AS 2016 APPROACHES, CALM, SOLID PRESIDENTIAL THINKING IS REQUIRED

….The attack on the Twin Towers

Dealing with our bad past decisions need to be part of the nation’s future political discussions.

Well, this week was another anniversary of the 2001 attacks on New York’s Twin Towers, The Pentagon, and if not for some brave Americans, the White House.  As occurs every year, some of the news channels will take the first half of September 11th to re-run all the films of the tragic events of that day. 

They do this by showing the two planes hitting the towers; the smoke from the plane that hit the Pentagon.  Also by telling the story of the Boeing 767 that its heroic passengers forced to crash in a Pennsylvania field instead of it hitting its intended target: the White House.

Yes, it is also a re-playing of the largest mistake of our nation’s security intelligence since the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

But the real question it brings to me is, “What are the lessons it tells us for dealing with the continuing issues of globalization and terrorism that we as a nation have to deal with today? ”

As the various presidential candidates squabble and make their speeches as to what they would do in dealing with the issues of today, how many of them look back at where America’s global importance was after WWII; versus where it was in 9/11; and where it is today?

As one diplomatic writer has put it, “What is the right ‘market share’ for the United States in global influence? If we had 90% market share in 1946, was that really better than our 30%, or whatever we have today? For us? For the world?” Business executives have come to recognize that today’s globalized economy isn’t a zero-sum game; gains for China can also be gains for the United States.”

American politicians also need to recognize the importance of today’s world globalization.

When one thinks about this, we must look back at this nation’s largest international mistakes such as the tragic effects of the War in Vietnam; the miss-assumptions made about going to war in Iraq; or the wrong assumptions of what would eventually come from Egypt’s Arab Spring event?  Even the results of the US not initially offering more early help for those fighting the Dictator Assad in Syria?

With all that in mind, what solutions are the current presidential candidates from either party suggesting?  What should the US do for filling the perceived future political vacuums that may occur in the mid and far east countries?  And what about those oil rich countries where many Muslim extremist currently live such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates?

As all of these nations want to move forward, does America step backwards or aside or……to where?
 

As usual, the Republicans bidding to succeed the current president imply that America’s greatness can be restored simply by turning up the heat and displaying more willingness to use military force. This “back to the future” rhetoric ignores the many ways the world has changed, which makes these old models of US power almost seem irrelevant.

On the other side of the equation, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state has offered an alternate critique of this issue. Her recent speech was generally supportive of President Obama, but she argued that he should have pursued more assertive policies regarding Russia and Syria.  In her speech, she conveyed the sense that she would stick closer to the traditional lines of US power, but would be more forward-leaning in projecting that US power than President Obama has been.

But is Clinton right?  Will modest adjustments restore America’s position of primacy? It’s a reasonable and highly necessary question.

The Republicans are urging a more radical restoration of unilateral US power by repudiating the Iran nuclear agreement that is also endorsed by the world’s other leading powers.  But following the Republican’s approach would probably mean another immediate war for America in the middle east.  The other result of that approach is that it would instantly make Iran the leader in that part of the world, as well as the financial leader of world terrorism.  In addition, it would start another race for every middle eastern Muslim nation to have their own nuclear weapons capability.

Does nothing of the past resonate for these people to understand that this is not the right approach?

What about an alternative vision of US power more attuned to the 21st-century realities?  A vision such that today’s technology and communications advances have made the projection of any nation’s power a much different challenge than just the threatening of another war?

Regardless of which party gets to the White House in the 2016 election, the next president is going to have to deal with a global system that has gone pretty unstable. This need for a new, creative application of American power is not only needed, it’s imperative.

However, based on the rhetoric that is being issued by todays many presidential wannabees, the former secretary of state’s speech is very pragmatic in its approach.

In reality, Hillary’s approach should be the a start for the appropriate thinking for those that are really serious about being the most powerful leader in the world.

Being the “biggest bully on the playground” will not work anymore for any nation, and it is not what is needed to help put the US and the world back on the right track. 

However, whatever the case, the world will need some solid American leadership to make a global correction happen.

Doing nothing but offering threats and bluster toward other nations will only make today’s problems that much worse.

Copyright G.Ater  2015