- June 23, 2007 • 12:42 am PDT
- + responses
by Stephan D. Leuenberger
info@stephanleuenberger.com
I find it disappointing that we live in a country who's citizens are fearful and who's leaders constantly anticipate war. Preemptive war is an offensive mentality. Since when do we wish democracy and goodness upon others "through the barrel of a gun," as Congressman Ron Paul recently stated so well? Why did the principle of leading by example vanish? We literally invade and occupy islands or countries around the world in the name of "protecting American interests and peacekeeping," when in reality -- we build strategic and imperial military bases, often at the great expense and disapproval of locals.
Maintaining the practice of war-offensive tactics is far less appealing and constructive than relying on the strength of our defense systems. If we are attacked, then we fight -- but until then, preemptive wars attract more trouble than stability. If we are always on the offensive, we will always live on the edge, frantic and afraid of who might strike next. Is that the life Americans want to live? One of fear and uncertainty? Thinking that war is always eminent will cause great unrest and anxiety among people -- thus, the removal of war-anticipation could bring about tranquility and an understanding and desire of diplomatic strength.
In all fairness, consider this hypothetical; America closes many (if not all) of it's bases internationally, including secret CIA bases and Guantanamo Bay, binging back all of our troops into various U.S. forts and bases within the United States. We strengthen domestic safety and security, saving trillions of dollars on gargantuan military spending (as a result of foreign occupations and invasion -- a money more justly spent on education and health). If a country decides to attack the United States -- let's say Iran -- tell me, would our allies in Europe, for example, turn a blind eye and stand by idly watching while the U.S. suffers from Iranian attacks? It's highly doubtful; plus, we have the most advanced, state of the art military equipment in the world. We'd level the Iranians within a matter of days. Is there truly a country powerful enough to conquer the United States? If not, would that make our foreign policy and imperialistic practice a simple waste of time and money?
Robert A. Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism says that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation. Is war an inevitability or is it something we invite -- with our foreign policy, for example? How would you feel if your neighbor had their own bedroom in your home, against your approval? It would upset you, wouldn't it? Yet, this is exactly how a majority of the international community views the United States' occupation in the Middle East -- as being the neighbor with a bedroom in the home of Middle Easterners. I have no problem with humanitarian aide, but I have qualms over military presence.
We have been led to believe that our presence in the Middle East addresses the "global war on terror" and Iraq's issue with "sectarian violence." Have we stopped to wonder, however, why terrorists attacked us in the first place? It's extremely rare that a stranger randomly punches you in the face, right? More often than not, you did something that incited this act of hate. Over the last few decades, has our military presence in the Middle East added tension to Middle East-U.S. relations? In addition, have we considered the fact that we most likely occupy Iraq in the interest of protecting "our" oil? Congressman Paul recently stated that we've literally started wars to protect our oil interests -- so it isn't much of a secret, I imagine.
You must be curious as to why I mentioned my concerns over U.S. foreign occupations. I did so because for a while now, I have contemplated a future as a political figure, and our foreign policy is one of many "final straws" that more strongly cements this idea. I'm not getting involved in politics for the power, the recognition, or the fame. I'm doing it to reinstate the Constitution and to reintroduce truth to American politics in hopes that nations will emulate our genuine political method. Duty first; self second, right?
I want to serve the United States because I want to preserve the greatness of this country. I have that same respect for every other land in the world. If I was British, I would have the same desire to strengthen England as a nation and its ties with the world. However, I am an American citizen and that is why I choose to serve the United States. If I could, I would serve the world, helping countries get rid of famine, disease, war, and to help nations give their citizens individual rights and privacy, freedom of speech, press, religion, and most importantly -- something our founding fathers were passionate of -- liberty.
info@stephanleuenberger.com
I find it disappointing that we live in a country who's citizens are fearful and who's leaders constantly anticipate war. Preemptive war is an offensive mentality. Since when do we wish democracy and goodness upon others "through the barrel of a gun," as Congressman Ron Paul recently stated so well? Why did the principle of leading by example vanish? We literally invade and occupy islands or countries around the world in the name of "protecting American interests and peacekeeping," when in reality -- we build strategic and imperial military bases, often at the great expense and disapproval of locals.
Maintaining the practice of war-offensive tactics is far less appealing and constructive than relying on the strength of our defense systems. If we are attacked, then we fight -- but until then, preemptive wars attract more trouble than stability. If we are always on the offensive, we will always live on the edge, frantic and afraid of who might strike next. Is that the life Americans want to live? One of fear and uncertainty? Thinking that war is always eminent will cause great unrest and anxiety among people -- thus, the removal of war-anticipation could bring about tranquility and an understanding and desire of diplomatic strength.
In all fairness, consider this hypothetical; America closes many (if not all) of it's bases internationally, including secret CIA bases and Guantanamo Bay, binging back all of our troops into various U.S. forts and bases within the United States. We strengthen domestic safety and security, saving trillions of dollars on gargantuan military spending (as a result of foreign occupations and invasion -- a money more justly spent on education and health). If a country decides to attack the United States -- let's say Iran -- tell me, would our allies in Europe, for example, turn a blind eye and stand by idly watching while the U.S. suffers from Iranian attacks? It's highly doubtful; plus, we have the most advanced, state of the art military equipment in the world. We'd level the Iranians within a matter of days. Is there truly a country powerful enough to conquer the United States? If not, would that make our foreign policy and imperialistic practice a simple waste of time and money?
Robert A. Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism says that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation. Is war an inevitability or is it something we invite -- with our foreign policy, for example? How would you feel if your neighbor had their own bedroom in your home, against your approval? It would upset you, wouldn't it? Yet, this is exactly how a majority of the international community views the United States' occupation in the Middle East -- as being the neighbor with a bedroom in the home of Middle Easterners. I have no problem with humanitarian aide, but I have qualms over military presence.
We have been led to believe that our presence in the Middle East addresses the "global war on terror" and Iraq's issue with "sectarian violence." Have we stopped to wonder, however, why terrorists attacked us in the first place? It's extremely rare that a stranger randomly punches you in the face, right? More often than not, you did something that incited this act of hate. Over the last few decades, has our military presence in the Middle East added tension to Middle East-U.S. relations? In addition, have we considered the fact that we most likely occupy Iraq in the interest of protecting "our" oil? Congressman Paul recently stated that we've literally started wars to protect our oil interests -- so it isn't much of a secret, I imagine.
You must be curious as to why I mentioned my concerns over U.S. foreign occupations. I did so because for a while now, I have contemplated a future as a political figure, and our foreign policy is one of many "final straws" that more strongly cements this idea. I'm not getting involved in politics for the power, the recognition, or the fame. I'm doing it to reinstate the Constitution and to reintroduce truth to American politics in hopes that nations will emulate our genuine political method. Duty first; self second, right?
I want to serve the United States because I want to preserve the greatness of this country. I have that same respect for every other land in the world. If I was British, I would have the same desire to strengthen England as a nation and its ties with the world. However, I am an American citizen and that is why I choose to serve the United States. If I could, I would serve the world, helping countries get rid of famine, disease, war, and to help nations give their citizens individual rights and privacy, freedom of speech, press, religion, and most importantly -- something our founding fathers were passionate of -- liberty.
