Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Why I am for Obama-Foreign policy

I will be writing today about why I am supporting Obama over McCain in the 2008 election. As Obama said, "you can be for someone without being against his opponent". I admire and respect McCain and I am proud to have personally met him. It amazes me when I tell people that I am voting for Obama they instantly call him an "extreme" liberal and assume I am a dyed in the wool liberal who has turned his back on the Republican party and conservative principals. I have no allegiance to a political party, an obese radio host who never voted till his 40s, or a T.V. anchor who sexual harassed his co-worker and paid her to keep quiet. I try to read as much as I can, from all political points of view, and make up my mind. I love my country, not a political system, and I vote for whomever I feel will be the best President of our country. I felt that Bush would do a better job than Gore and I feel that Obama will do a better job than McCain. Here is why:

1. Foreign Policy

It is amazing how different the world was in 2000. Here is the state of the world in 2008.
1. The U.S. launches two wars
A. Iraq, the world's third largest oil reserve, is in chaos
B. Over two million Iraq citizens are refugees living in foreign lands
2. Iran has gained strength and is moving towards nuclear capability
3. North Korea has become the world's eighth declared nuclear power
4. Russia has turned hostile and imperious in its dealings with the West
5. Israel and Hezbollah fight a war in Lebanon
6. Gaza is a failed state ruled by the democratically elected Hamas
7. Peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians have gone nowhere

This is the state of the world that our new President must deal with. I am not blaming Bush for what has happened these past eight years, I simply look at who is the best candidate to deal with foreign affairs.

I believe in Obamas approach of talking with your enemies, as Reagan did with the Soviets. In the baseball book, Moneyball, the writer pointed out how our opinions calcify and our perceptions harden as we age. We judge people, countries, etc., based on past performance where we should judge them on future performance. Reagan was called an idiot and fool for believing he could talk and negotiate with the Soviets. Reagan, to his credit, never believed the cynics and was able to negotiate with the Soviets and hasten the demise of Communism in Russia. Obamas hope, optimism, and fresh perspective will result in a stronger American foreign policy. His youth and out of the beltway experience will be his strongest asset.

On the other hand McCain seems to look out on the world with pessimism. He has publicly stated that we may be in Iraq for one-hundred years and has joked about bombing Iran. He will keep us in Iraq for his term, possibly start a third war with Iran and take a hands off approach in the rest of the middle east.

I understand the fear and worry about what will happen in Iraq if the U.S. pulls out. The conventional wisdom is that Iraq will fall into chaos, a civil war will break out and Iraq will become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. But consider the following:
1. Iraq already is in chaos.
2. A civil war is currently raging between Sunnis and Shiites
3. Al Qaeda already has a safe haven in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border

Al Qaeda has morphed into an anti-shiite group, espousing a purist Sunni worldview. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi wrote, "the danger from the shia is greater than the Americans." The logic seems to be if we leave the Iraqis will erupt into a bloodthirsty rage and start killing each other. (wait a sec)Yes, they will, because they already are and they are killing Americans at the same time. If we are so worried that Iraq will be a safe haven for terrorist what is going on the Afganistan/Pakistan border? Bin Laden has been able to survive for seven years because he and his band of terrorist already have a SAFE HAVEN! We also tend to believe these apocalyptic predictions from the same people who said we would be greeted as liberators and as a side benefit for the war, which will pay for itself, we will have cheaper gas! Do you think it is possible that there predictions about what would happen if the U.S. pulled out just might be wrong? Hmnnn.....

2 Comments:

At June 10, 2008 at 7:07 PM , Blogger Grandma Dee said...

Bingo and right on, again, Matt. I believe that it is important to have communication with your enemies as long as you set some ground rules going into the talks. I am not naive enough to believe that they will always (if ever) be compliant with the rules, but we must discover a way to exist in the world with those who believe much differently than we do. Reagan was so successful at this. And, as Susan noted, so was Nixon with the Chinese. It can be done.
Thanks for sharing and caring to do so,
Denise

 
At June 13, 2008 at 8:59 AM , Blogger Garrett said...

Best post yet with good points. Disagree with your perception of McCain saying we are gonna be in Iraq for 100 years, that doesn't necessarily mean we are gonna have 150K troops there and they will continue dying. We have had troops stationed in Korea since 1954. I believe that is what McCain meant when he said that. Talking about a permanent base to hopefully contribute towards reigon stabilization.

Legitimate point about Reagan and Gorbachev, McCains argument is that people like Amadinajad, and Kim Jung Ill are less reasonable then the Soviets and Nixon's China. I don't think it is wise to "negotiate" with Amandinijad certainly and disagree with Obama on this point. We shouldn't talk to him for the same reason we didn't talk to Castro. But the Iranian people are a great people with a proud history, it is a shame they are under the dictatorship of this psychopath. I also cringe at the fact that he was part of holding our diplomats hostage in 1980.

I could be wrong, but I don't think "optimism" will help with Iran, tougher measures are needed.

As to Iraq and Al Queda, you are 100 percent correct

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home