The cost of elections

by Sam Huntington

If we could in some way condense the President’s speech at the USMA (28 May), it would go something like this: Today, I would like to make the following important points about our foreign policy, the state of our economy, and my current world view. Uh (pause) thank you very much.”

Beyond the usual banalities, beyond comparing himself to political leaders of the past, beyond continuing his campaign to apologize to the world for US policies of the past (which fed all of Europe for five years following World War II), his commencement speech at the USMA was, in the view of Charles Krauthammer, “literally pointless.”


“He didn’t have a point. It was a defensive speech. It was an answer to the chorus of criticism from his side of the aisle that it’s been a weak, rudderless foreign policy, which it has been. I spoke to a member of the Congress who was in the Armed Forces, and he says there was a real pettiness and personalization of this [speech]. This is a graduation speech for West Point; it is a place where you want to inspire future officers. It isn’t a place you want to answer your critics or go point by point against all the attacks...”

While I do agree with Krauthammer’s critique, we need to acknowledge the fact that US foreign policy has been a disaster for a very long time. Stop and think about the absurdity of the Truman Doctrine that, on the one hand, sought to encourage political freedom throughout Europe and then loathed anyone who chose Marxian socialism. This brainless process has cost 37,000 dead in Korea, 58,000 dead in Vietnam, nearly 7,000 in Afghanistan and Iraq and in those last two conflicts, 56,000 wounded. So as I keep reminding everyone, elections have consequences. The American people are paying a very heavy price for electing people who have no business leading this country.

Occasionally, wars are inevitable and necessary; however, we seem to find a reason to have one on the average of every 20 years. Going back to World War I, Democratic Presidents seem to be the ones who take us to war most often —I’m not surprised. War is easy to commit troops to when there is never any personal danger, or for that matter, any possibility that your own children will be harmed by it.

What we appear to have overlooked in our foreign policy fiasco is a genuine interest in involving ourselves in other people’s affairs. I keep hearing people use the phrase “US interests,” but I’ve never heard anyone give specific information about what that interest is, or a satisfactory justification for taking the nation to war. Fellow blogger Marine-4-Ever once suggested, “America never went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. They did what Bush told them to do ... they went to the mall. Our troops went to war."

Somehow, this is okay with most Americans.

President Obama claims we must not become an isolationist nation —and I agree with this to some extent. But neither are we the planetary police force. I cannot think of one genuine US interest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, or Libya. Not one. In spite of this, you continually hear lame brains such as John McCain supporting Syrian rebels, or championing the idea that we should be arming and training these people. I can’t speak for most Americans, but I am personally stunned that McCain is suggesting that we train and supply Syrian rebels who are affiliates either of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or the Iranian Republican Guard. It forces me to conclude that there is really only one solution to our John McCain problem: euthanasia. McCain could not have been measurably worse than the current occupant of the White House.

Returning now to elections, I continue to wonder how many more Americans have to die in foreign entanglements before the American people wise up to this reality: it is their poor choices during elections that is killing off and crippling our sons and daughters.