Three statements... all reference relationships between the US and the Middle East. Can you identify who is who, and how much difference there actually is?
Quote #1
Quote #1
"The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we're going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there's going to be in the Middle East."
Quote #2
"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability and much oppression,... snip"
Quote #3
"There's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States."
Basically, they are all the same.... a rose by any other name remains a rose. The type of government rule in the individual Middle East countries has an undeniable impact on American national security. Certainly Afghanistan not under the thumb of the Taliban is a nation less threatening to our security. Pakistan under Musharraf, with it's nuke power, is better as an ally than an enemy.
And it is this concept - encouraging a form of Arab democracy unlike our own, but palatable to the Moslem denizens - upon which our foreign policy is currently rooted.
I doubt it will come as any surprise to find that the first statement came from Barack Obama, the second from President Bush, and the third from Hillary Clinton. Both Dem candidates' comments are from the most recent televised Democratic debate.
My analysis of this little tidbit? The pols jockeying for the Oval Office recognize that the much maligned "Bush Doctrine" is actually thoughtful policy. But the big difference is one side of the political spectrum is content to believe in it, but do nothing. And the other side felt that the events of 911 was proof that prior decades of doing "nothing" to attempt containment of the global Islamic jihad movement failed the citizens of the US in the very worst way.
In the 2008 presidential election - provided that the US voters recognize that both red/blue pols actually do have a consensus - the nation's few percentage who vote will ultimately decide the course of this country.
Will it be to go back to doing nothing, and just wait for the next 911? Or will it be to continue the attempt to reduce oppression, and induce Arab style democratic regimes in the Middle East?
H/T to the NY Sun's Editorial Staff for connecting the dots on the statements today.
2 comments:
Yours: And the other side felt that the events of 911 was proof that prior decades of doing "nothing" to attempt containment of the global Islamic jihad movement failed the citizens of the US in the very worst way.
Was the right policy and continues to be. All I need do is look at Oakland and Richmond, California -- for decades corruption and special "rights", exonerations for criminals has continued. Those two cities now rank among the top 10 highest murder rates in the U.S.A. And I know from living near those cities, the criminal behavior spreads outwards to surrounding behaviors.
... not to mention New Orleans, Alia. High crime and corruption before Katrina from the Guv's office down. Poor (or non existent) evacuation during. Even more corruption and crime in the wake of Katrina.
And boy do they whine - the professional victim mentality is overwhelming. Such a contrast with Mississippi, also ravaged, who set to work taking care of their own.
Should be interesting to see how the new Guv sets to work, reversing the trend.
Post a Comment