Will
Chandler
As John Kasich stated
in the second GOP debate last Wednesday night, it is imperative that the USA
begins to incorporate its natural allies into its plans for peace, or it will continue
to be the thing it is trying to destroy: a threat to world peace.
As I watched the
GOP debate Wednesday night, I was both horrified and intrigued by the participants.
As a registered independent, I cannot vote in the primaries, however, this
simply makes my vote in the final election seem that much more important to me
ergo I want to make an informed decision. While I was mostly looking forward to
the candidates making even bigger fools of themselves then they already have, I
came away feeling much more partial to a few of the candidates. However the
most intriguing aspect to me came when the candidates were asked about the Iran
deal. Their response to foreign policy opened up an opportunity to explore what
we had been learning in class, and many aspects quickly came into fruition.
Ted Cruz was first
asked about the current Iranian deal. He quickly took a stance that had some
realist concepts. His biggest concern was military might and how to keep it
away from others. His agenda’s goals were made into manifest when he stated, “the
single biggest national security threat facing America right now is the threat
of a nuclear Iran…this deal will only accelerate Iran's acquiring nuclear
weapons… If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I
will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal” (Wednesday’s GOP
Debate Transcript, Annotated). Cruz is
concerned about relative power. If Iran gets nuclear power, that weakens
America’s grip proportionally, because there will suddenly be another player in
this nuclear game. This idea about relative power and military might being paramount
is a fundamentally realist one. On top of that, Cruz mocks the UN. Cruz believes
that the US should move in here, by itself if it has to in order to preserve
its dominance at all cost. This response may play to the Republican crowd, but
there is a much better and more realistic option.
John Kasich takes
a much different response to the current Iran deal. His views are much more
practical and would promote America’s reputation as well as increase safety and
strength. He admits that he does not agree with the Iran deal and his explanation
as to why reveals his constructivist leanings. This is exposed when he states, “a
lot of our problems in the world today is that we don't have the relationship
with our allies. If we want to go everywhere alone, we will not have the
strength as (ph) if we could rebuild with our allies” (Wednesday’s GOP Debate
Transcript, Annotated). He continues on this thought when he builds on this by
saying, “We are stronger when we work with the Western civilization, our
friends in Europe, and just doing it on our own I don't think is the right
policy” (Wednesday’s GOP Debate Transcript, Annotated). Kasich takes a much
more cooperative view here. This follows the view of a security community, where
due to cultural similarities and other bonds, war is not an option between
states. He wants the US to work with her allies. Kasich believes that America
will be stronger when she works with others. His belief in cooperation over competition
is both very strategic and promotes America abroad, possible alleviating future
conflicts instead of spawning them like this we have for years.
America’s biggest
problem right now, is that she creates new enemies when she puts down her old
ones. Her insistence to go where no other country will to protect herself has
painted a target on her back. Since her inception in 1776, America has been at
war in 222 out of 239 years, about 93% of the time! (America Has Been At War
93% of the Time - 222 Out of 239 Years - Since 1776)This long history of wars,
mostly fought alone, has created many enemies and made other countries uneasy.
In a world poll, it was declared that the US is the number one threat to peace
(America Has Been At War 93% of the Time - 222 Out of 239 Years - Since 1776).
It is time for America to stop initiating wars, and instead start building
allies. Taking a more constructionist approach and working together with other
Western states will not only help American’s financially, but will also save
American lives. Current American policy is so focused on over stepping our
boundaries and putting down our enemies that we immediately create new ones to
the point that the rest of the world views us as a threat to peace. It’s time
we stepped back and looked in the mirror because right now we are a living
contradiction. Taking a more constructionist view like Kasich’s will not only
be beneficial to America, but it will also allow us to be seen as a nation of
liberty, not violence again.
“He who
seeks revenge should dig two graves.”
Works Cited:
"Wednesday’s GOP
Debate Transcript, Annotated." Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.
"America Has Been At
War 93% of the Time - 222 Out of 239 Years - Since 1776." Washingtons Blog.
N.p., 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.
Will,
ReplyDeleteI would like to push back some on the classification of Ted Cruz as a realist. While Cruz may be taking a hawkish stance and language of balancing is certainly realist, how afraid of Iran are realists? Is Iran a world power and a threat to regional hegemony for the US? Is it a regional power? Could the spread of nuclear weapons make the world more stable?
I think these are some good points. While I do believe that the acquisition of nuclear power would in fact be a threat to the US, and thus even a realist would be afraid, it is not a direct threat to our own regional hegemony. And I also think that in the end, the whole world having nuclear power may ultimately be beneficial to a realist, until that time, as countries gain nuclear power, each new nation is a threat to all of those that do not have it.
DeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteThis a very interesting argument. You make a clear case that favors constructivism over realism. The Iran deal certainly applies to the idea of realism. However, I think the Kasich argument is a little bit confusing; you say he doesn't support the Iran deal, but you don't clearly explain why. That first quote you had was good but I don't think it was put into context well enough. You have a really strong, concrete idea with the Iran deal going for the first two paragraphs but it kind of dies after that. I just think overall this was a bit unorganized. That being said, your argument is clear. You state why America needs to start working with her allies and why what America is doing now isn't working. What is America doing, though? Are we creating new enemies? Or are countries jealous of the U.S.'s power? And the U.S. being a threat to world peace...my position on that is that countries think that just because the U.S. has a lot of power, it is going to abuse that power so they can bolster their power. But that poll you cited is based on perception that the U.S. is going to abuse their power. The U.S. is not a threat to world peace; rather, the U.S. is trying to achieve world peace and countries seem to think that every act made by the U.S. is a way to bolster its power. It is not easy for the U.S. to work with its allies given the amount of issues it has to deal with through domestic and foreign affairs. People need to start embracing the U.S. as a nation that cares deeply about world peace. We have our own issues in our country, but we are trying to improve those issues and we are trying to work together with other countries to improve issues globally.
Great job Billiam.
If you believe the American navy slogan "A Global for for Good", you are simply being sucked in by America's branding. We are allegedly a nation that stands for freedom but this is not true. We always have our own self interest at heart. We have backed numerous bloody dictators that share our views. This has led to blood, unease and often times a loss of rights. However, if its in our interest we will do it. On top of that we cherish our own national security much more than the freedom and liberty of others. We go in and occupy foreign lands. I think that you'd have a different perspective if the government came and took your homes, culture and belongs, all in the name of "freedom". At this point we as a nation do what we value. We are very ethnocentric and do not treat others with equal respect, because we don't need to (Ah, realism). I think that if I was another nation I'd be afraid that the US would invade my home in the name of Freedom. So, I do believe that we are one of the biggest threats to peace.
DeleteHi Will, I agree that we as a country have messed up majorly in the past and continue to make mistakes that harm others. Therefore, I see your point that we are a threat to peace. However, I agree with Alex that we are trying to work for peace because a state is not only the people who lead it; I cannot speak to politicians' intents, but there are many people in the U.S. who want world peace and are activists for that cause. Therefore, although the actions of the few dictate that the country has become a threat to peace, I think the desire and the actions of the many could bring us closer to peace in the future - especially if individuals who had this desire and intent were in positions of power.
DeleteWill, I agree with your assessment of the politicians, and I agree that Cruz does have a lot of realist views. Were I disagree is in your last paragraph. I feel that America has made a name for itself that they are almost the "protector of justice". Now I can agree that this might be partially a front in order to go to war for more economical reasons. To say though that we are at fault for being at war so often and initiating wars is debatable because without many of those wars the world would be a different place. I also agree though that as a country the US should look to have a more peaceful future, but do you think without all of the wars the US is been the world would be more peaceful or at least the same?
ReplyDeleteHaha, I think I'm going to address every ones comments in one post instead of replying to everyone individually because you all seem to harbor the same opinion. I think that the most provocative point I make in this post is when I address the view of foreign nations towards the US. Ironically to me, this gets back to what we discussed in class. The stat that the World views the US as the greatest threat to world peace, is not an opinion but a statistic. I would go as far as to say an objective fact, but I know that the class disagreed with this sentiment when I brought it up the other day. But regardless, I defend the position that the US is a threat to peace because of this statistic, not due to my personal beliefs. While I personally believe that the US works hard to defend herself and spread equality and peace throughout the world, highlighted by our continued efforts to protect human rights globally, I also was forced to acknowledge some of our other efforts. These include occupying other nations and often forcing our ideology onto others. Also our pursuit of regional hegemony has led us to do some things that contradict our own personal beliefs that we are a "good" nation. So while I want to believe the rosy picture that we usually paint of ourselves, we have to step outside this skillfully created mirage and look at our actions without bias. Mostly the fact that we have tortured suspected terrorists and invaded at least 10 countries in the past 30 years. Compared to other nations (even Russia) we are much more dangerous to world peace, and the rest of the world knows this even if we Americans do not.
ReplyDelete