President Eisenhower's words on sound foreign policy hold true today

[ronleslie]

In his farewell address in January, 1961, President Eisenhower ... not just a Republican but an Army general ... said the following, in addition to his warning us about the danger of the military/industrial complex:

“America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched . . . strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. ... Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.”

How relevant to a discussion of the Bush administration and its radical conservative cohort. Bush's arrogance, lack of comprehension of the Muslim world (and just about everything else!), and his failure to ask the country to sacrifice (other than those fighting) have resulted in our country suffering grievous hurt at home and abroad.

American foreign policy has always been pragmatic, and indeed, it must be. At its core, however, our foreign policy should be consistent with the principles this country has always said it stands for—democracy, freedom, human rights, and the legitimate aspirations of all people as voiced in the Declaration of Independence.

Instead, U.S. foreign policy has been based primarily on the military and industrial interests of the United States—a very narrow definition of our national security interests. Even someone as conservative and military-oriented as President Dwight Eisenhower voiced his now prescient warning to beware the influence of the military-industrial complex on foreign policy.

As a result, foreign policy has often been taken to extremes, with the government resorting to gross stereotypes and a good-versus-evil analysis of who is friend or foe, an analysis that ultimately was often against the country’s best interests. For example, during the cold war, the United States supported any government that was anti-Communist, regardless how ruthless the dictatorship, and tried to destabilize any Socialist, Communist-sympathetic country, regardless how democratic. The idea of wooing Socialist leaders as friends of the United States was an oxymoron to a succession of U.S. administrations.

American foreign policy has virtually never been based on what is in the best interests for the people of a country. It has been based primarily on the narrow military and industrial interests of the United States. The war in Vietnam had nothing to do with democracy for the Vietnamese; it was not about helping the Vietnamese people. It was purely a matter of combating Communism wherever it was found in order to protect the U.S.’s military and industrial interests.

After 9/11, the sole response of the Bush administration to the terrorist threat has been a military and police one with some public relations thrown in. Clearly military action was necessary and appropriate. But there has been no openness to the possibility that our long-term foreign policy in the region created an atmosphere in which the Islamic radicals could find willing recruits to their cause and be viewed as heroes and martyrs by the majority of the people in those countries. Yet, numerous experts have written articles about that very problem. This is an example of the lack of comprehension of which Eisenhower warned. Certainly in today’s world where terrorism is often not the direct product of a nation-state but rather a group of disaffected radicals who feed on broad public support, the administration’s narrow view of foreign policy is very dangerous.

For President Bush it was the familiar friend/foe analysis when he said, “You are either with us in the fight against terrorism, or you are an enemy of the United States.” This gross simplification of world politics combined with his frequent references to God, while effective posturing at home, has again bred anti-Americanism, especially in Islamic countries. Despite the fact that it tried to distinguish this war from a war against Islam, Bush’s strident posturing seemed to say something different to the Muslim world, and Osama bin Laden went from someone almost no one had heard of to become an overnight hero in the hearts and minds of the Muslim “street.” The Muslim world was radicalized as never before.

Again, when the administration was preparing for war against Iraq, they ignored the argument that such a war would actually increase terrorism against the United States by further radicalizing the Arab populace, rather than decrease terrorism. It even created substantial anti-American sentiment among the populace of most of our traditional allies. Again, arrogance and lack of comprehension.

But that much said, what do we do now that we are in this mess of Iraq. Contrary to most people on this site, I do not believe that pulling out all of our troops now is a real option that would be consistent with our national interest. Not because Dufus says so, but because it's unfortunately true. How we manage the transition from the results of this terribly failed and harmful policy to a Mideast which is stable and where we are not viewed as the enemy will be difficult.

Certainly, we must start withdrawing as many troops now as possible, leaving just enough troops there to keep Al Queda in Iraq in check. Yes, that is necessary because Bush has created a tinderbox which we can't leave unattended.

Clearly we must mount a major diplomatic effort, but that will be next to impossible while Bush is at the helm ... even if he did it, the effort would be discounted because of the low opinion that most of the world has of him. So I'm afraid that will have to wait for the next administration .. till we have out own regime change. And there are certainly many positive things that the US can start doing to, as Eisenhower said, work for peace and human betterment in the area.

The Democratic candidates need to discuss in detail not just how they would get us out of Iraq, but how they would defuse the situation that Bush will leave us with in the Mideast. Kucinich has made general statements in line with Eisenhower's, but that is not enough. And just saying as I believe Edwards did that he would get on a plane and fly to the major capitols for talks, while very important, is not enough either. There needs to be a real change in policy and its execution. And it needs to be clearly stated.

For more on how I use the words of the Declaration of Independence as a touchstone to analyze both our domestic and foreign policy. check out my YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6JX-W4iIkw

And it's NOT a talking head video! After that, you can check out my book's website, www.westillholdthesetruths.com.