I've just coined a new word, "neo-iso." Neo-iso stands for neo-isolationism (or ist) … apparently this is the
Obama administration’s new and evolving foreign policy. Ever since he drew and then erased the red
line in Syria, President Obama has become less interested in insinuating the United
States into foreign adventures. This inward-turning policy toward world
conflicts could perhaps reflect our country’s legacy distaste for our role in resolving international disputes. But I am somewhat
doubtful that, in the majority, the American people have become dyed-in-the-wool neo-isos.
Clearly President Obama’s previous more belligerent stances
in Afghanistan and Libya may have been … as former Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates suggested in his recent book … merely for political purposes. But realizing that these blunted excursions
onto the world’s battlefields brought him little leadership purchase or respect
from those world political A-listers whose adoration he craves, I believe that our "leader of the free world" has now opted for the new pre-qualifier -- “former.”
Into this vacuum created by this floundering disinterest on
the United States’ part has stepped the wanna-be despots of the world … Russia,
China, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.
They see their opportunity and are seizing it … and we have, I am
afraid, just begun to see the mischief that they can create for the free-world.
This expansionist muscle-flexing on their parts is likely to last for
decades.
If free Europe and Japan do not step up to counter this power
eschewing on the United States’ part, I’m afraid that the map of the world may
need considerable revisions before our fearless leader leaves office in 2017. Then, the rebuilding of American hegemony
will not occur overnight … if our next President can accomplish it … or even if he/she so chooses.
For the strategic high ground, once surrendered, is very costly to retake. And it is very doubtful whether China or others would front us the funds for such an effort ... or, if not, whether our welfare state could be pared back enough in order to pay for our return to a position of military dominance.
For the strategic high ground, once surrendered, is very costly to retake. And it is very doubtful whether China or others would front us the funds for such an effort ... or, if not, whether our welfare state could be pared back enough in order to pay for our return to a position of military dominance.
Yes, Obama has clearly fulfilled his campaign promise “to
fundamentally change America.” However, I believe
that our voters might have been better off to have asked for a few more
specifics.
No comments:
Post a Comment