How Safe is Our Future II ?


By: Patti Bankson

Last week we honored the young men and women whose lives were ended in Ft. Hood by… yet another ingrate. Someone undeserving of American citizenship. Happy to take advantage of America’s opportunities and rights, and stunningly, just as happy to murder those who help protect those rights.

Amazingly, our president and too many others see acts like that, not as acts of terrorism, but merely… criminal. No, no… burglary, shoplifting, assault; those are criminal acts. What happened in Ft. Hood was an act of jihad carried out by the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing… a terrorist in an American military disguise.

That incident reinforces the importance of what former UN Ambassador John Bolton said in his 9/11 anniversary speech about our current administration’s foreign policy and the impact it could have on our safety.

Ambassador Bolton described President Obama’s foreign policy as “neoisolationist – a policy characterized by an unwillingness to be assertive in the world in defense of America’s interests and those of our friends and allies.” I don’t get that. There is only one United States of America… a country unlike any other in the world. And, yes… it is exceptional. And, yes… our foreign policy needs to reflect that fact absolutely… No shame, no apologies.

Bolton traces that policy back to 1972 when George McGovern’s mantra (acceptance speech) at the Democrat’s national convention was, “Come Home America”… an attitude that Ambassador Bolton says now dominates liberal foreign policy. He explains: “Consider our current policy regarding Iraq. The Obama administration is determined to withdraw American forces along the lines of a plan formulated at the end of the Bush administration, but without regard to the actual situation in Iraq. American forces have pulled back from their prominent roles in the major urban areas, and violence has increased. But the administration remains fixed on the withdrawal schedule. Because it is withdrawal – rather than the political stability of Iraq – that matters to it most. And this strict adherence to the exit timetable without regard to the political and military consequences could prove to be very harmful to our interests – not only in Iraq, but in the broader region as well.

In Afghanistan, there is legitimate room for discussion about what our strategic objectives should be. I doubt we will transform it into a stable democratic society. It is not going to become Switzerland – or even Honduras. On the other hand, we have a serious strategic interest in making sure that the Taliban and al-Qaeda don’t use Afghanistan as a base to launch future terrorist attacks. But today, what was for years portrayed as the good war by liberals – as opposed to the bad Iraq war – has become just another war from which they want to get out. This is creating a difficult political problem for President Obama. And the path he chooses to take in Afghanistan is going to be significant, not least because of the consequences it will have in Pakistan. Our interests in Pakistan are even more acute than in Afghanistan, and the potential risks to the United States, and our allies is even graver.”*

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Trillion$ of debt, double-digit unemployment, foreclosures, Cap-and-Tax, heart-stopping “Health Reform”… well, Obama promised CHANGE, didn’t he? Normally, I’d call keeping your promises a virtue. In this case I’d call it a mess.

* Reprinted by permission from Imprimus, a publication of Hillsdale College.

Comments welcome at pbankson@cfl.rr.com or http://aconservativewoman.blogspot.com

© 2009 Patti Bankson

About The Author Patti Bankson:
Send comments to pbankson@cfl.rr.com © 2011 Patti Bankson The Way I See It / The Apopka Chief / www.thelandofthefree.net

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.