US Democrats, get this straight!

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.