Politics, News & Issues >
Political Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US focus more on domestic problems than on foreign wars?
Results so far:
| Domestic | 90% | 273 votes | Total: 304 votes | |
| Foreign | 10% | 31 votes |
Domestic
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites
With today's economic woes in the United States as well as fighting a major War on Terrorism, it is becoming more and more difficult to focus on one major policy issue than on the other. For instance, the national polls always reflect how well a present administration is handling the domestic issues as well as the foreign affairs issues. So, even though this writer has chosen the domestic side, today, both are equally important to focus on.
Our founding father, President George Washington did say it best in his farewell address for the newly formed United States of America to remain neutral in foreign affairs. He did say that it was best to be an isolationist sort of country rather than an expansionist country. Did this happen? Did anyone heed his important words? Emphatically, No!
Here is something else that has been heard among the political conversationalists of late: When something occurs in any country around the globe and it can be a good thing or a crisis, then the United States is usually getting itself involved indirectly in some way. Here is an example: Israel which is an ally of the United States commits to an act against the Palestinians which is in response to a rocket attack. The United Nations turns around and wants to condemn Israel. The United States even though it has not participated in the conflict directly, is indirectly involved because you can bet that the United States will not vote against Israel in the Security Council.
Because of the economic situation that is plaguing the United States as well as the pending vote on a massive Health Care Reform Bill, domestic policies are becoming the forefront of the Obama administration. He is doing everything possible to do more than any other president before him in a short time. What is at hand is the hope that he is not moving to fast where mistakes are in the making.
There is no doubt that we have to take care of ourselves first and help our allies second. Year after year, Congress does pass a massive spending bill which includes assisting allies of the United States. One of the best examples of assistance is at the end of the Second World War. The United States and its allies consistently and without resistance bombed Germany into submission, eventually causing the Germans to surrender in 1945. The Marshall Plan went into effect to assist in the rebuilding of Germany and this caused the first true debt that the United States found itself in.
It is read and conversed time and time again that when the United States enters into a war or a conflict short of war, that it costs the country dearly in lives and in economics. This is true. Yet, in order to win the war, monies have to be spent to assist our troops in the cause of freedom. We cannot forget this. Iraq and Afghanistan have been tough wars on terrorism; President Bush said it would be. We agreed with him. It has cost the United States a pretty penny. Yet, we also have to agree that we have been kept safe so far for over eight years.
This writer says this: First us, the world next.
Learn more about this author, David Brown.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Foreign
How can one debate an issue that is not debatable? The illogical proposition that America can chose between the concepts of foreign issues, whether its war or not, at the exclusion of domestic issues of any kind, is a fallacious assumption on its face. We do not live in a vacuum! America does not have the luxury of dividing her responsibilities and to assume she does, is not only irresponsible and ridiculous, put impossible. It's like trying to argue whether the sky should be blue or yellow. There are some things that we have to do simultaneously, sort of like driving and watching the road ahead at the same time. There is NO other choice!
It is why the State Department was designated the most important cabinet agency created constitutionally. In fact, The Department's Secretary is the first Cabinet member in the line of succession upon the disability or death of the President, and fourth in the line of presidential succession behind the Vice President, Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the United States Senate.
Thus the establishment of the State Department (read foreign responsibilities) as the top ranking cabinet agency, establishes the criteria that the responsibility of the government is to provide direction to all foreign liaisons. To limit the debate to "foreign wars" as opposed to "domestic problems" is specious and intentionally misleading. Falsely inherent in the alleged debate question is that "foreign wars" by definition, are all bad and should not be allowed.
While no one wants war of any kind, there are some that we cannot afford to ignore, no matter how much we'd like to avoid them. For example, had President Franklin D. Roosevelt formally declared opposition to Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 instead waiting until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, it is probable that Adolph Hitler would not have gained the moment to move forward with his other invasions. Roosevelt's failure to act timely, allowed further German invasions and four-hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers ultimately died because of that delay. Fifty-five million civilians and soldiers from other countries were also killed, not to mention the Holocaust that incinerated six million Jews, Christians, Gypsies and the physically and mentally disabled.
To assume, as the debate question does, that we have the option to ignore foreign responsibilities is bogus and dangerous. The second assumption, that by engaging in foreign responsibilities somehow precludes our ability to concurrently exercise a responsible domestic agenda, presupposes that we can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
America has, and always will have, the ability to exercise a duel responsibility of tending to both our domestic and foreign duties, as we have from the very first day she was created. The entire constitution is written based on the fact that we have two responsibilities, domestic and foreign. To assume otherwise is patently illogical.
Learn more about this author, Rand E Oertle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political Issues
- Does the Fairness Doctrine violate First Amendment rights in the US?
- Should the US continue to detain suspected terrorists without charging them with specific crimes?
- Should Christian schools be required to accept children of gay parents?
- Should Congress approve Obama's "end global poverty" bill with the $845 billion price tag?
- Which is more important: Freedom of religion or women's rights?
- Should stem cell research be federally funded?
