OBAMA & WORLD PEACE.
He must be on the right target.
In a political atmosphere of give and take, one must constantly have a cool head and be able to remember that not all things should be framed in one-liners or sweeping statements, as Mitt Romney did over the weekend on President Barack Obama's "bumps in the road" assessment of what was going on in Libya, in particular.
He was obviously alluding to a new government in a country that has just emerged from a revolution, by ousting a brutal dictator, and anxious to rebuild itself into a viable state to fit into the comity of modern nations. So, not everything would go smoothly at first; there would be setbacks.
There was no need to downplay the assault on the Benghazi consulate that took the lives of four wonderful Americans, including the United States Ambassador there, and any remark to reverse Obama's attitude toward that unwelcome event would be nothing short of being asinine.
In the Muslim world generally, the dispute about a movie depicting Mohammad as a charlatan has enraged millions of the Islam faith, and that has caused a reaction to defile the American flag in return. It was a natural thing for them (Muslims) to do, because the movie was finally put together in California.
However, for Romney to make a broad statement in response to the attack on the Benghazi consulate, particularly, and the disturbances about the movie in general, saying that, "When I am president, I will shape events in the Middle East....," to an audience in Colorado, a battle ground state in the 2012 presidential election, which was tilting to President Obama, it (statement) was intended to condemn Obama, and that was going too far.
In fact, that was an extremely outlandish statement, and it met with a great deal of applause; but it did not occur to even one person in the crowd to ask the question, "How?"
Well, shaping events took a lot of planning, but the Middle East being a boiling point with controversies, like Iran fully engaged in acquiring a nuclear weapon, and with Israel being agitated by Iran's ambition, what would the U.S. do to shape events there?
Unless the president would want to "reshape" events in that part of the world, by siding with Israel and eliminating the nuclear facilities in Iran with "bunker-buster" bombs; and that would be a different kettle of fish, one could tell you that. It would be a task that went beyond what he could really do to make matters even for both sides.
The developments there would be worse; and the protests that were going on now, with embassies and consulates being attacked and fires being set on properties, American or not, would completely get out of hand.
It would be like the U.S. aligning with Israel against an Islamic country, an a real war would break out to engulf the region and many parts of the world, such as Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and not to mention Afghanistan, where the Taliban was already up in arms with the Western world, being led by the U.S.
They being Islamic countries, already assumed that the West was in a stern conflagration with the Islamic faith, and they would die first before they would be defeated in any way, shape or form.
Making elaborate comments in a political campaign was grand, and that could win votes alright, but the aftermath of what those comments would do was what should be taken into consideration. Whether they would draw controversies toward peace or to make matters even more confusing than previously.
Foreign policy was not to show a fist in the face of another country to prove that one was strong, and therefore one could do whatever that pleased one in any situation in world affairs. That would be a downright foolish policy for any leader to embark upon; and with the U.S. being the remaining super power in the world today, it must rather be a pacifier and not a war monger, in order to encourage world peace.
Shaping events now was not done unilaterally, because one has military muscle power just to flex it. They involved many countries coming together and finding ways and means to solve world problems.
That was what many people thought Obama's doctrine has been since he took office as president of U.S. They (people) found it to be better than getting into wars around the globe; a scenario in which the country's resources and efforts could never cover, however much the U.S. would want to expand its influence, power and strength in world affairs.
They would want Obama to demonstrate that spirit of unifying the world, and not to set country against country, in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly today.
He has every opportunity to accomplish that feat, with the backing of all peace loving nations. Romney's barking in the local presidential campaign must not disturb him at all; as world peace must come first.
No comments yet.