President Obama today announced his administration's reluctant agreement to work with Russia and Iran to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda in the Middle East. This will no doubt be met with howls of "Weakness!" and "leading from behind" by Mr. Obama's Republican detractors.
We may even hear the tired "appeasement" argument trotted out regarding both Russia's and Iran's supposed ambitions to expand their territories.
Republicans have consistently criticized Obama for not being aggressive enough on the world stage and for pulling back too early from Iraq and Afghanistan. With the emergence of ISIS, the GOP has seized the opportunity to quash more reasonable foreign policy positions from candidates like Rand Paul and push for sharper increases in military spending and even more aggressive foreign intervention.
The argument we hear repeatedly from Republican presidential candidates is that Obama has "eviscerated the military" and "led from behind." If the United States is not "engaged" (i.e., bombing or invading) in all crises at all times in every part of the world, emerging powers like Russia or China are going to fill the resulting vacuum. That raises an obvious question:
So, what?
Read the rest at The Huffington Post...
Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.
No comments:
Post a Comment