Can We Afford To Stay Out?

As Europe moved closer and closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress was doing everything it could to prevent it. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of the pro-Britain President Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts (Wikipedia)

Presidential candidate Ron Paul is enjoying a lot of support with his "stay out" attitude. According to the latest CNN numbers, he is the best of the single-digit contenders, above Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman, with 9%. He is in fact asking us to go back to the isolationist days cited above. Let's bring all our troops home, he adds, including those stationed in more than one hundred bases around the globe. None of the other candidates has come even close to his proposals, except perhaps Rick Perry who offered the "novel" idea of cutting all foreign aid to zilch.

But the burning and essential question remains:"Can we afford to stay out of the world's conflicts?" As a man born in tiny neutral Switzerland, I have always wondered why my native country spends a ton of money maintaining an army and air force (don't laugh). My grandfather mentioned a military tradition dating to Swiss mercenaries being hired for their prowess during the Middle Ages; we can still see the remnants at the Vatican.

Actually, the United States, except for the size, has a lot in common with the 800 year-old country of William Tell. Remember the first Articles of Confederation that fizzled after a few years (1781 - 1789)? That was copied straight from the Confederation Helvetica (the actual name of Switzerland). And except for the Napoleonic invasion in 1815, my country of birth has successfully avoided being drawn into wars. Can America, or rather, should America do the same?

Mr. Paul's 10 million followers seem to think so; he even had the temerity of suggesting that 9/11 was caused by our military presence in Arab countries. It's hard to agree with him, but let's not forget that we used to help bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. We supported Iraq's murderous dictator Sadam Hussein in his war against Iran. We tolerated and helped Cuba's infamous Batista before the bearded rebellion in 1959. Examples of our international mischiefs abound, as we lied to start a war in Vietnam and in Iraq. That's what happens when a country becomes so powerful that it often turns into a bully.

 America, Mr. Paul, cannot and should not isolate itself from what happens in this globalized world. We must not let rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea threaten their neighbors with nuclear weapons. We cannot let China and Russia push us around; we should not abdicate our immense responsibility toward Latin America, where signs of unrest could lead to local wars. We cannot allow drug cartels to grow into military juggernauts. On the other hand..

American cannot intervene as the policeman of the world; we will never end global injustice and poverty. We must not engage our brave military in foolish actions such as Iraq and Vietnam. Direct terrorist threats must be solved with limited force; just enough to let them know that we will chase and eliminate them wherever they hide.

We have the economic clout to apply sanctions that hurt; we have the military deterrent that makes potential aggressors think twice before attacking us. But we must also focus on our number one priority: the American people.

Huntsman

I really like Mr. Huntsman, although I regret the fact that he cannot impress his audience when giving a speech. He comes across as soft-spoken, as a moderate, as a nice guy; you know what they say about nice guys coming in last. Obama sent him to China probably because of Huntsman's tact and able diplomacy (Chinese leaders are very sensitive to "losing face".) In this cutthroat political competition, however, being nasty and cunning may well earn you the nomination.



Mr. Huntsman (I'll forgo the nobility titles of Governor and Ambassador since he is presently neither) looks like a president and has the needed executive resume as head of Utah's government; he also has a taste of the private sector which he acquired in his family's business the Huntsman Corporation. He has the right age, 51, and the wrong religion, Mormon. He worked in Taipei (Taiwan) for a year as a missionary, and it seems that he and his wife decided to adopt two children in 1999 and 2006. His family is a composite of various religions, his wife is Episcopalian and his kids went to Catholic schools. A perfect picture of the United States great variety of faiths.

When studying his personal history, there is no doubt he comes across as a good man who not only talks, but also walks the talk. For some reason, the image of Jimmy Carter emerges and we all know what kind of President he was. Given the evils of this world, could Mr. Jon Huntsman pull the trigger if necessary? That is the question that will come up sooner or later in the debates and in the political columns of influential media.

One point in his favor: He is not afraid to go against his Republican party, as he did during his tenure as governor. So may be there is a big, strong backbone in Mr. Huntsman's body, a quality that is not always present in President Obama's decisions. He has been outspoken regarding his belief in science's theories about climate change and evolution, unlike Mr. Perry who stated, wrongly, that Texas teaches both creationism and evolution. Religious beliefs, because creationism is strictly a belief and not a product of scientific research, have no business in schools. Let churches take care of that.





Mr. Huntsman's personal and professional experience in the Far East makes him an ideal candidate to deal with the rising power of China. None of the other candidates has such polished background in foreign affairs. I shudder to think what Michelle Bachmann would do when confronted with a North Korean crisis; ditto for Mrs. Palin, Mr. Cain, and especially Mr. Paul who favors total isolation of the U.S. The only candidate who has a similar experience is Newton Gingrich and we know that he won't get the nomination.

If the ex-governor of Utah is capable of making his name familiar to all American families, there is no doubt in my mind that he will compete a year from now with Mr. Obama. Right now, his main "enemy" is another governor, Mr. Rick Perry.

It all comes down to which Republican candidate is capable of defeating the incumbent President, a formidable foe who campaigns better than anybody else.

A REPUBLICAN FIESTA

One candidate stood out amongst the Iowa's debate participants: Ron Paul. As usual, he deviated from the Republican policy in foreign wars, advocating a new type of Isolationism. He was the target of Santorum's acid criticism laced with a strong dose of sarcasm. Ron Paul shouted the most, knowing full well that, in spite of a decent poll number, he has no chance to win the primary. Bachman rarely showed the usual passion, except when she vigorously defended her role in Congress: "I was against raising the debt ceiling." Mitt Romney, as the present favorite to win the primary, maintained his distance from everybody else to avoid a verbal confrontation; he of course hasn't shown that he has the skills to fight in the trenches. His perpetual sardonic half smile doesn't serve him well, as if he were making fun of his colleagues.




So much for the most active debaters; in their shadow, Pawlenty seemed a little more animated, but as usual he keeps the title of the Prince of Monotony. If you can't sleep, there is the cure for you; tape his speeches and play them back in a loop at night. Hermann Cain showed poise, common sense, and self-assurance: He gets the nomination for Mr. Sense & Wisdom. Newton Gingrich, by far the most experienced and astute participant, let his tongue get the better of him as usual, bashing the Fox News hosts even though he once worked with them. He gets the nomination as Mr. Ungrateful. Huntsman, our ex-ambassador, well, the less said the better. He clearly deserves the title of Mr. Disappointment.

The real winners are the candidates who were not at the debate, but whose invisible presence dominated the event: Sarah Palin and Rick Perry, the Texas governor. Even though Mitt Romney kept a straight face when asked about Perry's entry into the fray, his response welcoming the fact betrayed his inner turmoil: His worst nightmare has just proven true. Perry is a serious contender, much more than any of the other candidates and he knows it. Romney firmly believes that it is his turn after losing to McCain three years ago and Perry, more so than Palin, represents the dark horse in the race to the White House. I nominate Romney as Mr. Déja Vu.

Michele Bachman is intense, no doubt about it; she is a real "damn the torpedoes" warrior, unlike Romney and that's what makes her a formidable and dangerous opponent. As a de facto leader of the Tea Party, she represents the extreme right views of the Republican Party, which, in my opinion, disqualifies her as a winner of the primary. Few independents will vote for her. Her followers are not afraid to elbow CNN anchors out of the way, which leads me to name her Miss Get Out Of My Way.

Rick Perry took his time to declare his candidacy to the White House, hoping to emulate his predecessor in the Texas Governorship. He acted wisely in not jumping into the race early; he wanted to see what the others had to say before deciding. He apparently feels that the competition is not that strong and that he has a good chance to prevail. Governor since the year 2000 (when Bush was elected the first time), he surprisingly began his political career as a Democrat and switched in 1990. As the longest serving governor in Texas, Perry is known among the locals as a man who follows the political trends as long as they favor his personal goals. This factor may hurt him when his opponents look for ammunition to attack him in the campaign. He is therefore my favorite for the title of Mr. Ride With The Wind.

Who will attempt to defeat Barack Obama? If you know the answer, please let me know!!