Originally created to honor the achievements of America’s First President George Washington and Sixteenth President Abraham Lincoln, Presidents’ Day in an era filled with threats to the safety, financial security, and freedom of all Peoples around the world reminds us that history was shaped by individuals rising to the challenges of their times. Both Washington and Lincoln were given the opportunity to become great leaders thanks to war, yet it was their service to the “greater good” and the interests of the “common man” that transformed them into legends.
Where President Washington fought to build a new kind of government that existed to serve the People, instead of the People serving the government, i.e. the few, President Lincoln fought to preserve the way of life that blossomed from that original struggle. Although war is waged by those whose who put their desires above the needs of the many, it is fought by those who want a better life and want to preserve a better way of life. In many respects, it is far easier to destroy what exists for the gain of the few than it is to expand and share the gains of society with everyone, which is why leadership must fight for the “greater good,” instead of serving their own interests. With the Islamic State and other terrorist threats metastasizing throughout the Middle East and North Africa, the fight against Islamic extremism is about preserving regional stability and the current order of nation-states. The recent beheading of 21 Egyptians in Libya by the Islamic State and the ensuing military response by the Egyptian government offers a textbook example of why war is fought. The Islamic State is seeking to impose its authority and way of life onto everyone else through violence while Middle Eastern governments are recognizing the need to fight due to the spreading threat of globalized terrorism to their authority.
Comments
In a February 12, 2015 speech at George Washington University, FBI Director James B. Comey said assumptions based on routine and cynicism make “…it easy for some folks in law enforcement to assume that everybody is lying and that no suspect, regardless of their race, could be innocent.” Through his bold and truthful words, Director Comey eloquently confronted how learned bias plays a role in the mistreatment of others. Broadening his message beyond law enforcement and racism, cynical views of and by Muslims exasperate the threat of terrorism.
For those who view Islam as a militant, violent religion, a war on Islamic extremism is a war on Islam. This perception encourages people in the Muslim world to support terrorism in order to defend Islam from the outside world while it drives people from outside of the Muslim world to view the followers of Islam as a threat. Instead of being seen as the victims of extremists, the Peoples of the Middle East are viewed as the cause of terrorism. In turn, even those who view Islam as a nonviolent religion start to believe terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle East, because the Peoples of the Middle East do not stand against that violence. Looking at the fight against the Islamic State, growing numbers of governments and individuals have taken a clear stance against the Islamic State, which has produced significant results thanks to the aid of Western military intervention. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is using political strife in Yemen to strengthened itself as the unchecked Boko Haram expands its operations into a fourth country, i.e. Chad. Meanwhile, conservative factions in Israel are so against reaching a nuclear deal , whether it is a good deal or not, with Iran that the Israeli leadership has essentially pledged to booby trap talks. If a deal is reached, the state of mind of hardliners in Israel is such that they may even react with violence, which could include the possible use of nuclear weapons. In the eyes of Republicans, President Obama’s use of executive powers to circumvent GOP input on immigration reform and his sudden departure from decades-long policies toward Cuba are an affront to their oversight power. In defense of the GOP, the dramatic shift toward reengaging the isolated island-nation of Cuban was thoroughly unexpected as the negotiations were largely done in secret. At the same time, the pledge to open a US Embassy in Cuba is a major concession with nothing gained. Quite frankly, the President did not even prepare the nation by presenting his case for restarting US-Cuban relations before his December, 2014 announcement. With this Republican view in mind, John Boehner’s infamous invitation of Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint-session of Congress, which violates diplomatic protocol by circumventing the Executive Branch’s input, almost seems justified. After all, the President acts on foreign policy matters without Congressional approval or oversight, even when he understands Congress is against a particular policy stance. In defense of the President, Republicans have made it their mission to delay, degrade, and derail anything the President wants to do. This includes shared goals like immigration reform. Republicans have become so bent on undermining the Obama Administration that they are willing to imperil their own sacred cow: national security in terms of funding the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, Democrats seem to be following suit in rtheir esponse to Republican legislation now that the GOP controls both Chambers of Congress. That said, there are reasons the Executive Branch has traditionally taken point on foreign policy matters. Clearly, Americans have a wide range of views on foreign policy issues, yet the only views that will be reflected in US foreign policy are those approved by the Executive Branch. Instead of approaching foreign governments with a multitude of voices and opinions, i.e. Congress, the President is the logical choice to present our policies toward foreign nations. If the Executive Branch makes promises it cannot keep or ignores the views of others, the President will embarrass himself when his pledges to foreign parties fall short.
Meanwhile, it is also important to recognize the issues of espionage and treason. The US government exists to serve the interests of the American People, not the interests of foreigners. It is only when the interests of the American People and foreigners overlap that foreign interests should be served by US policy. When foreign lobbyists are freely allowed to influence members of Congress, they are given undue influence over America’s political process. If the US President caters to foreign interests, Congress has the power to check that influence, yet there is little recourse when the President and the Congress are both under the influence of foreign interests. Furthermore, it is important to recognize the globalizing nature of the Islamic identify, the democratization of the Middle Eastern Peoples, the unifying of Arab governments to address security threats in the Middle East, i.e. the Islamic State, and the threat of globalized terrorism, a failure of Israel to resolve its conflict with the Palestinian People are jeopardizing the future of Israel. Coupled with growing European distaste for how Israel treats the Palestinian People , America’s stalwart support of Israel has steadily forced a gap between Europe and the US as well as the oil-rich Muslim world and the US. Unfortunately, the US is facing a future, unless Israel’s policies change, where it will have to choose between supporting the Israeli government or alienating the Peoples of Europe and the Middle East. Given the amount of widespread blowback from John Boehner and Benjamin Netanyahu’s breach of foreign policy protocol, as well as the apparent attempt to interfere in the internal politics of both Israel and the United States, the US may well have its excuse for abandoning Israel. In politics, unpalatable things that need to get done are only done when there is a reason that people can accept. Israel’s negative impact on US global influence is not enough to abandon America’s closest-friend. Israel “betraying” the US by interfering in the American political system, if it continues to outrage people, is enough to shift American foreign policy away from Israel. Consequently, Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech, which is intended to garner support for Israel’s national security interests, could actually be the beginning of the end for Israel as the world knows it. At the very least, it exacerbates the need for Israel to quickly shift its policies in order to retain meaningful US support and disarm growing security threats from neighboring countries. Unfortunately, low-energy prices have exasperated entrenched socioeconomic issues that plague the narrow, natural resource-based economies of South America. Sadly, the United States has been particularly negligent over the past few decades when it comes to addressing serious issues in its own hemisphere.
In fact, political squabbling over US immigration reform and President Obama's attempt to reengage Cuba currently represent the most significant policy debates related to countries south of the border. Meanwhile Argentina’s debt troubles and President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s lack of professionalism are the only major South American stories receiving any significant attention in the United States, aside from sports. Where the United States is actively reengaging Asia in order to address growing Chinese influence, as well as some of its more aggressive behavior, the Chinese are unchallenged in their efforts to influence South America. Coming to the rescue of South American economies, China is planning to invest, at least, 250 billion dollars in Latin America over the next 10 years. It is also ramping up trade. With warrior King Abdallah II beating the drums of war following news that the Islamic State burned to death Jordanian pilot Muath Kasasbeh, the Iraqi military on the verge of confronting IS in Mosul, and the UAE rejoining the fight, it seems the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters will have the added support they have long needed to subdue the terrorist organization inside Iraq and Syria.
Given the campaign being mustered to take on the Islamic State, the war will likely help address other terrorist threats in the region and, perhaps, weaken Assad’s grip on Syria. It is, however, important to remember Nigeria has its own weaker version of the Islamic State, i.e. 6,000 Boko Haram fighters. There is also the largely neglected chaos in Yemen. Like Libya, civil unrest is tearing Yemen apart. Unlike Libya, Yemen borders regional power Saudi Arabia while Al Qaeda has long used the country as a safe haven. Consequently, efforts by Houthi rebels to seize control of Yemen affect the national security of Saudi Arabia as well as the security of the region. If Yemen collapses into a failed, or a near-failed, state, Al Qaeda would gain a much stronger foothold in the region. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|