James Buchanan was president immediately before Abraham Lincoln. Many historians consider him the worst American president ever. He stayed out of the disputes building across the country that ultimately erupted into the Civil War. In many ways, James Buchanan's namesake, Pat Buchanan, follows a similar philosophy. He wants to ignore problems around the world in the hopes that they will solve themselves. He want a return to the isolationism that prevailed in this country prior to the Second World War.
Today, Buchanan has written a column under the headline: "What Should Americans Die For?" Buchanan argues that there is no need for the USA to get involved with the Syrian civil war or even a North Korean invasion of the South. Buchanan says that American power is diminished and so should be our foreign policy. Buchanan's argument, however, is filled with sophistry and misinformation.
Let's start with Buchanan's discussion of America's war weariness. Here is how Pat puts it:
To demonstrate this, we need only address a few questions.
Would we be willing to send another army of 170,000 to stop a Sunni-Shia war that might tear Iraq apart?
Would the American people support sending 100,000 troops, again, to fight to keep Afghanistan from the clutches of the Taliban?
To ask these questions is to answer them.
Should Kim Jong Un attack across the DMZ with his million-man army and seize Seoul, would Barack Obama's America, like Harry Truman's America, send a third of a million U.S. soldiers and Marines to drive the North out? Or would we confine our support to the South, under our security treaty, to air, sea and missile strikes -- from above and afar?
Under NATO, the United States is required to assist militarily any member nation that is a victim of aggression.
If Moscow occupied Estonia or Latvia in a dispute over mistreatment of its Russian minorities, would we declare war or send U.S. troops to fight Russians in the Baltic?
Would we fight the Chinese to defend the Senkakus?
Buchanan misstates so much in so few sentences. First, did America sent troops to Iraq to stop a Sunni-Shia was? Contrary to what Buchanan indicates, the answer to that question is NO! American troops went to Iraq for two principal reasons: a) intelligence indicated that the Iraqi had weapons of mass destruction that we likely to be used by terror groups against the USA; and b) president Bush thought that creating a democracy in the middle of the Moslem Middle East would change the course of the region, moving it towards peace. Both of these reasons were important to America. One was intended to prevent a major terror attack on our country. The second was meant to remove one of the causes of such terror attacks. Now that does not mean that the effort went according to plan or even that there was a complete plan to follow. It does mean, however, that the USA went into Iraq to promote its own interests, not merely to stop some sort of religious conflict.
Second, if North Korea struck the South, is there any doubt that the USA would respond in force? No. Remember, there are tens of thousands of American troops sitting just south of the DMZ between North and South Korea. They would be sucked into the fighting in the first minutes whether or not Buchanan likes it. Surely, even president Obama would support efforts to protect thirty thousand American troops.
Third, we did not go into Afghanistan to rid that country of the Taliban. We went in to end the government that gave shelter to the al Qaeda forces that attacked us on 9-11. Even Buchanan has to admit that this was in America's national interests.
Fourth, would we fight China over the Senkakus? For those of you who may not know the full import of the question, let me explain. The Senkakus are Japanese islands that China is now claiming. The proper question is this: if China attacks Japan over the Senkakus, would we stand by our treaty obligations and help Japan defend itself? The answer to that better be yes. It is not in America's interests to see China established as the hegemon of Asia.
And would we honor our NATO commitments? Again, I would hope so. If not, then why have NATO and its costly structure. Why have bases in Europe? Indeed, why have any bases outside the USA? Maybe it would be better in a Buchanan world to just bring all our forces home and cut the size of the military by half.
Does anyone actually think that such a move will make us safer? Will other countries look at our weakened profile and decide that it makes sense to leave us alone? Or will they conclude that America and its friends have become easy pickings?
It is not easy to stand as a superpower in the world. It is not inexpensive to do so either. There is, however, no alternative. That does not mean we must enter every conflict or settle every dispute. We cannot shy from getting involved either, however. We need rational, reasonable, and thoughtful leadership. Maybe we will get that in 2017.
Today, Buchanan has written a column under the headline: "What Should Americans Die For?" Buchanan argues that there is no need for the USA to get involved with the Syrian civil war or even a North Korean invasion of the South. Buchanan says that American power is diminished and so should be our foreign policy. Buchanan's argument, however, is filled with sophistry and misinformation.
Let's start with Buchanan's discussion of America's war weariness. Here is how Pat puts it:
To demonstrate this, we need only address a few questions.
Would we be willing to send another army of 170,000 to stop a Sunni-Shia war that might tear Iraq apart?
Would the American people support sending 100,000 troops, again, to fight to keep Afghanistan from the clutches of the Taliban?
To ask these questions is to answer them.
Should Kim Jong Un attack across the DMZ with his million-man army and seize Seoul, would Barack Obama's America, like Harry Truman's America, send a third of a million U.S. soldiers and Marines to drive the North out? Or would we confine our support to the South, under our security treaty, to air, sea and missile strikes -- from above and afar?
Under NATO, the United States is required to assist militarily any member nation that is a victim of aggression.
If Moscow occupied Estonia or Latvia in a dispute over mistreatment of its Russian minorities, would we declare war or send U.S. troops to fight Russians in the Baltic?
Would we fight the Chinese to defend the Senkakus?
Buchanan misstates so much in so few sentences. First, did America sent troops to Iraq to stop a Sunni-Shia was? Contrary to what Buchanan indicates, the answer to that question is NO! American troops went to Iraq for two principal reasons: a) intelligence indicated that the Iraqi had weapons of mass destruction that we likely to be used by terror groups against the USA; and b) president Bush thought that creating a democracy in the middle of the Moslem Middle East would change the course of the region, moving it towards peace. Both of these reasons were important to America. One was intended to prevent a major terror attack on our country. The second was meant to remove one of the causes of such terror attacks. Now that does not mean that the effort went according to plan or even that there was a complete plan to follow. It does mean, however, that the USA went into Iraq to promote its own interests, not merely to stop some sort of religious conflict.
Second, if North Korea struck the South, is there any doubt that the USA would respond in force? No. Remember, there are tens of thousands of American troops sitting just south of the DMZ between North and South Korea. They would be sucked into the fighting in the first minutes whether or not Buchanan likes it. Surely, even president Obama would support efforts to protect thirty thousand American troops.
Third, we did not go into Afghanistan to rid that country of the Taliban. We went in to end the government that gave shelter to the al Qaeda forces that attacked us on 9-11. Even Buchanan has to admit that this was in America's national interests.
Fourth, would we fight China over the Senkakus? For those of you who may not know the full import of the question, let me explain. The Senkakus are Japanese islands that China is now claiming. The proper question is this: if China attacks Japan over the Senkakus, would we stand by our treaty obligations and help Japan defend itself? The answer to that better be yes. It is not in America's interests to see China established as the hegemon of Asia.
And would we honor our NATO commitments? Again, I would hope so. If not, then why have NATO and its costly structure. Why have bases in Europe? Indeed, why have any bases outside the USA? Maybe it would be better in a Buchanan world to just bring all our forces home and cut the size of the military by half.
Does anyone actually think that such a move will make us safer? Will other countries look at our weakened profile and decide that it makes sense to leave us alone? Or will they conclude that America and its friends have become easy pickings?
It is not easy to stand as a superpower in the world. It is not inexpensive to do so either. There is, however, no alternative. That does not mean we must enter every conflict or settle every dispute. We cannot shy from getting involved either, however. We need rational, reasonable, and thoughtful leadership. Maybe we will get that in 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment