Now that both presidential candidates have selected their running mates, the stage is set for the national election in November. Whether it is one or the other party that will occupy the White House, it will obviously have a definite bearing on our foreign policy starting in 2017. Will it be the same "wait and see" policy that Obama has instituted for the past 8 years? Most pundits agree that if Hillary wins the election, it will be business as usual, since Obama's policies are what Hillary is used to. Keep in mind that even her husband Bill had a somewhat similar policy, although his foreign policy was not quite so "inactive" as Obama's. On the other hand, Trump is an unknown when it comes to foreign policy. Despite all his talk, we have not yet really seen his thoughts and ideas put into action, at least not on the world scene!
Having worked for Uncle Sam through four U.S. Presidents, I have seen a definite change from one to another as our foreign policies shifted according to who was in the office. During Jimmy Carter's administration, there was a lot of confusion, indecisiveness when it came to dealing with other countries. Everything, however, was overshadowed by the fact that Jimmy brokered the Camp David Accords and established peace between Egypt and Israel. All of the other mishaps and bad decisions were overlooked because of this one accomplishment, the worst of which was the Iran Hostage Crisis.
When Reagan came into office, it was quite apparent that our policies shifted and it was "America First" attitude literally blaring from the White House. Reagan's strong handed approach helped accomplish many things, including reestablishing America's preeminence in the world. Although it happened after he left office, and there were many factors involved in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union that followed, Reagan's no nonsense policies and strong America that he established did contribute to it! Reagan was much criticized for his "killing an ant with a sledge hammer" approach in Grenada, but he sent a very clear message to the world. U.S. will not tolerate someone playing funny games that may endanger American lives!
George H. W. Bush essentially resumed what Reagan had started and maintained. When Noriega started terrorizing Americans with street gangs (who were actually members of his National Guard) and arbitrarily jailed some Americans, Bush launched the Operation Just Cause. Again, the liberal press accused Bush of doing the same thing that Reagan had done in Grenada, "kill an ant with a sledge hammer." He was accused of unnecessarily flexing America's muscles against a small, weak, opponent. I suppose the liberal press felt that we should have "negotiated" with Noriega to stop bullying Americans in Panama. By the same token, the liberal press felt that Reagan could have "negotiated" with Cubans to stop endangering the lives of American students in Grenada and stop the take over of the island nation, which incidentally, requested our intervention! Then, of course, there was the first Gulf War, the Operation Desert Storm which was launched when Saddam Hussein got out of hand and invaded Kuwait. Again, Kuwait requested our assistance, and Bush formed a coalition and the rest is history. Of course, once again the liberal news media accused him of overreacting to something that could have been settled with "negotiations." He was even accused of having a personal vendetta against Saddam!
In 1992, in Bush's final year in the office, trouble erupted in Somalia. Things have been going from bad to worse for quite a while with the country being overrun by warlords. Famine was epidemic because for one thing, all of UN's food assistance was being hijacked by the warlord's armies for their use as well as for sale while the population starved. Once again Bush formed a UN coalition of forces, spearheaded by a reinforced regiment of 1,800 US Marines that landed in Mogadishu. The Marines seized control of the area, chased out the warlord's army and established peace. Food and medicine was brought in and distributed without any problems! The Marines should have stayed longer, but the outcry from our liberal press about "military occupation," etc., forced the withdrawal of the Marines after a while.
In 1993, when Clinton came into the White House, Somalia fell into chaos as before the Marines had been sent by Bush. Clinton, under advisement of his "experts," decided to keep the involvement in Somalia very small and somewhat surreptitious. He sent a contingent of Army Rangers, B Company of the 3rd Battalion of 75th Ranger Regiment, about 200 men in support of a very small unit of Army's Delta Force, Squadron C, less than a dozen men, to kidnap, arrest, and generally disrupt the activities of Somali warlords. There were also a small contingent of Navy SEALs and other Army and Air Force units. But it was not a large military force by any means! Then, rather than depending on a larger force of US military to back the Rangers and the Delta Force, he was advised to rely on UN forces to do the job! Well, we know what happened when two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down! Luckily the Delta Operator and the small contingent of Rangers were able to extricate themselves from the area without UN help, which never came! What did Clinton do after that? He withdrew all US forces from Somalia, which fell into total chaos! We are still paying for having abandoned Somalia back in 1993, it has turned into a haven for terrorists and the birthplace of pirates that hijack ships!
George W. Bush may not have been the most popular president, nor the best that we have had, but he did not destroy our standing in the world. He did not give up our preeminent position as the world leader. He may have made some bad decisions (all Presidents have!) but he took a firm stand when it came to America and what he believed was its well being. The invasion of Afghanistan was a pay back to Al Qaida for the 9/11 bombing. The Second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been ill conceived and motivated by poor and inaccurate intelligence, but nevertheless, it was a message that was loud and clear - "step over the line and we will take action!"
Now we come to our current Obama's policies of "inaction," of "wait and see." The arbitrary pull out of our combat forces from Iraq has now brought about the Third Gulf War and the birth of ISIS/ISIL. Now we have to add more combat troops, at the same time, Iraq has now fallen under the sphere of Iranian control (with our help!). The reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has also brought that situation into a stalemate. Our complete inaction, even after the famous Obama threat for Syria not to cross the "red line" has brought about the current mess. The situation in Libya is also caused by our inaction. Rather than helping anti Gaddafi forces when the revolt took place, we sat by idly with a "wait and see" approach. Our lack a participation and support allowed for radical element to gain a strong support base, which ultimately led to the disaster in Benghazi. Of course we never did anything about that either. So, you can count on whatever happens in the intervening period before the new administration steps-in, our "wait and see" policy approach will continue.
What will happen next year, after the elections? If the Clintons move back into the White House, you can count on more or less the same "wait and see" policy to continue. If Trump wins the election, it is anybody's guess as to what kind of foreign policy he will practice. Whatever happens this election year, America and Americans are in for some ride!
No comments:
Post a Comment