Here are two questions that deserve an answer:
1. Is the American public war weary?
2. Are substantial chunks of the American public isolationists?
If your answer to both of these questions is "yes", then you would fit right in with much of the analysis being done regarding the reasons for opposition to president Obama's request for authority to strike in Syria.
The problem, however, is that there are few opponents who are actually war weary and even fewer who are isolationists. For the last twelve years, America has been engaged in the War on Terror. In the early days after the 9-11 attacks, the country was involved in watching a war in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. That involvement soon ended. Oh, to be sure, the American military paid close attention to these wars. Our soldiers were called on to serve multiple tours in the war zone, and there were casualties in total that, after twelve years, are just about double the number of folks who died on 9-11. I do not mean to make light of the sacrifice of these brave men and women; they deserve our respect and our thanks. My point, however, is that the casualties of war were so low that they did not impinge upon the lives of the average American. Nor did the involvement in these two wars make a day to day difference in the lives of most Americans. Simply put, Americans are not war weary. They may be tired of hearing about the wars, but most folks tuned this out long ago. America has been fighting wars with few people even paying attention.
Then there is the charge of isolationism. While there are some opponents who talk about refocusing our efforts here at home, I have yet to hear a serious voice that wants us to withdraw from the world. The debate is more a question of the scope of our national interests than one of isolationism versus involvement in the world. Isolationism is a discredited memory of the 1930's. It comes from a time when the Atlantic and the Pacific really did protect the USA from meaningful foreign attack. In the age of nuclear tipped ICBM's, however, no one thinks that anymore.
Just for once, it would be nice to have a debate about American foreign policy that is fought out truthfully. There is no reason to demean the opponents' views. After all, I am sure that we all understand why folks would think it a bad idea or a good idea to strike in Syria. Just this once, let's decide on the merits.
1. Is the American public war weary?
2. Are substantial chunks of the American public isolationists?
If your answer to both of these questions is "yes", then you would fit right in with much of the analysis being done regarding the reasons for opposition to president Obama's request for authority to strike in Syria.
The problem, however, is that there are few opponents who are actually war weary and even fewer who are isolationists. For the last twelve years, America has been engaged in the War on Terror. In the early days after the 9-11 attacks, the country was involved in watching a war in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. That involvement soon ended. Oh, to be sure, the American military paid close attention to these wars. Our soldiers were called on to serve multiple tours in the war zone, and there were casualties in total that, after twelve years, are just about double the number of folks who died on 9-11. I do not mean to make light of the sacrifice of these brave men and women; they deserve our respect and our thanks. My point, however, is that the casualties of war were so low that they did not impinge upon the lives of the average American. Nor did the involvement in these two wars make a day to day difference in the lives of most Americans. Simply put, Americans are not war weary. They may be tired of hearing about the wars, but most folks tuned this out long ago. America has been fighting wars with few people even paying attention.
Then there is the charge of isolationism. While there are some opponents who talk about refocusing our efforts here at home, I have yet to hear a serious voice that wants us to withdraw from the world. The debate is more a question of the scope of our national interests than one of isolationism versus involvement in the world. Isolationism is a discredited memory of the 1930's. It comes from a time when the Atlantic and the Pacific really did protect the USA from meaningful foreign attack. In the age of nuclear tipped ICBM's, however, no one thinks that anymore.
Just for once, it would be nice to have a debate about American foreign policy that is fought out truthfully. There is no reason to demean the opponents' views. After all, I am sure that we all understand why folks would think it a bad idea or a good idea to strike in Syria. Just this once, let's decide on the merits.
1 comment:
$750 Mil-$1 Billion to justify A RED LINE.
No significant difference will be made in Syria.
Saving FACE is not worth this non thought out plan!!
They (President &Congress) need to focus on THE HOME FRONT,
DEBT, ECONOMY, Getting rid of OBAMA CARE!We are wasting away the future of all AMERICANS
Post a Comment