Syria

For those people who have been so caught up in the economic news, in recent weeks (last week, I presume) the United States decided to bomb Syria. The excuse that was used was that there were combatants against Iraq inside Syria.

I wonder if that was the real reason, or was the reason that George Bush wants to spark an international incident before the November 4 election.

Consider, over the last couple of months the United States has bombed Pakistan. In that case, there has been news reports that there really were elements of Al-Qaeda in the region. However, Pakistan had not given the United States permission to go after the Al-Qaeda elements there. They have been there for probably five years.

Was the real reason to spark an international incident?

Then a week or so ago a rumor was released that El-Qaeda intended to attack the United State sometime (unspecified) before the election. I wonder about the George Bush - El-Qaeda connection. That is, when George Bush was first elected, his approval ratings tended to be about what they are now. Then, El-Qaeda attacked, which gave Bush the approval needed to "act presidential" and order an attack against Iraq, and, by declaring war on Terrorism (a military technique), and asserting the right to attack anyone he thought might pose a future threat, he got us into Iraq.

The reason is, more than likely, that polls show that McCain is leading in his ability to handle an international crisis.

Yet, I question that appraisal. That is, I think Obama would do a better job handling an international crisis than McCain, and I would remind people of history to support this.

Bill Clinton was the last Democratic president. During his tenure, there were international incidences, for example Bosnia. Yet Clinton did not destroy the economy to handle this incident, and others. Even Al-Qeada was involved, and Afganistan.

The Republican record under Bush is not so clean. That is, Bush ordered all the monitoring of International Organizations, and El-Qeada in particular, to end almost as soon as he was elected. The result of this failure was an attack on the United States, the first since the Second World War.

After the attack, the United States had more sympathy than they probably deserved - that is, it was that high. So the United States had the high road. In less than six months, Bush squandered all that approval. He managed to get us involved in two wars. Afghanistan can be blamed on a failure of the United States diplomacy. That is, the United States had a high approval rating, and could be used that to pressure Afghanistan into turning Osama bin Laden over. In fact, I remember a news story saying that Afghanistan was willing to turn bin Laden over, only on the condition that the United States bring charges against him.

Similarly, the United States got involved in Iraq under the excuse that they had "weapons of mass destruction." No current and honest news organizations today acknowledges that these weapons ever existed. So Bush got us involved in another stupid war.

He has not finished any war. That is, the United States is still in Afghanistan, and still in Iraq, and Bush is pushing to make these commitments permanent.

Given this, one has to wonder whether the Republicans should be trusted with Foreign affairs.

True, McCain is a different person, but still he insists that we have to get a "victory" in Iraq. (I thought George Bush already declared victory five years ago.) The pursuit of victory is a pursuit of failure. The reason being so caught up in "we have to win" will so destroy the United States that eventually it will go down the same path as the Soviet Union. I think El-Qeada knows this.

I remember being told once that George Washington was not a very good general because he lost more battles than he won. Yet, a short time after being told this I saw a biography of George Washington on television, and they pointed at things differently, such that the factoid I'd been told was irrelevant. That is, George Washington was not a great general because of the battles he won or lost, but because of the battles he didn't fight. That is, in a era when most military troops were moved in boats, he placed a large chain across the Hudson river at West Point so that a small group of soldier could hold off a large army. Therefore there were no major battles fought upriver. Similarly, when it became time to recapture New York, he bluffed the British into abandoning the city without a fight.

This brings to mind the great lesson for today: The ability to handle international affairs is not judged by how many wars you start, but by how many wars you avoid. Similarly, getting us involved in a war is not a sign of handling a war well, getting us out without loosing our shirts is.

I don't think McCain has the will to get us out of war. Recently, Bush removed North Korea from the list of nations supporting terrorism (with a treaty that was about the same as Bill Clinton negotiated). McCain, without looking at the facts - North Korea agreed to dismantle it's nuclear program, etc. - denounced this action. McCain would have opted for war on the Korean peninsula rather than accept peace. (I have read were the people of South Korea are more afraid of the United States than North Korea, a telling sign.)

Instead of McCain's insistence on destroying the United States economy on a war that has no obtainable goal (shades of Viet Nam, for people old enough to remember) Obama has promised an exit strategy.

Who is better at international affairs, the person who gets us into wars, or the person who gets us out?