THE KIND OF LEADERSHIP AMERICA NEEDS.
It is not what McCain is addressing.
The atrocities in Syria are horrendous; but can the United States jump in without precaution?
That is what Sen. John McCain wants the present administration to do, with his rhetoric and criticism on President Barack Obama's foreign policy over the Memorial day weekend.
The situation in Syria has deteriorated into a civil war; with the government getting support of arms and even forces from Iran, while at the same time, the resistance, which was classified as a political and civil rights movement before, has become a mixture of "freedom fighters" and terrorists.
Al Qaeda, the notorious terror group responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. soil has been mentioned as fighting on the side of the uprising, and there was no sure way to know whose side to take, and how the fighting should be handled.
What McCain was doing was to formulate the idea in the minds of Americans that the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney, whom he supported, would be able to take care of the Syrian crisis.
However, Romney has no inkling of what war was, but only that he believed in the "exceptionalism of the United States" and that would be incentive enough for him to step into the international scene with no caution of any kind. That would not work at all.
He has been referring to Iran getting ahead with its nuclear program and all the dangers that the world would be facing; but the worst would be a leader, who could be blind sided at any time, because of lack of experience, realistic foresight and good planning.
He Romney has said that America was not safe, and he would make sure that the country's military power was second to none in the world. Yet, many people thought that he had his head in the cloud, as he did not know that the U.S. military was the finest ever under President Barack Obama.
Even then, the president would not interfere with everything that was going on around the world. He was aware of the brutality of the Assad regime on his own people, and the assistance that he (Assad) was getting from outside Syria.
Nonetheless, he has to use diplomacy and patience in his actions to get both sides in the Syrian conflict to agree to a ceasefire before anything realistic could occur. He was doing what he could through the U.N. and the international community to bring peace to the Syrian upheaval that has turned into an unexpected war, all of a sudden.
That should be the approach that all leaders in the world should take to resolve volatile issues in the future; rather than jumping into situations, head-on, as McCain was suggesting.
He, McCain, would be giving that kind of advice to Romney, if he should ever become the president; but that would force the U.S. to get into situations that it could not afford.
That would be resulting in blind leadership, as that would plunge the country into more trouble than it was in now, with troops being deployed around the globe, and whose costs would further damage the mild economy as at present.
In an ever changing world, the U.S. should pursue different paths in dealing with world affairs, by using diplomatic venues to resolve controversies, and not exercising military force unilaterally. Such a strategy would no more be useful.
McCain's comments on Obama's foreign policy left many people speechless on a day that the thoughts of the men and women in uniform and the sacrifices they have made, and continue to make for the country, were uppermost in their minds.
It was true that the world was becoming more dangerous, with acts of terrorism almost everywhere, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons and such, presenting so many challenges to the U.S.; but what was needed was not brash optimism for a president to get involved in any crisis, thinking that America would come out unscathed, each and every time.
That would be wishful thinking; and to be mindful of that, Americans should choose a president, who was level headed and would consider all options before sending the military men and women into harm's way; and especially if that president should be leader of the free world, he should be ready to collaborate with other peace loving nations.
What the U.S. needed now should be realistic leadership, and no amount of political rhetoric, from whomever, should be allowed to stop that.
If it was not for his "evolution" on what marriage was or should mean, there was no denying that he (Obama) was capable of that kind of leadership. Nevertheless, he should be given the chance to prove that he has good intentions for the country, of which peace was paramount.