Original
article: 29th January, 2016 | Revised :
24th February, 2016
‘Your three main
priorities during the first 100 days?’ was the first question to the Democratic
Presidential candidates on January 17th 2016. ‘To defeat ISIS’ said none! Not
O’Malley, not Clinton, not Sanders. This fact alone killed all my eagerness
while watching the Democratic debate as I knew what was to come. We already are
bored of the same old rhetoric – increase income for middle class, Glass
Steagall, equal pay for women, climate change, healthcare, faulty campaign
finance system, Trump, Trump, and Trump.
But yesterday,
15 minutes into the Republican debate, Marco Rubio was the first to utter the
word ‘ISIS’, and the issue of foreign policy pretty much was the central theme
of the whole debate thereafter, as it should have been!
Every election
has a premise. The premise becomes increasingly more obvious only as the
primary reaches conclusion. But this time is special. The premise that should
be chosen is out there in the open, in bright sunshine, all alone, quite
obvious, and up for grabs. No matter who you are – Democrat or Republican – you
will sway towards the candidate who grabs that premise. But why aren’t the
Democrats grabbing it?
More than it
being a matter of pride for the United States citizens, it is a moral
responsibility (being the wealthiest country and biggest democracy in the
world) of the POTUS (President Of The United States) to take steps towards
making this world a better place to live in – a responsibility, sadly, many of
the candidates either are not qualified to or are not willing to take. It will
send out a very negative message to the world if the next POTUS says, ‘We have
learnt from our past mistakes and we will no longer work as the world’s police
because it was never our job.’
Every time a
candidate plays this card, I see that as an insult. An insult to everything
what the generations before stood up for. Those were the days when the POTUS
Ronald Raegan declared that US is the country best positioned to promote peace,
not because of its tolerance but because of its strength. A strength that they
then took pride in. A strength that brought down the Berlin wall. A strength
that stood up against colonialism, communism, and sheer filthy cannibalism in
the name of government. Never will we be able to comprehend the number of wars
that the world averted because of the US leadership. It is a shame that a few
tactical errors in the recent past made the US rethink its whole stance.
And what are we
discussing during the ‘foreign policy’ segment of the Democratic debates?
Whether it is ethical to call it ‘radical/jihadi/Islamic terrorism’ or not.
Whether you call it ‘ground forces’ or ‘boots on ground’. As if all you had to
do was call it the right name and that was it. You dare call it the wrong name
and you are doomed for this election. Violent and peaceful ways are not
distinguished by what you call your adversaries as. You can take an aggressive
stance and yet embrace peaceful, just, and humane ways to defeat them. You
change your strategies if you had had false starts, not your stance.
The world has
currently been successful in pinning the US down by making the citizens feel
guilty for what has happened in the middle-east. Doubting its own abilities and
decision-making is the last thing the US would want to do. The world would
rather have the leader of the strongest democracy take world decisions than
have Russia or China do that. The void that you will create by taking a step
back will not be filled by any saner power mind you!
Yes there are
issues at home. Yes it is time for the other richer nations in the middle-east
to take action. I too urge the Muslim countries – It is time to prove to the
world that yours is the most misrepresented religion; that you will be the
first line of defense for the world; that you are for peace; that you disown
ISIS and extremism. But for how long exactly is form. Sec. Clinton planning to
wait for them to wake up? And how are you planning to support their
initiatives? By supplying arms? Intelligence? Seriously? Since when have we
started believing, to fight the biggest terrorist group ever, in those
militaries who have hardly been in a successful war all by themselves?
The world
definitely will witness a political and diplomatic hiatus for a couple of
months in toto during the transition phase for the next POTUS. How long are we
expecting the ISIS to pause while we get our stuff together? And, by show of
hands, how many of us feel that we can persuade the ISIS and the other states
involved by reason and dialogue? Who are we kidding here? I will tell you what
true Democratic hypocrisy is. It is when you discuss the immigration of Muslims
in the same segment as that devoted for ISIS. No matter what you call what.
This fact in itself speaks and proves all that it has to.
The premise of
the election is, frankly, very clear. This election is not of the next POTUS,
but that of the next commander-in-chief, as rightly said by Ted Cruz. The
stance of the new commander-in-chief on war will set the record straight for
all the other leaders of the world. This is no time, as there never was and as
there never will be, for on-the-job-commander-in-chief-training for the POTUS.
This is no time to tell us Sen. Sanders that you were against the Iraq war in
the very first place. This is a different kind of war. This is not a war where
you invade a country on the assumption that they possess something or that they
may be on the verge of doing something. This is a war against an established
organization which comprise terrorists and only terrorists, who have forced
millions out of their country, orchestrated countless atrocities on women and
children worldwide time and again, and who FYI have declared your country their
first nemesis! Get this straight.
