If you wish for peace, prepare for war. — Latin adage
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, a rough consensus emerged about the messages the Clinton administration was sending to potential adversaries. The failure to respond to the attacks on our forces in Mogadishu, the non-response to the bombings of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and toleration of the assault on the USS Cole — all persuaded al-Qaeda that the United States was a “weak horse” that could be attacked without fear. Our limp response to provocations thus encouraged aggression.
It is a lesson that some never learned. The left wing of the Democratic party (and the Paulite fraction of the Republican party) believes that American misbehavior is what invites belligerence, and that if the U.S. can demonstrate sufficient peaceful intent, we, and the world, will be safer.
Advertisement
President Obama, though seeking tough-guy credentials by taking out selected terrorists and maintaining forces in Afghanistan, has been assiduously sending signals of peaceful intent to the Iranians — to the point of farce.
One of the president’s first foreign-policy forays was to send a New Year’s message to the Iranian regime expressing hope for a fresh start in bilateral relations. The mullahs’ response was one of contempt. Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted toward the end of 2009 that “I don’t think anyone can doubt that our outreach has produced very little in terms of any kind of positive response from the Iranians.”
That’s understatement. Besides mowing down its own people in the streets, Iran arrested four American hikers and placed them on trial for espionage. It continued to supply its agents in Iraq with IEDs for use against U.S. troops. Flouting international entreaties and sanctions, the regime continued its illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons. Asked to establish a hotline with Washington, Tehran responded by saying, “The only way to end American concerns is for [the U.S.] to leave the region.” As recently as last week, President Ahmadinejad visited Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and mocked U.S. concerns about nuclear weapons. If we are building a nuclear bomb, Ahmadinejad smirked, then “the fuel of that bomb is love [for Chávez].”
Often, the timing of the administration’s actions seems almost calculated to curry favor with a regime that flagrantly defies all norms of international conduct. On Oct. 11, 2011, the Obama administration revealed a plot by the Iranians to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by blowing up a Washington, D.C., restaurant. The Iranians were perfectly willing to murder scores of American civilians in the process. On October 21, the administration announced that the U.S. was withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq. At about the same time, the secretaries of State and Defense made public statements condemning the idea of an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Over the course of the past few weeks, the United States has rescued three Iranian fishing vessels (which is fine as humanitarianism but should not be confused with foreign policy). Ron Paul has endorsed this as the sort of American benevolence that will serve the cause of peace.
While we’ve been plucking drowning fisherman from the Persian Gulf, Iranian boats have been harassing U.S. naval vessels, the Iranian regime has threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz, and a commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy has warned U.S. carrier John C. Stennis not to return to the Persian Gulf. The provocations against American ships — usually by Iranian speedboats — are now daily occurrences, reports the Weekly Standard.
Am I the only one old enough to remember Jimmy Carter and his dead horse? What we are watching (living) is a "suicide march" of the pink ponies. Lord help us all!
Thanks Ms Charen for reminding us of a valuable lesson; it’s a bloody world out there and they don’t play by our rules. If we don’t look out for ourselves, no one else will.
Compare the sure footed, foresighted approach to foreign policy under the Reagan administration (these guys knew realpolitk) vs. the wishy washy policies of the current administration (I’m not even sure we have any consistent foreign policy, just a collection of ad hoc measures enacted based on extemporaneous political need).
We all wish it wasn’t a dangerous world but reality and wishes are different things.
It’s ok to feel emotion but policy needs to be based on erudition.
Liberal policies tend to be based on emotion and desire for how the world should be, not how it actually is. Sure liberals act erudite and perhaps they are in an academic sense but realpolitik faculty and academic practice are different things.
We are blessed in America to live in a country governed by a democratic representational system which values rule of law and the rights of citizens. First, nations sharing these attributes doesn’t necessarily equate to peaceable coexistence. Nations will advance their own interest at the expense of others. We are fortunate that many democracies’s national interest is in sharing relations with other similar countries, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Second, many nations are tyrannies which seek to hold power by any means possible. They see the United States as a threat and thus are willing to do anything to weaken the US and thus preserve their tyranny. We do not have to be hostile to a tyranny, our mere existence is a threat to them.
Thus while its noble to wish for ‘world peace’, likely its only achievable though one monolithic culture conquering all. Likely such an outcome would not bode well for most and in practice is less desirable then our current status quo.
Thus it is our duty as a nation (people, governmental, and military –Clausewitz’ triad) to work together to defend our way of life. That requires we be strong. To behave as sheep in a world of wolves is not an invite for peace but an invitation to the wolves for dinner.
(PS I know some will retort Reagan’s team wasn’t so good, they supported the Taliban. Indeed but the world was a bit different then. The greatest threat of the day was the Soviet Union and that threat was handled with aplomb.)
Mona, like all of your colleagues at NR, you are confused and are being too kind to Mr Obama. These are not poor policy choices or incompetence. President Obama is trying to destroy America. Once you realize this, every action he takes, every statement he makes, every policy he espouses, makes sense.
Think about the last three years. Apply Occam's razor.
Mona, you forgot the weakest horseplay of all: Obama asking Iran pretty-please for our drone back! Hillary had to come out later and explain that well of course we didn't REALLY expect them to give it back...but one gets the feeling that Obama was expecting exactly that.
btw: good article, but it's Strait of Hormuz, not Straight. however, snaps for at least not saying Straits, as most people do these days.
"Obama is trying to destroy America. Once you realize this, [everything] makes sense."
His inexplicable dithering for three months over how to proceed in Afghanistan was the strongest overt signal he could send. Failing to respond long enough demonstrated at best indecision, and at worst his total opposition, toward the entire premise that the US should be there at all. By simply doing nothing for long enough he left no doubt that the US was an unwilling ally who could, and over time certainly would, abandon the people of Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban. Obama could not be this incompetent or oblivious to reality. He long ago decided to "stick with the Muslims" and has demonstrated it repeatedly at our expense. Notice how his manner displays that he simply does not care what happens. As long as he gets to elevate peoples that have been oppressed the evil-white-male-oppressor all of it is justified. The conclusion becomes more inescapable every day - the era of First Saboteur is here and now.
Follow
