Foreign Policy, Politics

Two Paths for American Foreign Policy

two-pathsThere are only two pathways forward concerning American foreign policy:

  1. 1. Continue with the status quo in pursuit of perpetual antagonism with other nations and maintain a permanent war footing.

Or

  1. 2. Change direction by relinquishing a permenant war footing and seek to establish reconciliation with other sovereign nations in the international community.

The first option means a continuation of the mainstream rhetoric of “American leadership and strength.” This is a narrative which fogs the reality that America’s current foreign policy approach is dedicated to remaking the world in its neo-liberal image. For example, a strategy that coheres with this vocabulary is one seeking to establish a no-fly zone in Syria, resulting in an instigation of force against not only Syria, but also Russia and Iran. Additionally, it is likely that China would seek to express their growing economic hegemony into a military hegemony, and side against their competing economic rival found in America. Pushing regime change in Syria, which is nearly impossible without invasion and occupation, will most likely result in the instigation of another world war and potentially nuclear war. The effects this path will have on our citizens and economy are devastatingly negative.

The second option means that the U.S. government must pivot, so to speak, in their relation with the international community. For example, ISIS is a common enemy of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Russia. If the U.S. were serious about defeating ISIS, America would unite as co-belligerents with these nations in common cause against this terrorist organization. If America wants to fix Aleppo, law and order must be established in Syria. Rather than arming “moderate” rebels in this “civil war”, the U.S. ought to assist in bringing the war to an end by defeating ISIS. Why is Assad so hated by our ruling class? Is it because his nation and army threaten our borders or “interests”? No. It is because Syria and Iran are allies and Washington wants to weaken Iran’s influence in the region, which of course was bolstered when the U.S. invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein. So all this talk about Assad the monster is utterly irrelevant to the defense of our nation.

Additionally, Washington should finally recognize Saudi Arabia as the primary nation to be contained in the war on terror, not Iran or Syria. It is more likely that terrorist organizations will be contained if America were to side with predominantly Shia countries also interested in such an endeavor.

This second option, however, requires a little humility on the part of the U.S. because it must be recognized that other nations have interests of their own, and America’s unilateral militaristic hegemony is a mirage that cannot be maintained without a cataclysmic end.

This approach would also establish a new relationship with Israel. Rather than the perpetuation of dual loyalties with Israel, the U.S.  should maintain an “America First” approach. The Israel Lobby must be exposed, defeated, and kicked out of the U.S. State Department for a change in policy action to be meaningful.

 

– Lucas G. Westman

Standard

One thought on “Two Paths for American Foreign Policy

  1. Pingback: The Catholic Case For Donald Trump – Part VI – Round Up Of The Best Arguments | The Socratic Catholic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s