Progressivism’s Failed Foreign Policy By Frank Vernuccio 10/4/16
During the past eight years, the
Progressive approach to foreign policy, which essentially emphasizes
diminished funding for defense and dependence on international, rather than
American leadership has been predominant.
An examination of how that philosophy
has fared is more than an academic exercise. Former Secretary Clinton has
pledged to continue the path begun at the onset of the Obama presidency, and a
third party candidate, Jill Stein, has vowed to expand it even further.
Progressivism should not be confused
with any past practice. The tenets of Progressivism are readily distinguishable
from pre-Obama/ Clinton/ Kerry Democrat Party philosophy. Consider how these
quotes from President John F. Kennedy would have been received at the 2016
Democrat convention:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
any foe, in order to insure the survival and the success of Liberty.” “Ask not
what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Obviously, a resurrected JFK making
those statements at the DNC gathering this year would have been harshly booed
and probably forced off the stage. Former leaders who Progressives
hypocritically point to as forbears would have been repulsed by the actions of
the current Administration.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was highly
cognizant of the looming dangers from Germany and Japan, and began the process
of preparing the nation’s industrial base for the challenge.
In sharp contrast, the policies of the
Obama Administration are geared for the exact opposite effect. Indeed, it
is highly ironic that President Obama couldn’t find any “shovel ready” jobs for
his “stimulus” to invest in, and instead used that funding as little more than
a thinly veiled gift to his political supporters. Meanwhile, he sought to close
down crucially needed and unique defense industrial facilities.
Woodrow Wilson actively sought to impart
a fair value system to the world; the Obama Administration has pandered to the
worst offenders, most recently illustrated by the stunning delivery of cash to
Iran, and the acceptance of Russian/Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that the
current round of fighting in that region, following the fall of Saddam Hussein,
began with the rise of ISIS, which would not have occurred if American troops
remained in Iraq, and Russian/Iranian support for the despicable Syrian regime
of Bashar al Assad, who has used artillery and poison gas against his own
people to continue his murderous rule. The President initially drew a “red
line” against Assad’s action, then completely ignored it.
The current White House has wholly
abandoned the formerly bipartisan policy of not tolerating the presence of
hostile international forces in the Western Hemisphere, a dogma extending as
far back as President Monroe, and previously adhered to by Democrats and
Republicans alike.
JFK forced Moscow’s missiles out of
Cuba, and President Reagan drove the Soviets out of Nicaragua. Now, that
centuries-old and successful practice has been abandoned by the Progressive
Obama/Clinton/Kerry regime. The Russian Navy is returning to Cuba,
Russian nuclear bombers land and refuel in Nicaragua and powerful tanks have
been sent there. Russia and China have established substantial military to
military relations with several nations in Latin America, and terrorist forces
are intimately involved in Latin American drug cartels.
Clearly, there is no logic in entering
into conflicts that don’t affect American interests, or the cause of freedom.
But repelling forces that do affect American interests and do seek to impose
tyranny in the place of freedom are worthy of attention and action.
Over the past eight years of Progressive
rule, a premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq allowed ISIS to become
the power it is today. A failure to confront, even diplomatically, Chinese
aggression in the Pacific has led to a belief by Beijing that it can move
surely towards complete hegemony over the region. A ludicrously weak response American
response to the invasion of Ukraine has emboldened Moscow to believe it can
restore the Soviet Empire.
As China, Russia, Iran and North Korea
have dramatically ramped up their military strength and acted aggressively
across the world stage, Progressive leadership in the White House has decreased
defense spending and bent American will to international opinion. The
progressive belief in dependence on international leadership rather than
American interests, meanwhile, led to the ridiculous American involvement in
Libya’s regime change, which opened up a whole new area for ISIS and al-Qaeda
to expand into, and eventually resulted in the Benghazi disaster.
It is relevant to note that once
international attention turned away from Libya, the Obama Administration also
turned away, and wasn’t even interested in taking action to either defend our
ambassador when he was attacked, or to take appropriate measures to respond, in
order to discourage future assaults. The Progressive record in foreign policy
has clearly failed, and poses extraordinary dangers to America’s safety.
Comments
Obama
focused on wrecking the US economy using UN Agenda 21 implementation based on
the global warming hoax. Obama supported
the demise of all nation states including the US. He encouraged the Arab Spring to further
destabilize the Middle East to prepare for a UN takeover.
He
supported all the other UN fairy tales like open borders, multiculturalism,
globalism and socialism. Obama expanded the myth that the UN had legitimacy.
Obama acquiesced to all of their wealth transfer schemes. Obama doubled down on
excessive immigration and expanded the welfare system to include illegals. He spent an extra $1 trillion a year to do
all of this damage.
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment