This, to me, is the height of hubris.
Looking at the bigger picture, where will this sort of policy get the US in the long run? What historical examples to we have that can be viewed as a comparison to this "new formula"?
Well, the entire US foreign policy for the last three decades of the Cold War jump instantly to mind.
Vietnam. Laos. Honduras. Nicaragua. Iran. Iraq. All nations that we pumped support, money and material. Of these examples, only Vietnam developed into a long, drawn-out combat arena. The rest were quiet interventions that rarely made headlines as the US pumped millions and millions of dollars of material and funds to support foreign regimes and efforts. All failed utterly, in one way or another.
Of all the interventionist policies that we've adopted, the only one that I can say categorically worked was Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. Our support and aid directly assisted the Afghani fighters to beat back the Soviets over an eight year battle... but we failed to follow that support with further aid and assistance and we allowed the Taliban to take over.
NATO and US support of the Libyan rebels has removed and killed Qaddafi... and that is a good thing, but if we do not continue to support and aid the transitional government, we face having helped create a vacuum that any tyrannical extremist regime might fill.
This week we heard Obama say that all US troops would be out of Iraq by the New Year... and perhaps that is a good thing, too. But the position we are leaving Iraq in is far different than that which we find Libya in, and comparisons between the two by the liberal Left are unfair and grossly inaccurate. The difference between the two?
Boots on the ground... that is the only difference. What secures peace and builds stability is boots on the ground, ready to maintain the peace and security won in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment