Can we please stop using the word “embolden” to describe American policies with respect to our enemies?

“Embolden” has become a buzz word to attack the foreign policy maneuvers of political enemies here in the United States.  President Bush used to say that withdrawing from Iraq would “embolden” the terrorists–and many Democrats pushed back by arguing that in fact the Iraq War itself had “emboldened” the terrorists.  Just today Mitt Romney attacked Obama for “emboldening” North Korea by trying to engage with them diplomatically.

But what does “embolden” actually mean?  The dictionary definition is to make bold, to give someone courage or confidence.  But in the context of a strategic environment, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense. Continue reading »

 

The thing I love about Newt Gingrich is that whenever he finds himself with one foot in his mouth, he decides that the best way to maintain his balance is to put the other one there as well. In this particular case, I’m talking about comments he made over the weekend regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gingrich had previously created a bit of a stir by calling the Palestinians a “invented” people. During the latest GOP debate, Gingrich refused to back down:

“Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. Are we in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel? While the United States, the current administration tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process… Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists.”

So, because he asked, let’s look at the history. Continue reading »

 

Herman Cain recently released a foreign policy platform. First of all, I applaud him for doing so. While the platform has many, many faults (which I will get to in a moment) the fact that he’s stepped beyond warning Americans that China is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons is a dramatic improvement. (In case you’re curious, China has actually had nuclear weapons for almost 50 years now, and is widely believed to have the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world behind the US and Russia.) So, while I’m about to criticize almost everything he says in that platform, the platform’s basic existence is a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the details of the platform are pretty disappointing. Continue reading »

 

Make sure to read this excellent article by Stanley Fish, Law Professor and New York Times opinion contributor. This gist of his observation is this:

“If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on or is in the air (he came from nowhere) and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.”

Continue reading »

 

There is an interesting opinion piece today by Timothy Egan on nytimes.com about mutually assured destruction (MAD). MAD is a Cold War era policy that says essentially “if you nuke our cities, we promise to nuke your cities”.

Egan assumes, like many people do, that MAD kept us safe during the Cold War. But he criticizes the Pentagon for continuing to rely on MAD in an era where the greatest threats to United States security are terrorist organizations:
Continue reading »

© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha