AMERICAN STRATEGY AND FOREIGN POLICY: It Might Benefit from an Angry President

Take a look at this map of the Middle East at the World Atlas web site:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm

The current floundering and lack of response by the United States is a result of unintended consequences. The Liberals and the President have done all they can to dismantle what they believed was America’s Imperialist and Colonialist relationships and strategic positions. As a result, we have a situation where we are sort of allied with Shi’ite Iranian elements in Iraq to take down DAESH. We are also sort of allied with Saudi elements fighting against the Iranian supported Shi’ites in Yemen. On top of that, most of our traditional friends are reluctant to walk across this bridge with us.
This is about as schizophrenic and ill-informed a foreign policy as Neville Chamberlain proclaiming “Peace in our time,” in 1938.

Without a strategy or plan, we are obviously in react mode, led by a bunch of clowns with no clue about how to deal with the unintended consequences of dismantling what they believed was U.S. Colonialist relationships and institutions. Here is the reality that took down Jimmy Carter’s Presidency and that every President since has had to at least contemplate: Iran is our enemy, given to the Mullahs when Jimmy Carter pulled our supporting forces out of Iran, and imitated by Obama in Yemen.

Draw an Arrow from Iran, across Iraq. Draw another Arrow up Yemen toward Mecca. Wait a minute… Yemen? Yep. If the Shi’ites win in Yemen, how long will it be before Iran moves armored divisions into Yemen? Two weeks. Maybe three, tops.

Those two arrows define the strategic intent of Iran. Reaching west across Iraq and north from Yemen, they want to seize the Moslem Holy Places for the Shi’ites. The one big problem is that Jerusalem is a Moslem Holy place and at the end of both arrows.

Let’s shift a moment. Charles Krauthammer is a great reporter but I have to disagree with him on something. He questioned Rand Paul’s combativeness, saying that is not a picture a candidate would want drawn of him. Mark Levin said the other night that in the 20th Century, only two Presidents were truly conservative – Coolidge and Reagan. Americans under 50 years old have not had a chance to seriously consider a conservative and vote for him.

My response is a little complex. The failure of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East is a result of the Obama Admin dismantling the strategic relationships and military that they perceived as Imperialist and Colonialist. In the mess we have now, there is no strategy to which Washington D.C. can link its foreign policy. As a result, Iran is working its two-pronged strategy vigorously. If we elect a Libertarian who wants to cut foreign aide and dramatically change our foreign policy, I am good with that because we certainly have no foreign policy, now. Rand Paul might actually anchor foreign policy to strategy, the way it should be, instead of grinding out foreign policy to fill an agenda the way the Obama people do.

In speaking about Rand Paul, Krauthammer made the statement that Americans do not want to elect an angry President. Bullcrap! I hope I am not the only one, but I want a President who is pissed enough to dismantle our entitlement culture. I want one that pushes forward to rebuild the military into a force able to kick the tails of DAESH people who rape their way through Christian villages. I want a president who is pissed enough to sink the first freighters carrying Iranian troops to Yemen and half the Iranian navy.

Add all those up and we will need a very pissed off man who loves our country. Not some calm pogue of the RINOs and moderates. It is past time to replace our version of Neville Chamberlin with a Winston Churchill. If you recall, Churchill was a very determined and pissed off man.

Looking at my map of the Middle East, we have choices… if we have the will to execute. Using our forces to protect innocent blood by killing those trying to take innocent blood would be a good start. Standing with Israel is another. Stopping Iran’s two-pronged strategic approach into the Moslem Holy Places would be another. Keep in mind that the north-south strategic relationship of Russia and Iran is powerful, straddling central Asia. In turn, the hooks in Putin’s jaws aim him south, perhaps beyond Crimea and the Ukraine.

Image: http://profslusos.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html

About the author: Clearchus

Clearchus

Clearchus is the author of three Science Fiction books; "Sunigin," "Insurgio," and "Certo" (Available at Amazon) about the next Texas Revolution. He is a retired Army Field Artilleryman who was one of the last men in the U.S. Army to command an M110 8" Howitzer firing battery. He currently designs computer networks for commercial, non-profit, and government environments. Married for 32 years to the most gorgeous babe he knows, he and his wife have four kids. Their lives and perspectives straddle military assignments, combat tours, and mission trips across Europe, Asia, and the Horn of Africa.

View all articles by Clearchus

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily