President Obama's speech a couple of weeks ago, in which he supposedly reset his administration's foreign policy, belies the fatal flaw in Leftist thinking. That is, if the United States leaves a theater of conflict with its tail between its legs, all conflict will cease and desist. The President illustrated one of the most infantile and most dangerous idioms of the Left when he stated that since we have pulled out of Iraq and are pulling out of Afghanistan, we are no longer at war with radical Islam and they are no longer at war with us. The President did not even come close to recognition of victory or even the desire for victory over a brutal and barbaric ideology, that not only is the enemy of the United States but civilized people throughout the world.
Barack Obama, like every other Leftist who acquired their world view from the John Lennon song Imagine (which even the composer himself rejected towards the end of his life when he became an admirer of Ronald Reagan and started to become more conservative), thinks that the United States is the source of all conflict in the world and therefore if we withdraw from it, no one will want to attack us and instead will bring us daisies and fuzzy bunnies. This juvenile thinking presupposes that there is no evil or corruption in the world outside what the United States has brought to it.
The Left thinks we have enemies because of something we have done and not because of who we are and the freedom and liberty our way of life represents. This severely flawed thought process is an outcome of the Leftist desire for a one world community, where the United Nations issues edicts and member nations blindly follow. We have already seen this dangerous thinking corrupt the inner sanctum of our republic in so much as Supreme Court justices have sighted international law as an ingredient in their decision-making on cases brought before them. There are also U.N. treaties, that if signed by the United States, will essentially subjugate our sovereignty to that of a world body that does not have our best interest at heart.
For those Americans who define themselves, not as United States citizens, but as world citizens and think that a singular world government is most optimum, I have one question. What great achievements have resulted from the world body of the United Nations that has existed for over sixty years? They failed miserably to stop the slaughter in Rwanda or the genocide in Darfur. There have been no advancements in medicine, technology or industry as a result of its existence, and there is no intelligent case that can be made that the world is better off for the United Nations having existed in it. In fact, one could find merit resident in the opposite argument. The fact that advancement in the human condition comes from individual countries, most notably in the last hundred years from the United States, is reason enough to encourage and promote sovereign nations. Nothing worthwhile ever comes from bloated and overtly corrupt governing bodies that are endemic in the desire to micro-manage individual lives with regulation and laws from the mountaintop of arrogance occupied by those who think they have the intellectual superiority to do so.
I fear that our current President's foreign policy will ultimately lead us closer to the tyranny of a sovereign-less nation and the corruption that is endemic in global organizations like the U. N.