America’s role in the world

President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney both want to expand America’s leadership role in the world, pushing its economic interests, while using its military when necessary and spreading its values.  However, most Americans don’t agree.  After more than a decade of war and a stubborn recession, Americans are asking themselves do we really need a military presence around the world.  While Americans want the nation to lead the world, they are more focused on domestic challenges.

A majority of Americans don’t think the Arab Spring revolutions have benefited ordinary Arabs.  Governor Romney and President Obama seemingly agreed on many issues during the last debate.  Romney agreed with Obama’s decision to urge Hosni Mubarak (former Egyptian President) to step down last year amid Egypt’s protesting.  The common denominator between both parties is that we maintain a presence in the Middle East to ensure Israel’s protection.  Israel is our main ally in the Middle East.  Some of the reasons to maintain a good relationship with Israel include: safeguarding sources and shipments of oil and maintaining peace in a region beset with a tumultuous history. 

A Pew Research Center poll, earlier this month, found that 2 out of 3 Americans believe the U.S. should be less involved in leadership changes in the Middle East.  Fewer than 25% said we should be more involved.  About 57% said it was more important to have stable governments in the Middle East, even if that meant less democracy.  57% don’t believe that the recent uprisings would produce lasting improvements for their populations.  The most startling of the polls was the one that said that 64% of Americans believe that countries that receive U.S. aid “end up resenting us.”

The U.S. spends billions of dollars in aid to countries that remain hostile to us.  I understand that we need to maintain some type of civility in the region, but at a certain point one has to evaluate the pros and cons of such efforts.  The sentiment I get from these countries is pretty much that they want our money, but they don’t want us involved in their political affairs.  Who wouldn’t want free money?  This election probably won’t see much of a shift in America’s role in the world, because both candidates share many of the same positions.

What I don’t get is why there is such a constant pandering to Israel?  Well I get it, it just irks me.  Israel has many supporters lobby on Capitol Hill and provide important political and financial support to the candidates.  And yes I do think it is important to maintain a relationship with countries in the Middle East.  I just don’t understand why politicians constantly have to talk about America’s loyalty to Israel.  Both parties even went so far as to name Israel in their party platform.  Politicians pander to numerous parties.  They simply want that group’s vote and money.  It’s really what it comes down to.

I won’t advocate closing our embassies in the Middle East.  Al-Qaeda wants us to leave the region, as indicated by the Libyan consulate attack.  It is important to have some type of presence.  I just don’t think we need a greater presence.  I surely don’t want to engage in another war.  Unfortunately it seems conflict between Israel and Iran might bring that about.  I’m hoping whoever is the president realizes this country does NOT want to engage in another war, especially if it is not a product of an attack on the U.S.

What do you think America’s role in world should be?

What do you think the world thinks of America?

Email: realtalkdebate2012@gmail.com

Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About adrakontaidis

A conservative who doesn't pander to the GOP.

4 responses to “America’s role in the world”

  1. Stu says :

    “What I don’t get is why there is such a constant pandering to Israel? Well I get it, it just irks me.”

    I am far from an expert on international affairs, but even I can see the benefit of providing unwavering support for the only democratic state in an unstable region that is driven as much by radical agenda as anything else – as evidenced by the US arrest and detention of a loony film-maker as a means to appease those who want free speech, just not for women and those who disagree with their radical religious views.

    Not sure it is pandering when your neighbors vow to wipe you off the map for being, well Israeli/Jewish.

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      I’m not saying that America shouldn’t be allies with Israel. Obviously it is critical that we maintain a good relationship with at least one country in the Middle East. That is why I said I understand why the relationship is so emphasized. I just don’t understand why Israel was mentioned over 30 times between the candidates during the last debate. About a third of the debate was on Israel. There are other countries where unfortunately atrocities occur on a daily basis. I want to know what these candidates plan on doing about them. I think it’s political pandering that coincidentally whenever candidates are in Florida (large Jewish population in the state) Israel is mentioned in every speech. Several times. Our relationship with Israel shouldn’t be the forefront (at least not the majority) of our foreign policy.

      Thank you for the comment!

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. America’s role in the world « Helmut Zermin 's Blog - October 28, 2012
  2. War in the Middle East? | tonynews.com - November 1, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: