Editor,
Craig Butler's column on foreign policy is flawed. I will attempt to address each flaw individually. While it is true Saudi-American relations are crucial at this time, Saudi Arabia does not stand up to the test Butler proposes of "certain actions are not acceptable" Saudis made up the vast majority of terrorists attacking on Sept. 11, they are undemocratic and fund radical Islamic fundamentalists.
Blaming the president's uncertainty over what to do on the lack of a consistent foreign policy is also incorrect. The uncertainty is over the legality, the potential for setting a precedent, the number of military and civilian casualties, the possibilities of drawing Israel and other nations into the conflict, and the economic impacts of a "pre-emptive attack."
Generalizing those opposed to invasion as "isolationists" is also an incorrect use of logic. While the opposition to the war will obviously have a degree of variance many voices, Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger for example, are concerned with the war's impact on international relations and the war on terrorism. These men are hardly isolationists. If any policy resembles isolationism it is likely the administration's policy of unilateralism, which often refuses to work on sustainable living, a world court, greenhouse emissions, or human rights.
A final note on the comment "it should be made known to everyone in the world that certain actions are unacceptable." Read Gore Vidal's "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" and its documentation of over 250 military excursions since World War II and see if we pass this test of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. In order for the United States to lead we must drop the hypocritical rhetoric and practice what we preach.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Eric Whitbeck
UNM Student
