there. Climate? Well, I submitted a lengthy blog post on that myself. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe we can change the warming trend – it’s happened three times in the last 250,000 years – so our best course of action is to prepare for it, not try to prevent it. Poverty is a much longer topic. Yes, it is something to address, but both home and abroad it’s a huge issue unto itself.
There are really three main topics of interest that I want to see discussed by the 2008 candidates. The first is their plan to fight – and win – the war against Radical Islam. I don’t mean a “war on terror”, I don’t mean the war in Iraq, I don’t even mean the capture of bin Laden. Like it or not, we are at war with Radical Islam around the globe. So are most other non-Islamic or even moderate-Islamic nations, but they don’t seem to want to accept it. That war is the most important issue facing us today, and it will likely be facing us for decades to come.
The second issue is the development of a viable energy plan that addresses the development of a completely new energy source for the average consumer, and addresses a plan to develop an alternative to plastics since 40% of our oil consumption is used for that purpose. To date, all of the proposals I’ve heard from bio-fuels to hydrogen fuel cells, to wind and solar power are little more than political rhetoric without any substance. None of them solve the problem or even put a dent in the problem, so let’s hear some fresh ideas from the 2008 candidates.
The third issue has to do with the loss of American manufacturing might and the shipment of American jobs to third-world countries. When you look back objectively at the Second World War, you’ll see that we won that war not by out fighting our enemies, but by out manufacturing them. It was our industrial might that won the war, yet in the past 20 years we have managed to completely squander that advantage. The issue is now being compounded with technology via the out sourcing of technical jobs to India and China. The American worker is being squeezed out of high paid technical jobs and unstable third world countries are gaining control over the economic stability of our major corporations. If one of these candidates wants my vote, he or she had best have a viable plan for addressing all this.
To summarize, there have been many foreign and domestic policy failures over the past six years. I wouldn’t presume to argue that President Bush has done anything but harm to US standing in the world view. In fact, I’d argue that he completely squandered the tremendous advantage we had world-wide in the days following 9/11. But what I do not want to see is a policy set in motion that is simply to counter the Bush years. We need to do something that we’ve never done – set long term goals, determine our long term priorities, and march in the right direction. To do it, though, we’re going to need a candidate that can end the bitter political divide in Congress, and reunite an equally divided America. In all honesty, after having watched the debates from both parties, I have yet to see that candidate.
Comment on June 9, 2007 @ 3:37 pm