Liberal 6 FOREIGN POLICY
Like it or not foreign policy is a very intricate and important part of politics. We have many interests around the world that could affect our way of life and national security. It is very appealing to many presidents because it enables them a freer hand and more power than domestic affairs, as the Constitution divides their power with the Congress and the Senate. It, like most things is a double edged sword and haunts presidents throughout history for better or worse. It often allows them to leave their mark in history and can make or brake him. It is like all else is a double edged sword which can make or break a president: J.F.K. will always be remembered for things like the failed invasion of Cuba: The Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis. Nixon reestablished diplomatic relations with Red China after they split with Russia. The U.S. was a major participant in the middle -east thanks to the master Henry Kissenger. If he were a U.S. citizen he would have been elected president. Carter held peace talks between Israel and Egypt at Camp David. But, will also be remembered for the Iran Hostage Crisis. It will serve to balance the double digit inflation that resulted in part from his poor domestic policies. He is now following the late former President Nixon in trying to make a name for himself in the world as a foreign policy adviser for President Clinton. Reagan defeated Communism. Bush's popularity soared during the Gulf War. Clinton has failed to make a stand that he did not reverse because he is finding out while the hard way "living in a fish bowl" that there is a big difference between campaigning and governing.
Unfortunately for him and the U.S., he waffled on issues like China's favored nation status and N. Korea's refusal to disclose their nuclear arsenal to U.N. Inspectors. He threatened them with an economics embargo. One cannot help but wonder what that will accomplish since Cuba has been under one for 34 years. N. Korea said that will be considered an act of aggression. President Carter volunteered to be a peace maker and will meet with N. and S. Korea. The problem with that is he considered withdrawing U.S. troops from places like N. Korea.
The tensions in Korea are heating up and we are "raising the ante. The Pentagon is considering a plan to boost South Korea's ability to cope with the North's most potent nonnuclear threat: artillery targeting Seoul. Urged by Senator John McCain, (R), ______ just back from Korea, the Pentagon soon may provide state- of- the- art- Q-36 and Q-37 radars out of Army stock rather than let the South acquire them through the usual channels, which could take months. The radars detect mortars and artillery that have been fired, permitting prompt counterattack." (U.S. News & World Report, 6/11/94, p.24, edited by Charles Fenyvesi, Washington Whispers)
"When former congressman William Gray III returned to Washington two months ago to revive Clinton's floundering Haiti policy, the challenge was to craft a new plan that would force Haiti's military rulers to resign without igniting a full-scale refugee crisis that would wash up on Florida's politically sensitive shores. What appeared merely difficult then, now appears impossible.
"With thousands of refugees pouring out of Haiti in rickety boats, severely straining the Coast Guard's efforts to ferry them safely, the White House is having a hard time clinging to a middle course between capitulating to Haiti's military and invading the country to restore exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Last week, the strain was beginning to show, with the administration changing its policy three times in as many days as U.S. officials lined up temporary safe havens for the many boat people, recruit other nations to participate in a possible U.S.-led invasion and assemble a peacekeeping force to police Haiti if the country's military rulers leave.
"RELUCTANT PLAYERS. The effort produced more chaos than coherence. Panama offered to accept up to 10,000 Haitian refugees and then reneged handling a sharp setback to the U.S. effort to cope with the new wave of emigrants and sending officials scrambling for new ideas. 'People are all over the lot', says a top administration official. 'We're rearranging deck chairs.' Only a few countries, meanwhile, have shown much interest in joining a U.S. invasion, and most of them insist they will act only under U.N. auspices.
"In contrast, the Haitian junta, which ousted elected President Aristide nearly three years ago, sat tight in its Port-au-Prince mansions. The generals ran 'No Intervention, No Occupation' banners across the bottom of World Cup TV broadcasts and coolly stuck another thumb in the eye of the international community-this time by declaring illegal the civilian mission that has been documenting the regime's rampant human right abuses. 'I think the conduct of the military leaders will have more than anything else to do with what options are considered [and] when,' Clinton warned from Naples. 'And their conduct was not good.'
"MIXED SIGNALS. While Gray insisted that the military is not imminent, other administration officials signal otherwise. Senior officials traveled with President Clinton in Europe hinted strongly that if the regime does not go quietly, the administration's patience could be exhausted by late this month. The Pentagon leaked word that Army Rangers and Navy SEALS recently rehearsed raids against an airport and a port modeled on those in Port-au-Prince. And last week the administration bolstered a 650 -man work force already stationed off Haiti by dispatching 2,000 additional marines and a four-ship Marine Expeditionary Unit led by the amphibious assault ship USS Inchon.
"The ostensible reason for sending the marines is to provide Washington with the ability if necessary, to evacuate the 5,000 Americans remaining in Haiti. But the force could also spearhead an attack. The 1965 intervention in the Dominican Republic, Haiti's neighbor on the island of Hispaniola, began with an evacuation of civilians by U.S. Marines. Days later, a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division ushered in a 25,000-man invasion force.
"If Clinton decides to invade, U.S. military officials do not expect much opposition to the sophisticated nighttime attack they would probably launch. A night strike would help minimize civilian casualties, and it would take advantage of the U.S. training and technology. The immediate objective would be to attack key targets in and around the Haitian capitol simultaneously.
"Securing Port-au-Prince airports- one military, one international -would be necessary to bring in transports with additional troops and equipment. The National Palace, where Aristide had his office as president, and the Parliament would also have to be secured. U.S. forces would strike at Haiti's Army barracks, next door to the palace; its tank h.q. in the hills near the wealthy Petionville district; the h.q. of FRAPH, the paramilitary group responsible for many of the recent human-rights violations in Haiti, and key communication sites, including radio and TV stations in and around Port-au-Prince.
"Haiti's 7,000 Army troops would probably show no more fight than the thousands of Iraqis who surrender when the ground war started in Iraq. They are poorly equipped and badly led. Only about half the force is located in Port-au-Prince, where the Pentagon would attack. And U.S. intelligence estimates that even in the best units soldiers have about 150 bullets-and no way to obtain more. "Moreover, the Haitian Army has only one heavy- weapons, a company of 250 men and 15 light armored vechles and howitzers. Training is so infrequent that when a howitzer was fired at the inauguration of Emile Jonasssaint, the recently installed puppet president, U.S. analysts were surprised it worked.
"Haiti's other armed forces are even less imposing. The Air Force consists of two training planes that rarely fly; it has no armed helicopters. The Navy consists of four patrol boats; on a good day, two might be at sea.
"THE NORIEGA PROBLEM. Quickly apprehending Haiti's ruling triumvirate- Lt. General Raoul Cedras, Police Chief Colonel Michel Francios & Army Chief of Staff Phillippe Biamby- could prove harder than beating any opposition Haiti's forces give. Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega embarrassed the Pentagon by eluding U.S. forces for two weeks after the December, 1989 U.S. invasion. Cedrras -who h.q. in the High Command is located a few blocks from the National Palace & defended by a 600 -man battalion- Biamby & Francios could try to escape through numerous rural air strips used by ranchers & drug smugglers.
"Perhaps the greatest challenge would be maintaining order after the attack. Pentagon planners are loath to send troops into the packed slums of Cite Soleil, whose muddied alleys are home to 200,000 people, or Carrefour, where 100,000 people live near the downtown area. Instead, they would hope to seal off those areas until peace in the capitol was restored.
"NOW THE HARD PART. 'Haiti's is not a hard military problem,' says a senior pentagon official. 'It's a hard political problem.' While the Pentagon is confident it can subdue Haiti's armed forces military officials worry about how long U.S. troops might have to remain while diplomats and civilians try to stabile Aristide and the economy. 'We're not thinking enough about what happens after the invasion. There are concerns all around the exit strategy,' says Representative Lee Hamilton, (D) Indiana, chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"If the administration fails to assemble an international peacekeeping force to relieve U.S. forces, U.S. troops could be forced to police Haiti for the second time this century. Current U.S. proposals call for a peacekeeping force of 10,000 including 7,000 Americans, to keep the peace if Cedras and company leave voluntarily. Assembling a 'follow on' force to take over after a U.S. invasion would be harder. 'Nonintervention is the position of the whole region, with very few exceptions,' says Jorge Pinto, Mexico's deputy foreign minister. Pinto warns that Mexico and most other Latin American countries would probably refuse to partake in any post-invasion mission because doing so might be interpreted as endorsing U.S. intervention.
"Much more than the manpower would be required though. 'Haiti’s characterized by the lack of functional institutions,' says a U.S. diplomat in Port-au- Prince. 'It has a highly personalized, winner-take-all form of politics & a history of repression, intolerance & deep-seated mistrust.' U.S. & other officials estimate that starting to rebuild Haiti -one of the hemisphere's poorest states even before economic sanctions were imposed-could $1 billion in five years. Administration officials, however, haven’t yet agreed on how much the U.S. share is or where it they would get it. "But with the middle ground between invasion & impotence eroding under his feet, Clinton may be forced to choose between the two unattractive options & to pay the price for whichever he chooses." (U.S. News & World Report, 7/18/94, Caribbean cruise, His Haiti policy adrift, Bill Clinton edges closer to invasion, p.33, Tim Zimmerman, Bruce Auster, Kathie Klarreich, Linda Fasulo & Linda Robinson)
Many libs understandably oppose China's favored nation status due to their poor stand on human rights. The reality of the situation is "have they made progress on human rights? Yes! Do they need to make greater strides in it? Yes! Was Tenamin Square wrong? Absolutely! Should we deny them favorite nation status on human rights grounds? No! We can't keep trying to pressure China by making idle threats. By doing this the president looks foolish. We cannot get too involved in another nations internal- affairs." (Dan Quayle) "If we keep threatening China with their favored nation status they will say that they do not wish to renew our favored nation status because of all the racism and crime in places like N.Y. and Chicago." (Richard Nixon)
"Nixon, is arguably the dean of foreign policy among America's post W.W. 2 presidents- with his brilliant Professor Henry Kissinger, teacher to all who followed. The latest of his students, however seems to be suffering from a learning disability. Clinton's performance on Bosnia is the proximate case in point, but is only the most recent in a nearby unbroken string of presidential blunderings. If there is an emerging Clinton doctrine, it is this: Speak loudly and carry a small dictionary of evocation...
"To be fair to Clinton, his predecessors may have had it easier. They could look at the world through the clarifying lens of the cold war. Almost every aspect of U.S. foreign policy featured the Soviet Union as the U.S.'s adversary, either directly or through proxies, and containment of the 'Evil Empire', was the objective behind nearly every move for over 40 years. Democrats and Republicans may have bickered over the details of foreign policy, but Vietnam not withstanding, there was a general consensus on what America's national security interests were and how to best protect them.
"That consensus no longer exists. The cold war is over, Russia has been reduced to a third World country with rockets... Today, determining clear U.S. interests is plainly a trickier business.
"All the more reason for Clinton to watch his step. But clearly he keeps stepping in it:
"Bosnia. During the 1992 campaign, Clinton pasted Bush for his inaction while the Bosnian Serbs ethnic-cleansed their way through a sovereign state and United Nations member. As president, he has (A) said that Europe must do the heavy lifting to solve this one, and/or (B) talked threateningly of air strikes-significant ones. But actual U.S. military action, amounts to two air strikes that destroyed a few trucks, one tank, one tent and two armored personal carriers -which understandably has not intimidated a force committing the most calculated slaughter of innocents since Pol Pot's Rouge ravaged Cambodia a generation ago. Even if expanded air strikes halt Serbian aggression, they will not undo the facts on the ground.
"China. Clinton talked tough about China's human rights abuses and renewal of it's most favored nation status. He extended MFN in 1993, giving them a year to improve human rights record. But China, poking its finger in Secretary of State Warren Christopher's eye on his recent trip to Beijing and now harassing its most prominent dissident, is calling his bluff. Now, the administration and its allies in Congress are scrambling for a way to grant MFN, which is the right thing, and tap China on the wrist, which is ridiculous.
"Haiti. First, candidate Clinton exonerated Bush for intercepting Haitian boat people and sending the home; now, his administration follows precisely that policy. Second, Clinton has pledged various measures to restore democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power, then has backtracked on each one. Yet, another Haiti policy, we are told, is expected momentarily. Other examples of inconsistency abound- think Somalia and N. Korea. ...if he wants to shape public opinion, he needs to do much better than match deed with word. Bush said Iraq's invasion of Kuwait would not stand. Then, despite ambivalence about the enterprise among voters, he built an international coalition and ultimately turned public support in his favor. At one point last week, Clinton said: 'We must not be on record in favor of any policy we are not prepared to follow through on.' Yes, Mr. President, words to live by." (U.S. News and World Report, 5/2/94, An Emerging Clinton Doctrine?, Michael Ruby, p.76, N.Y.)
Since President Clinton has said that J.F.K. was his hero, he should review The Missiles of October. It might be a good lesson in foreign affairs for him. I hope foreign policy will be a major issue in the 1996 election.
In an article by Theodore Sorensen, entitled Read carefully: ten reasons to invade Haiti, he made some good points about foreign policy: "1) CREDIBILITY. Because preserving America's standing as world leader requires sending troops to any nation where human suffering reaches atrocious levels-except...for Rwanda.
"2) GEOGRAPHY. Because the U.S. has a special responsibility to impose by whatever means necessary, even invasion, a genuine and enduring democracy in a neighboring island republic so close that our we are linked by a long history of U.S. military and economic involvement and by the migration of several generations from their land to ours- except, of course, for Cuba.
"3) MORALITY. Because, as options other than U.S. forces fail to make a difference, dragging the debate on, our national conscience cannot permit any longer the news showing shootings, depravation and starvation being imposed upon innocent children, whatever their ethnicity or color-except, of course, in Bosnia.
"4) REFUGEES. Because, if we are to avoid the social, economic, (and political) problems that would be created by a massive flow of refugees to the U.S., we must meet force with force in order to halt at the source all widespread human- rights abuses in this region- except, of course, in Guatemala.
"5) DEMOCRACY. Because, as champions of democracy, we cannot permit the results of a free and fair election to be nullified by the losers' resorting to force ... - except, of course in Angola.
"6) NARCOTICS. Because the U.S. faces an onslaught of illegal drug shipments into the country that destroy as many lives as a military invasion would, the U.S. cannot continue to tolerate the use of a neighboring nation as a staging area for those shipments -except, of course, for Columbia.
"7) INTERNATIONAL LAW. Because the whole world's hopes for enforceable international law and order require us to punish a transgressor engaged in continuous defiance of the U.S. and the U.N.- except, of course, for North Korea. "8) MILITARY SUPERIORITY. Because, in selecting a place to demonstrate our position in a troubled world in which we cannot dispatch marines everywhere, we always found it best to select the kind of small, poor country whose overmatched ground forces cannot prevent an easy U.S. victory- except, of course, in Somalia.
"9) DOMESTIC POLITICS. Because, acknowledging the fact that we are unlikely to invade Rwanda, Cuba, Bosnia, Guatemala, Angola, Columbia, N. Korea, nor six other killing fields in the world. Haiti is the place to gain political benefits that come from taking a tough stand and gaining victory, such benefits have often carried into a presidential election- except, of course, for the Gulf War.
"10) NO ALTERNATIVE. Because we should've learned by now that bitter, intractable situations of this kind require military force, in as much economic and political sanctions, diplomatic isolation, international condemnation and the encouragement of international resistance, patience and compromise have never worked-except, of course, in S. Africa." (U.S. News & World Report,6/27/94, p.38)
"Sometimes, it's hard to believe that Clinton got such good grades when majoring in international studies at Georgetown University, or that he interned for Senator William J. Fulbright, the Arkansas Democrat who towered over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the 1960's. These days, given the heartache, the embarrassment and fumblings that plague his administration's foreign policy, it's hard to find anyone who give him a passing mark.
"True, Clinton has some boasting rights like getting NAFTA passed. And next weeks meeting of Jordan's King Hussein and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Ravbin at the White House is a step on the road to Middle East peace.
"Still, last week was arguably one of Clinton's roughest. In Haiti, junta leaders defied Washington and expelled more than 100 human rights monitors. The president was at the summit in Naples with the heads of leading industrial nations who shot down his ill-presented trade initiative, dubbed "Open Markets 2000." His condolences over N. Korean leader Kim II Sung's death angered some Americans who recall 54,000 U.S. troops killed in the Korean War and irritated Asian allies who saw it as too conciliatory. To be fair, Clinton's critics, including Senator Bob Dole, forget that Republican presidents made similar gestures. Eisenhower offered condolences when Stalin died, and Ford offered elaborate condolences when Mao Zedong died, and backed Sung in the Korean war.
"Even the administration's proclaimed successes are looking thread bare: Although Clinton has articulated a broad vision for Asia, leaders in that region complain that he acts on narrow, short-term concerns.
"The immediate future is no brighter. This week parties in Bosnia are due to respond to the international community's proposed division that would reward the Bosnian Serbs with most of the land they took by force. If the Serbs reject the accord, the administration will have to revert to previously troubled efforts to rally allied support for air strikes and lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnians. If the peace plan is accepted, the U.S. will be pressured to live up to a pledge to commit up to 25,000 troops to help implement the accord. But the White House has little done very little of the spadework needed to win congressional backing for committing so many U.S. forces. Warns Senator Richard Lugar, (R), Indiana: "That's dangerous." Not surprisingly, few insiders doubt that the administration will shuffle foreign-policy players by year's end. "Six more months of this is too much," says a State Department official.
"It's fair to ask: does it all matter? Yes. The world may no longer teeter on the brink of anilation, but it is still a dangerous place. If we stay on this course, we could face a nuclear armed N. Korea run by an erratic recluse with a penchant for women, an occupation army going house to house in Port-au-Prince, a wider war in the Balkans and a Russian angling to re-establish its lost Soviet Empire.
"If only for the barest political reasons, observers say, the president should care only about the way things are heading. He may have been elected to be a domestic president, but international crises are starting to take their toll. "He looks weak," says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Clinton's foreign- affairs woes. "And that weakens him domestically." Clinton's inability to craft a foreign -policy is most evident in three arenas:
"The dictators. Like Jefferson facing the Barbary pirates or Bush confronting Saddam Husein, Clinton finds himself spending much of his time coping with petty tyrants. They include Lt. General Raoul Cedras, the Haitian military leader who led the overthrow of Haiti's first democratically elected president, Jean-Bertand Aristide; Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic and his Bosnian Serb Allies Randovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, who have pillaged and cleansed their way toward a greater Serbia; and now Kim Jong II, the rising son in N. Korea's hermit kingdom. To Clinton's credit, say his aides, he has not personalized his confrontations with the dictators, which might make matters worse. 'You never hear him say anything like 'Screw Cedras'" says a Clinton adviser. 'He's very conscious of not letting this become a personal battle.'
"Critics say Clinton's pattern of strong words and weak action is a failure. 'Every half- baked general and warlord in the world feels free to ignore our interests,' says Roger Harrison, a former U.S. ambassador and career diplomat.
"Nowhere is this truer than in Haiti, where we are preparing to invade the hemisphere's poorest nation. Last week, U.S. Marines conducted military training exercises in the Bahamas, 80 miles from Haiti. If we invade, we might have to occupy the country, possibly for years. Last week, U.N. Secretary General Butros Botros- Ghali estimated that at least 15,500 troops would be needed to keep order, even if the junta abdicates.
"The allies. Last week's presidential visit to Germany had all the trappings of success: a cheering throng of Berliners saluting Clinton, an affable launch between Clinton and Helmut Kohl overlooking the Rhine Valley. But the trip was notable for what it did not resolve: the role of Europe in Clinton's vision.
"Clinton's lavish praise or Kohl -in Bonn, he discussed 'a common partnership that's unique' between the U.S. and Germany- raised expectations for an increased U.S. role in Europe that is unlikely to be filled, while raising questions about Germany's power.
"Flip -flops, usually when administration officials talk tough and then back down under pressure, also unnerve the Europeans. In January, a reluctant Europe accepted the U.S. Partnership for Peace Program of loose ties to the N. Atlantic Treaty Organization for former Soviet satellites as a device to avoid upsetting the Russians and to placate the E. Europeans. Some of the E. European states-particularly Poland-did not like the program but swallowed hard and accepted it while still arguing for full NATO membership. Then, during his recent visit to Warsaw, Clinton insisted that no country should have the right to veto Poland's entry into NATO-a rhetorical flourish that may be meaningless but still creates confusion since Clinton did not explain how the poles will join.
"Clinton has yet to address the thorny questions facing Europe. If he wants a greater international role for Germany in the peace keeping, how will that translate into internal German politics, where aid to foreign countries is still unpopular and the nation is still grappling with the cost of reunification? What about the sensibilities of other European nations who feel that Germany -with the continent's most economy -already holds too much sway? Such questions remain unanswered in the pretty pictures from the Brandenburg gate.
"The Naples Summit provided another painful reminder of the weakness of Clinton's foreign policy apparatus in comparison with savvy diplomatic teams of allies. The slipshod staff work and weak advance diplomacy that led to the defeat of Clinton's trade motion so embarrassed the White House that it's now conducting an internal audit to determine what went wrong. In fact, U.S. News has learned, British diplomats have warned the White House that its initiative is in danger.
"The Russians. Some of Clinton's best moments at the summit came at light hearted moments with Boris Yeltsin. But the administration has not seemed to notice that Yeltsin's second revolution is over. For practical purposes, he now rules by decree. Russians are disillusioned with reform, turning their backs on politics and getting on with personal economic survival. The administration, meanwhile, still acts like Yeltsin's leading a charge to democracy and the minimal aid we give makes a difference.
"Clinton's aides even dismissed Yeltsin's defiant statement last week that he would not remove Russian troops from the Baltics by August 31-as Clinton, moments earlier, said he would-as good- natured bravado rather than as a serious challenge. The U.S. Senate is less sanguine: Last week it voted 89-to-8 to cut off aid to Russia after August 31 if Russian troops remain in the Baltics or a firm agreement for their withdrawal is not reached.
"The most charitable analysts of Clinton's foreign policy say he merits credit for trying to solve problems Bush ignored. The problem, is college student Clinton might have gotten extra points for effort, President C. will be judged strictly on results."(U.S. News & World Report,7/25/94, p.20,Turning the other cheek-Matt Cooper, Tim Zimmerman, Lousie Lief, Robin Knight, & Fred Coleman)
Reagan is a prime example of how foreign affects a president while in office and in retrospect. Many liberals refuse to give admit that he defeated the "Evil Empire" and only see, or want to see a part of the big picture. Why? Because they do not like Reagan of his policies of a small central government, and are unwilling to give him the credit he so richly deserves.
Reagan defeated the "Evil Empire" and we are now the greatest super power on Earth. With that comes the responsibility to help maintain democracy at almost any price. A lack of a strong foreign policy signals a weak leader to friends and enemies. Unlike our ancestors we live in a very different, ever increasingly, fast paced, high tech world of international business and communication. This makes foreign policy a greater component of politics.
They often experience "Gorbasms" (R. Limbaugh): a totally blind/misguided sense of appreciation for helping Communism collapse and peacefully resigning as General Secretary. Some people are so blind that they feel that Gorbachev is a genius because unlike his predecessors, he saw that he could not continue massive military expenditures and was not a murderer. They fail to remember things like Gorbachev was and is a Communist and he defended Communism even after the "hard liners" attempted coo-da-ta failed. Some people feel that since he was born and raised a Communist he, as would anyone defend it out of fear of the unknown. I do not believe that he ever dreamed that he would play a major role in the demise of the "Evil Empire." For if he had, he would still be in power.
Some Liberals say that the fear and paranoia were exaggerated in order to help justify the arms race and the overthrow of unfriendly governments or put monarchs and murders as long as they opposed Communism. Unfortunately, we were at war and it is hell! In life all that matters is whether you win or lose. When the dust settles few care how you "played the game". History will portray you as either a winner or loser. It will not say how you 'played the game'. To the victors go the spoils. In war losers must surrender unconditionally. This applies to all aspects of life: "in sports the winning coach discusses the score. But the losing coach discusses heart and next year." (Tom Karfunkel) A star makes millions in
promotions. Olympic Gold Medal winners are bombarded with multi-million dollar offers. Who pays a loser to promote their products? The bottom line is simple: Reagan defeated Communism without firing one bullet or shedding a drop of blood! He used money instead of bombs! Reality dictates that, "Reagan had tunnel vision toward the S. Union, but boy what tunnel vision!" (Ed Koch)
We are now the greatest super power in the world. Naturally along with this comes the responsibility to protect and defend democracy at any price. Unlike our ancestors we live in an ever increasingly, very different, and fast paced world of instant global communication with plans for a super highway of information. This increases the importance of our foreign policy and the ripples it transmits throughout the world. If it is weak it can be quickly capitalized upon by our enemies. In order to maintain peace it must be known to all that you have the strength and determination to fight for it and you will not hesitate to where and when ever necessary.
Many liberals oppose a big military as the primary line of defense. Yet, they paradoxically see the U.S. as the world police. While human rights are very important, we cannot be that. That is why we have the U.N. and Amnesty International. That does mean that we should live in a vacuum with a policy of isolationism as we did in pre- W.W. 2 either. Shouldn't we take things on a case by case basis to determine if U.S. interests are being compromised?