American foreign policy

The Dangerous Mental Instability Of Donald Trump Endangers American Politics And Foreign Policy

Ronald Leave a comment

America is faced with a political crisis that many seem not to realize exists, as the Presidential Election campaign of 2016 evolves.

Businessman Donald Trump is looked at by many as a cartoon character, someone not to be taken seriously.

This is a major mistake, as Donald Trump is a maniac and an egotist who endangers American politics and foreign relations.

Many people laugh and say there is no way that Trump can be the Republican Presidential nominee, and no way he could be elected President.

While that certainly seems legitimate to believe, the discontent of the American people with their political system and the role of America in world affairs, means that there is no way to say how Americans at large might react to Trumps’s blustering, bullying, and braggadocio.

Trump has been on the attack against every Republican candidate for President, and has not minced words in his insults, and it makes great theater.

But his insults undermine the concept of civility and decency in our politics, and will lead to a further disillusionment and deterioration of our body politic.

It seems apparent that Trump will run as a third party candidate, since the GOP will do everything it can to prevent his nomination, and that will insure that the Democrats will win, the only good result that is likely to occur from the Trump candidacy.

But Trump should not be seen as simply a laughable figure who adds entertainment to the political scene.

He must be seen for what he really is—a dangerously mentally ill and unstable personality, who could cause the spread of racism and nativism as legitimate, since he is engaged in such beliefs. He could also cause international instability with his attacks on Mexico, Russia, China, Iran and other nations, as many ill informed Americans might agree with his sentiments on these nations, and could, therefore, provoke new stresses on President Obama’s ability to control foreign relations.

We do not need a “loose cannon” who has no limits and endangers the nation, as his rhetoric could also inspire “lone wolves” to attempt to harm President Barack Obama, as well as any and all of the Presidential candidates, and even, ironically, Donald Trump himself! Do not forget that Trump still contends that Obama was not born in the United States, and “Birthers” still congregate around him and his candidacy!

Speaker John Boehner, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu And President Obama: An Unwise Controversy!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Speaker of the House John Boehner has contempt for President Obama.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has contempt for President Obama.

Netanyahu has long been known to be a Republican partisan, and has demonstrated no discretion in his treatment of President Obama.

Israel has been treated in an appropriate way, meaning their viewpoints are considered, and the security and safety of Israel has always been at the forefront of American foreign policy in the Middle East, including the increased protection provided by the Iron Dome system.

Israel receives more foreign aid than any other nation from America, and knows the US is behind them in any perilous situation.

But that does not mean we must bend to the will and desires of any particular Israeli government, and we are still a sovereign nation, and may disagree on tactics and strategy with any foreign government.

To say that Barack Obama is an enemy of Israel is totally preposterous, and Benjamin Netanyahu is playing with fire in agreeing to speak before a joint session of Congress, without Presidential support and endorsement. He is making a vast mistake in defying President Obama, and allowing a disreputable Speaker of the House to make a political issue out of a relationship that should not be politicized.

Boehner should withdraw the invitation so close to an Israeli national election, or Netanyahu should change his plans, and if neither happens, the only nation that will be hurt, unwisely, and unnecessarily, is Israel.

A dispute within the family of the US-Israeli relationship is nothing new, as it has been common for there to be differences on policy and personality under other Presidents, including Presidents of both parties, but this controversy threatens long term harm, from which no one gains!

The Tea Party Movement At Five Years: What Has It Accomplished?

Ronald 8 Comments

The Tea Party Movement reached five years of age in the last few days, and the question is what has been accomplished?

The Tea Party Movement has led to the following:

Complete stalemate and gridlock in both houses of Congress.

The weakening of the power of the Speaker of the House John Boehner to the level it was in 1910 after the “House Revolution” against Speaker Joseph Cannon.

The loss of a potential Senate majority for the Republican Party twice, when it seemed possible.

The undermining of the American economy and America’s image in the world.

The promotion of racism, misogyny, nativism, and hate and confrontation.

The undermining of national government in favor of sectionalism and secession.

The growing inability of President Obama to gain any kind of cooperation from the opposition party, unseen since the time of Andrew Johnson.

The loss of any reasonable civility between the leaders of the Republican Party and the President of the opposition party.

The growing split between the two major political parties in a manner unseen since the Civil War-Reconstruction Era 150 years ago.

The growing personal threats of assassination against President Obama, unseen at this level since the time of Abraham Lincoln.

But there are signs that the American people have had it with the Tea Party Movement in the Congress and in the state governments.

This is a clear cut warning for those promoting this divisiveness and anarchy, that the time for return to civility has arrived, and that if those in government now refuse to see the handwriting on the wall, then they will be repudiated in 2014 and 2016!

What Republican Presidents Have Wrought: The Vietnam War Syndrome And The Iraq War Syndrome!

Ronald 5 Comments

The Republican Party loves to claim that they are the experts, when it comes to American foreign policy, that they are far better than Democrats in executing foreign policy.

But the facts of history tell us otherwise, as witness:

Before America entered World War II. who were some of the most powerful, most influential people advocating isolationism— Republicans such as Senators Robert Taft of Ohio, Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, Hiram Johnson of California, and Gerald Nye of North Dakota, with the latter two discussed in detail in the author’s book: TWILIGHT OF PROGRESSIVISM: THE WESTERN REPUBLICAN SENATORS AND THE NEW DEAL (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981).

When America entered the escalation stage of the Vietnam War under Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, it was Republicans who backed the President in much greater numbers than Democrats, but even Johnson finally realized the need for America to get out of the war, and decided not to run again in 1968.

Republican President Richard Nixon ran his campaign for the Presidency in 1968, pledging that he would end the Vietnam War expeditiously, and saying he had a “secret plan” to end the war, which soon became evident did not exist, and Nixon made up his plan to end the war as he went along, and it took four long years to end the war, with a heavier loss of soldiers killed and wounded, than had been so under Johnson! Nixon and Henry Kissinger, his National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, misled the American people and lied to them about the plans and strategies to end the war, and it created a feeling of unwillingness to engage in overseas crises as a result, what could be called the Vietnam War Syndrome.

And then under George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Republican run national government in 2003 lied to us, manipulated us, propagandized us, to begin a war in Iraq, with no plan to get out, and the war dragged on through the second Bush term, and into the Barack Obama Administration. No “weapons of mass destruction” were ever found, and it created an Iraq War Syndrome, which now has made many Americans reluctant to engage in a military action against an outlaw nation, Syria, which has utilized chemical warfare, only the third world leader ever to do so, after Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein!

So the Republican Party and its cynical, corrupt leadership in the 1969-1973 and 2002-2009 periods poisoned the political atmosphere of America, making it more difficult to engage in the shaping of a sane, rational foreign policy that would be in American interests.

And now Rand Paul and his kind, libertarian “Know Nothings”, promote isolationism all over again, back to the image of the GOP in the late 1930s before American entrance into World War II.

The damage that Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush have wrought is massive, and undermining America in 2013 from doing what it must do, react to the massive war crime of the Syrian government!

Second Term Presidencies Taken Over By Foreign Crises: Will It Happen Again Now?

Ronald Leave a comment

Three American Presidents in the last hundred years have been faced by foreign crises leading to war, and disrupting their domestic intentions for their second term of office. All three hoped to accomplish much more internally, but were distracted and diverted by major wars they could not avoid.

Woodrow Wilson had accomplished the most domestic reform in American history of any President until his time, but then World War I intruded, and his second term was dominated by the war and its aftermath.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had surpassed Woodrow Wilson in domestic accomplishments in his first term with his New Deal, but his second term became one of growing concern over the threat of the Japanese Empire to our territories (Hawaii, Guam, The Philippines) in the Pacific, plus the growing threat of Fascism and Nazism represented by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in Europe—leading to concern of its effect on our traditional European friends if not formal allies, Great Britain and France. Although America would not enter World War II until FDR’s third term, the threat of war was ever present, and divided this nation in a massive way between internationalists and isolationists.

Harry Truman had a much more difficult time domestically, and had to deal with the Cold War with the Soviet Union, but hoped to promote a Fair Deal in his second term, but instead had to deal with the Korean War.

Now, Barack Obama faces the growing threat of real war with two nations who have lunatic leadership, and are capable of provoking major wars, emboldened by their nuclear intentions—Iran and North Korea.

Iran moves ahead on nuclear development, unaffected by the major nations bringing pressure and economic sanctions on them, and still seen as potentially able to threaten the survival of Israel, and cause a major cut off of oil in the Straits of Hormuz. While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is leaving in June, it is clear that the Ayatollah Khamenei and the extremist Shiite Muslim leadership really dictates policy, and that anything is possible, including war.

North Korea, under its new young (30) leader, Kim Jong Un, has now declared that the truce agreement which ended the Korean War sixty years ago is null and void; has been testing nuclear weapons against international outcry, including China; and has threatened this past week that it might launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on South Korea and the United States. This all seems bluster, but who can say for sure?

So our need as a nation to face the possibility of war with two international outlaws makes the whole budget issue much more complex, and makes the odds of more domestic reform activities all the harder to accomplish.

Much like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, Barack Obama may face being a war President against his will, and his Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel will be sorely tested over the next four years in their hope to avoid a war, just as we are trying to exit a war in Afghanistan, after having done just that in Iraq!

Transformative Presidents In Diplomacy And Foreign Affairs

Ronald 3 Comments

With Presidents Day coming up on Monday, this is a good time to assess the Presidents who were transformative in diplomacy and foreign affairs.

The Presidents who truly made a difference in foreign policy would include the following, chronologically:

Thomas Jefferson—who presided over the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 negotiated with France, and the handling of the Chesapeake Affair of 1807, avoiding war with Great Britain, but causing decline in public opinion about Jefferson as he left office, due to the economic decline caused by the Embargo Act.

James Monroe—who, with the brilliant leadership of Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, was able to gain control of Florida in 1819, settle much of the Canadian boundary in the same time frame, and promote the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, a major part of American foreign policy in the future.

James K. Polk—under whom the Pacific Northwest was gained by negotiation with Great Britain, and the American Southwest and California by war with Mexico between 1846 and 1848.

William McKinley—under whom Hawaii was added as a territory, and America gained an “Empire” by engagement in the Spanish American War in 1898.

Theodore Roosevelt—under whom America fully engaged with the outside world, including foreign crises and wars in Europe and Asia, as well as growing intervention in Latin America between 1901-1909.

Woodrow Wilson—under whom America fully entered into international war involvement in the First World War in 1917, and then rejected internationalism as Wilson left office in 1921.

Franklin D. Roosevelt—who took America out of isolationism in the late 1930s, and presided over our involvement in World War II between 1941-1945, and the growth of America as a super power by 1945.

Harry Truman—who led us into the Cold War with the Soviet Union after 1945, with transitional foreign policy leadership that set the mold for the next half century until 1991.

Richard Nixon—who moved America toward detente with the Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, and opened up to mainland China between 1969 and 1974.

George H. W, Bush—who smoothed the end of the Cold War, was receptive to a unified Germany as a result, and created a coalition to prevent Iraqi domination in the Middle East in the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

Other Presidents who had an impact on diplomacy and foreign affairs in a major, if not transformative manner, would include:

George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush

Sadly, Lyndon B, Johnson and George W. Bush were mostly negative forces in foreign affairs; Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were mixed in their results; while George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy were much more positive.

Inevitable Result: Defeat Of Richard Lugar, And The Death Of Bi-Partisanship In The US Senate

Ronald Leave a comment

The inevitable defeat of Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican Senate primary by Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party favorite, is a major tragedy for Indiana and for the US Senate,and also, for the Republican Party’s history and future!

Lugar, without question, was one of the most brilliant, insightful, intelligent, and learned members of the US Senate, not just now, but for decades in the past.

Richard Lugar was a man who promoted bi-partisanship and reason, rather than yelling and screaming and gridlock and stalemate, and he will be greatly missed.

And with him being forced out of the Senate, and Maine Senator Olympia Snowe voluntarily leaving the Senate, the Republican Party in the Senate becomes a true disaster area, leaving who is left as easily the most disgraceful group under the party name that we have ever seen in American history, from the beginning of the history of the party in 1854!

The GOP was a party of reform in the Civil War-Reconstruction Era, in the Progressive Era, and in the post World War II period, at least in the Northeast and scattered cases elsewhere in the 1960s and 1970s.

The deterioration of the moderate and liberal Republicans began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and now is complete!

And to try to understand why Lugar was defeated is enough to make one wonder about the ignorance and stupidity of the voters who defeated him in Indiana.

What were their reasons to defeat him?

He is too old, being 80–totally ridiculous, as Lugar was a spry 80, fully in charge of his physical and mental faculties, more than most Republican Senate colleagues, who have far less ability at their younger ages than Lugar has always had.

Lugar spent most of his time in Virginia, and hardly ever was in Indiana for residence purposes–ridiculous as doing his job requires a Senator to spend most of his time in the DC area. This is such a totally phony issue and excuse to defeat a Senator who devoted his life to his state’s betterment.

Lugar was from Indianapolis, and the rest of the state resented his urban background–preposterous excuse to defeat him, but not uncommon in many states that the rural areas of a state resent the urban areas. But the thought that “country yokels” resent urban areas, and educated, intelligent people is an example of the problem of this country, that the “Know Nothing” hillbillies resent anyone who actually has brains and talent, and instead want a “good old boy”!

Lugar had the gall to do bi-partisan things, even with Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate–idiotic as that is the only way to get things done effectively, and Lugar always used principle over politics in his judgments, and was far from a liberal, but an honest, decent conservative.

Lugar specialized in foreign policy, and many rural people in Indiana hate foreign governments and the outside world in general–another example of the dangers of these”rural folk” having the ability to keep themselves and their fellow citizens out of touch with the “real world” out there. This anti foreign attitude is much too prevalent all over the country, and endangers our future in a complex world.

So the question arises over what Richard Lugar will do in 2013. He could go home to retirement, but does not seem like the type to want to do that. He could become a professor with specialty in international relations, and many universities would grab at the possibility of employing this brilliant statesman. He could write his memoirs, which would be fascinating.

But also, imagine this! As a good friend, and at times, supporter of Barack Obama on some issues, and with their common work on trying to prevent the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons when Obama was in the Senate in 2005-2006, and with Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department next year, there will be a vacancy that Lugar could fill very well!

Would the Republicans in the Senate oppose their long time colleague, with 36 years of experience, much of it in foreign policy, similar to the experience in foreign policy issues of Vice President Joe Biden, if Lugar wished to serve Obama as Secretary of State?

The assumption is that they would back him if Obama was re-elected and asked Lugar to serve his nation in another distinguished way, as Secretary of State.

So Indiana’s loss could be America’s and Barack Obama’s gain in 2013, and Lugar would richly deserve such an opportunity!

The Imminent Loss Of A True Statesman From The US Senate: Richard Lugar Of Indiana

Ronald Leave a comment

With 24 hours to go, it seems imminent that Indiana Senator Richard Lugar is about to lose his Republican primary for a seventh term to a Tea Party right wing extremist.

If this happens, as expected, it will be a true tragedy not only for Lugar, but also for Indiana, and for the wish for bipartisanship and principle in the US Senate.

Lugar has been in the Senate for 36 years, after serving as Mayor of Indianapolis, and while he is a strong conservative, he has never resorted to reckless statements or crazy viewpoints, always keeping his dignity and image as a person willing to cross the aisle and work with opposition Democrats.

The fact that he cooperated with a new Senator, Barack Obama, in 2005-2006, on working to avoid the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons on a world wide basis, now is being held against him.

The fact that he has occasionally supported the President on a few issues, not many, was enough to make people angry in his right wing Republican state.

The National Rifle Association is against him; Lugar has supported the DREAM Act on immigration; and he supported the two Supreme Court nominees of Barack Obama.

Lugar was twice Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and twice Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and if the Republicans won the Senate in 2012 and Lugar won, he would be Senate President Pro Tempore, third in line of succession to be President of the United States.

Of course, Lugar’s age, 80, could be used against him, but he is a very vigorous, energetic 80, and is seen by many as a brilliant statesman in his major area of interest, foreign policy.

But the GOP of 2012 is sadly controlled too much by the Tea Party and other right wingers, and the only good thing that might come out of a defeat of Richard Lugar is the takeover of the seat by a Democrat, Congressman Joe Donnelly, which would give his party a chance at keeping the Senate majority, a much endangered majority!

Is Mitt Romney “Captive” Of Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, And Bill Kristol?

Ronald Leave a comment

Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee, is a man with very few interests, other than making money, along with caring about his family and his Mormon Church.

He has really no background or great knowledge in foreign policy, and has very little interest in improving the lives of average Americans.

Many are starting to wonder if he the “captive” of Grover Norquist, Paul Ryan, and Bill Kristol.

Grover Norquist, the head of Americans For Tax Reform, has been able to convince almost all Republicans in Congress to agree NEVER to raise taxes on ANYONE, and in fact, lower them ever more. Mitt Romney has committed himself to this insanity, and of course, he personally benefits from such a policy.

Paul Ryan, the House Budget Chairman from Wisconsin, promotes the idea of destroying Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as we know it, and has been even criticized by leaders of his own Catholic Church for his harsh view and attitude towards the poor. Romney has also expressed the thought that nothing more needs to be done for those less fortunate.

Bill Kristol is the publisher of the conservative weekly, The Weekly Standard, since its inception in 1994, and he is infamous as one of the “neocons”, the so called neo conservatives, who call for use of force overseas, and advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Mitt Romney has pushed for the idea of bombing Iran, rather than diplomacy first being pursued over their nuclear program.

So one has to wonder if Mitt Romney, having no interest in issues other than what will elect him, is allowing himself now, and later as President, were he to be elected, to enact policies favored by these three men and others, which many would call “radical” ideas.

It is truly ironic that Barack Obama is often called a “radical” President, when if one examines Mitt Romney and who has influence or power over him, we should instead be concerned that Mitt Romney is the true “radical” in the race, ready to reverse progress and change under Barack Obama, and go back to the failed policies of George W. Bush!

In Defense Of Jimmy Carter In The Controversy Over Osama Bin Laden

Ronald Leave a comment

With the debate over the question of whether President Barack Obama should be able to take credit for the death of Osama Bin Laden and use it in the upcoming campaign, we have heard the name “Jimmy Carter” constantly brought up in a derisive manner by Mitt Romney, John McCain and other Republicans, and it makes one want to scream!

Jimmy Carter is very proud of the fact that we did not go to war in his administration; that he helped to negotiate a long lasting agreement, the Camp David Accords, between Egypt and Israel; that he successfully negotiated an agreement to give back the Panama Canal to that nation’s control; promoted human rights, setting a standard principle which has been utilized as a principle of American foreign policy since; and had the courage to take strong action to try and rescue American hostages in Iran, the failed mission occurring in April 1980.

Yes, the rescue mission failed, but Carter could take the credit for the fact that all of the hostages came home, upon the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. The problem was that all of the good that Carter did in foreign policy, as well as domestic policy, was overshadowed by the Iran crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic recession that occurred, including an oil embargo that raised gasoline prices.

Carter was the victim of circumstance, but deserves much better treatment and respect, as the only other President so attacked on a regular basis after his Presidency as incompetent, who was Herbert Hoover.

It is ironic that these two Presidents, educated as engineers, both brilliant in intellect, both one term Presidents soundly defeated for re-election, ended up having longer retirements than any other President, with Hoover’s thirty one and a half years in retirement to be passed by Carter on September 8, 2012, just four months from now.

Hopefully, when he reaches that milestone in September, we will see the country celebrate Carter’s longevity, and celebrate his contributions to the country, instead of constant ridicule and disrespect.

But, if anything, Carter’s failure to rescue the hostages probably led to his defeat in 1980 by Ronald Reagan, and that makes Barack Obama’s gamble on Osama Bin Laden, and his courage and decisiveness in the matter, even more impressive, and means everyone should be willing to applaud Obama, and give him the right to use it as an issue in the Presidential Election of 2012!

One can be sure a Republican President would use it as a campaign issue, and we all know that George W. Bush politicized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to his political advantage!