by Anya Morgan 2015

 

I was cringing when President Obama promised his administration was committed to a “no boots on the ground” policy with regard to the recurrent issues plaguing the Middle East. Instinctively, I realized Obama had put himself into a tight corner. Making a promise that may be impossible to keep is extremely risky, especially in this volatile world. Obama should have given himself more leverage perhaps by stating; “he would try to keep boots off the ground.” Unfortunately, Obama’s “no boots on the ground” promise seems unrealistic with respect to the present escalating issues in the Middle East and has become problematic.

Initially, I was also concerned with president Obama’s handling of the Egyptian revolution. I felt there was so much more the United States could of done to support the citizens of Egypt during this critical transition. United States support for the democracy advocates visibly seemed lacking.

Syrian rebels were fighting ISIL, as well as Assad’s autocratic regime. Ironically, after years of non-action and thousands of Syrian deaths, the United States recently reported military support for Syrian rebels. Many excuses were brought forward to explain the lack of intervention in Syria, one that by arming the rebels, they feared they would be arming possible terrorist groups.

Watching Assad commit genocide against its own people may be a lot for the Western global community to stomach, however we did, understanding we lacked the internal intelligence to take a military risk. President Obama obviously could not negotiate with a tyrant and his administrations policy of “no boots on the ground,” made non-action the only choice.

Libya was fortunate to receive U.S. military intervention, although only airstrikes were permitted. Obama’s policy of “no boots on the ground” was upheld, while Omar Kaddafi was successfully over thrown.

The question must be asked, would these Middle Eastern crises been handled more efficiently with military intervention from the United States and its allies? Would the Western alliances have been able to save thousands of lives in the Middle East? What would the probable out come be if military intervention was available to serve the rebels in their fight for democracy?

Many American citizens have sacrificed their lives far away from home with the goal of regaining stability in countries riddled with insurgency and Islamic extremists. As we honor our fallen soldiers, we must face the fact our world is in transition towards global democracy and equal rights, which will repeatedly involve the United States in the future. It is reasonable to assume, the United States will always have boots on the ground, now and in the future, until global security is obtained. We must start to see ourselves as world citizens, as opposed to just citizens of a single country if we are to survive.

Obama understands the reality of a global government and international law as seen in his international policy of diplomacy, rather than military action. Obama is the first President in years to rely on diplomacy without using military ground troops.

I agree that international diplomacy should always be a first choice and military action should be a last resort. All diplomacy is extremely tricky and involves extreme patience, however wroth the effort in avoiding war. I must say that Secretary of State, John Kerry was a person who understood the importance of diplomacy and dedicated his career towards that end.

The prestige and responsibility of winning the Nobel Peace Prize may have solidified Obama’s resolve to keep this promise to the American people. Understanding the importance of “no boots on the ground” policy to the American people, Obama has used diplomacy and negotiation over combat. One must honor Obama’s convictions and strength of character for maintaining his position against all the odds stacked against him.

“No boots on the ground” policy has given the Republican party a reason to criticize Obama’s management of international foreign affairs. History shows that Republican presidents and constituents prefer war and combat to solve global issues, many times without the consent of the American people. Vietnam war has many examples of this political behavior. Under President Johnson’s administration, the Tonkin Incident clearly launched the United States into The Vietnam War. President Bush used pro-war propaganda and false pretenses to start a war in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were never found. The actions of the Republican Party indicate a war-mongering attitude, not only towards handling the Middle East issues, but also within congress.

Bipartisanship between the Democratic and Republican parties is non-existent, instead Republicans are shown to be unwilling to compromise and do the governmental work necessary to run our nation. Many Americans are outraged by such deplorable political behavior and weary of career politicians, who do not care for the needs of the people. Republicans have shown their ideology outdated and completely out of touch with the realities of this modern global society. Global society is emerging; the Republicans cannot seem to accept this reality.

Prior to Obama’s inauguration, our country was viewed by most of the world as being a frightening powerhouse whose attitude was one of global supremacy. Once Obama became President, the world realized a change was possible in the United States and through the hope of nations; he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. President Obama has done everything in his power to insure his legacy is one of compromise and peace. One cannot judge Obama’s international policies without acknowledging the reasoning behind his intentions.

Forty-seven Republicans wrote a letter to Iran under minding our President’s efforts to secure a deal over nuclear proliferation. Outrageous disrespect directed toward the United States President by members of congress is shameful and harmful to our country. Regardless of their difference in ideology, Republicans should be outwardly supportive our nations efforts and respectful of the President.

Perhaps a new enlightened party will someday replace the old, uncompromising Republican Party. Our nation needs more parties to maintain a social balance of reasoning and political thought. Our two party systems may collapse if our government continually fails to be productive in running the country.

Obama’s legacy will depend on the final out come of his international and domestic policies, if they survive the present Republican majority in congress.

 

By Anya Morgan

Photos by Google Photos