Exaggerated Dangers vs. Calm Collected Foreign Policy

What Kind of World do We Live In?

Election 2008:  Exaggerated Dangers vs. Calm Collected Foreign Policy

by F. J. Ryan

Lipstick on a Pig?  Hockey Moms? Troopergate? Is this important yet fluffy stuff really going to decide our important election?  Or are we going to chill out, relax, and focus on the issues that face our country so we can make good decisions about who and what ideas should propel it forward for the next 4 years and more. 

For example, there really is a difference in the way the Republicans and Democrats see our world and how we should live in it. When it comes to global issues, there’s clearly a fundamental difference in the way the two candidates see the world. So let’s just ask the question to Obama and McCain; What kind of a world do we live in?

I don’t think the candidates have been asked this question yet.  Seems they have been too busy calling each other liars, opps, I mean mis-truth tellers!  Are you sick of this low brow stuff!  Boring and Unbecoming of the USA ya think?  Anyway, I doubt either would answer the question directly but here’s an educated guess derived from past statements and speeches made.

John McCain
We live in a very dangerous world, he would say. From his perspective, Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the age. Jihadist warriors—funded and supported by states that adhere to their views—pose the central threat to the United States. In the rise of China, Russia and India, McCain sees turbulence. Russia and China, being autocracies, represent a special danger. Moscow’s attack on Georgia was, for McCain, the "first serious crisis since the end of the cold war." The role for America, in such an environment, is to aggressively use its power—hard power—to fight evil, spread freedom and defeat the enemy. Otherwise we will lose the struggle for the 21st century.

Barack Obama
Obama’s sense of the world is more optimistic. The dangers are real but not so all-encompassing. Obama speaks less of Islamic extremism in general and more of Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups specifically. He points out that compared with the cold war—when thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles were pointed at American cities—the threats we face today are reduced. He argues that most people in the Islamic world want development and a better life, not jihad. America’s promise remains alive even in these countries.

America’s role, for Obama, is to restore its military strength, fight Al Qaeda and its ilk, and deter rogue regimes like Iran. But it is also to stay calm, because in overreacting to dangers, we often cause new problems and crises. To lump together all Islamist groups is to exaggerate and misunderstand the threat. The Iraq War, for Obama, is a prime example of an alarmist overreaction, one that had the United States launch an unprovoked invasion of a country and rack up huge costs. If America can keep its cool and provide the help that countries really seek—in development, modernization and democracy-building—then we will gain in both security and legitimacy.

There is some truth to both visions of the world, but in my view the reality is much closer to Obama’s.

Look, the reality is that we live in remarkably peaceful times. Death from wars of all kinds have been dropping dramatically for 20 years and are lower now than at any point in the last half century.   I know, that’s hard to digest considering how we are all bombarded by the media and its’ sensatiionalism for ratings, but thats’ the reality folks.

Casualties from terrorism have been steadily declining since 9/11. It is increasingly clear — look at their voting from Indonesia to Iraq to Pakistan—that very few Muslims anywhere support Islamic fundamentalists. More countries than ever before now embrace capitalism and democracy.  Yep, those people want jobs and peace too! 

So why all the exaggerated dangers?  And that’s the $ 64,000 question!