Worldview Item of the Day
Hilary Clinton has threatened the future security of the United States by declaring that her tenure as Secretary of State will include a forcible return to the notion that the best way to secure peace is by talking.
The last time a Clinton pursued that strategy, bin Laden was able to flee Sudan for Afghanistan, al Qaeda was able to bomb African embassies, the USS Cole, and plan 9-11, and India, North Korea, and Pakistan was able to build nuclear weapons right under our noses without us knowing about it.
Yes, I do blame Bill Clinton for all of those things. It was his watch and they were his failures.
Now, Hillary Clinton boldly proclaims that she s going to negotiate unilaterally with Iran, the state sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah, and North Korea, who most recently has refused to give up its nuclear weapons as part of any kind of agreement. The last time a world leader agreed to negotiate with a despotic, totalitarian regime, World War Two was the result and Europe was eventually plunged into sixty years of cold war.
The problem with the entire line of reasoning that Clinton represents is that it is entirely idealistic. Idealism is great, in its place. I want peace and understanding between nations as much as anyone, but the last time I checked, talking has never stopped anyone motivated by his own ideology and willing to kill from doing so. Therein lies the failure of diplomacy with ideologically motivated enemies: our ideology is irrelevant to theirs.
So, she will try and talk to the likes of Iran, even as that nation continues to develop the capacity to build nuclear weapons and sponsors the actions of terrorist organizations that have explicitly declared war on civilian populations. She will try and talk to the North Koreans even as they refuse to negotiate. She might even try to talk to the Taliban. Perhaps she negotiate with al Qaeda too. Will she make an agreement with the Somali Shabaab to end piracy there? Perhaps, she will be able to declare peace in our time.
We live in a dangerous time for our nation and for liberty around the world. Hillary Clinton, and Barrack Obama as her president, represent a tendency that could threaten our security and put us at greater risk by our enemies. Because of their idealism, we all face a future potentially more dangerous than the one we faced for the last eight years.
Even Thomas Jefferson, possibly our most pacifistic Founding Father and president, famous for his exhortations against foreign entanglements and for diplomacy, understood that diplomacy must end in the face of a tenacious enemy, hence his ordering of the US Navy and Marine Corps into combat against the Barbary Pirates of North Africa. It is ironic that the two other presidents from Illinois, Lincoln and Grant, were war-time leaders.
What remains in the face of the failed ideology that Clinton represents is for the responsible citizens of the United States to demand that the government does its job, which is to respond to us, even in matters of national security. We mist demand liberty before security and security before peace, and we must never, ever negotiate with the enemies of liberty or peace. It seems to me that Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have committed themselves to both.