A clear agenda on foreign policy is something all our political parties lack. The Republican neoconservatives, from former President George W. Bush to Newt Gingrich, have seen their hawkish ambitions dwindle as the American people have grown weary of constant foreign intervention. Libertarians, such as Ron Paul, preach pseudo-isolation, yet in a climate where nuclear weapons are prevalent, such an approach appears dangerous and nearsighted. President Barack Obama and the remainder of the political left are walking a tightrope between these two extremes — aware of the dangers across the seam, yet unwilling to face them head-on.
We are also unclear as to who our enemy is. Is it Islam as a whole? Is it a few belligerent states such as Iran and North Korea?
As Americans, we lack the united conviction that was trumpeted in the 20th century, when Germany and the Soviet Union were clear rivals to be fought at all costs. Our new enemies are transient and indefinable — rogue terror cells that hide in deep, dark places, unable to be identified until they have already struck.
Is the wisdom of our forefathers applicable in such an environment? Ron Paul seems to think so, and for that, he deserves credit. He has consistently preached caution and conservatism when dealing with rogue states, and he made the promise that he would never go to war without a formal declaration.
There is some precedent for this approach. American involvement with rogue nations (or even Arabic states) is not strictly a modern phenomenon.
In the formative years of our great nation, the Barbary pirates of Algeria demanded tribute in return for the safety of American sailors, with the alternative being capture and enslavement. After years of diplomacy and caution, our government, led by Thomas Jefferson, went to war. A navy was built and the pirates were crushed, with help from allies in the Old World. Thomas Jefferson could never be accused of being a hawkish neoconservative. He remains a representative of many libertarian principles. However, he knew that in certain times, America must act to preserve the safety of its people.
Unfortunately, we live in a world of much greater complexity than the one our founding fathers enjoyed. The Internet allows governmental deliberations to be shared with our enemies in an instant. The threat of nuclear weapons hangs constantly overhead.
The cautious and conservative approach Ron Paul preaches has lost its element of pragmatism. Can we still make it a policy to formally declare war when such a debate, sent across the sea in nanoseconds, allows our enemies to take advantage of our inaction? Can we still ignore states such as Iran when they show the ability and desire to create a bomb to destroy and blackmail our allies?
It is easy to live in isolation when the greatest weapons of the day are cannons and wooden ships. It is much more difficult when nukes can destroy a city in a moment, and Chinese hackers can disable our economy from their living rooms.
Technology has brought great bounties, yet it has also brought great complications. We have been severed from the wisdom of our forefathers, forced to create new strategies to survive in this brave new world.
We have passed the age in which we can have a clear and concrete foreign policy; the world has grown too complex for that. But we can imitate the strength of our fathers’ wills. Iraq has taught us the folly of nation-building and prolonged intrigue.
However, we should make it clear to our enemies, wherever they lurk, that if they raise their sabers, we will raise ours in return. Caution and prudence should remain our watchwords, yet when American lives are at risk, our guns must ring and our foes must fall.
Luke Bailey is a history junior at UF. His column appears on Wednesdays.
