President Bush's recent meeting with Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan comes at a time when Saudi-American relations are at their most crucial. At stake is the future of the entire Middle East and dire consequences for the world.
Immediately following the military action in Afghanistan, U.S. public opinion for a follow-up move on Iraq was incredibly high. In the past few months that resolution has faded, replaced by the return of humdrum everyday life.
The trouble the United States faced is not unique to the Bush administration. Simply put, the country lacks a consistent foreign policy. The country's actions are entirely dependent upon who is president. As a result, no one can predict what Bush will do, and that uncertainty is the core of the current debate facing the nation.
The Bush administration continues to hint that it intends to bring us into another war with Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. This is probably the right course of action; the only problem is that the next president may not feel the same, and anything positive that might develop from a freed Iraq could be lost.
Those who adamantly oppose the invasion are often in favor of pulling the United States out of world affairs entirely. No matter how these arguments are phrased, they are basically a rehash of the Isolationist policies of the early twentieth century. Could such a policy work? History has shown otherwise.
It was not until after World War II that the United States began actively intervening in foreign conflicts. This was because it was realized that taking a passive role in world affairs had allowed that war to happen. Isolationist politics seem to inevitably lead to the appeasement of dictators.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Left to his own devices, would Saddam really sit quietly in Iraq and work for world peace? Would he be content just to conquer Kuwait or launch a few missiles at Israel and then make friends? If you believe so, then you may also be interested in owning part of some new bridges being constructed in the Chicago area.
Saddam is an aggressive dictator and cannot be ignored. As long as he is in power he will seek to harm, directly or indirectly, those around him. Waiting for the Arab world around him to initiate a call for action could mean sitting still while he plunders the entire region.
Months or even years before the Sept. 11 attacks, it was obvious that the Taliban was going to be a source of trouble. The assault launched on them after the terrorist tragedy should have been mobilized a year or more before. Osama bin Laden was a well-known terrorist long before the attacks and should have been dealt with sooner.
No one likes to be involved in a war. Unfortunately, shying away from conflict only leads to worse problems in the future. The American population has a strange aversion to preemptive action, given its proven, life-saving effects.
This is probably due to a lack of a consistent and well-understood foreign policy. The average American, if asked, would probably come up with a different description of our foreign affairs goals and plans.
If our goal is world peace, then the best way to approach it is a foreign policy that advocates the elimination of hostile regimes before they can grow. There should be no secrecy or apology regarding this policy; it should be made known to everyone in the world that certain actions are not acceptable.
But what of the moral implications? Many will say, "It is not America's place to police the world." These individuals would have us believe that international politics is subservient to their myopic pacifism. It would be nice if kindness and goodwill were rewarded with friendship. Unfortunately, the international world is still one of survival of the fittest. Those who show weakness will be victimized by those who are more aggressive.
The Bush administration seems to have a firm grasp on reality when it considers ousting Saddam for good. Had he been deposed twelve years ago or even sooner, much suffering in the world could have been averted. The only trouble is that after Bush is gone, will the next President continue his policies?
Or will we elect someone who will deliberately sabotage Bush's successes? No wonder the world thinks we are a wishy-washy superpower. Just about any consistent policy would be better than completely changing our minds every four to eight years.
by Craig A. Butler
Daily Lobo columnist
