Reasons for invading other countries should be clear, not out of fear
Responses ranged from borderline racist (Rick Santorum's response, "The folks who would be most likely to be committing these crimes ... obviously Muslims ..." to the question of who should be profiled to protect national security) to outright belligerent (Herman Cain's statement, "The terrorists have one objective that some people don't seem to get: They want to kill all of us. So we should use every means possible to kill them first.") From the wide variety of these responses from the GOP candidates, one fact was clear: They all seemed eager to embrace the idea of the United States remaining in a national state of war.
But the GOP shouldn't take all the blame for it. True, perhaps candidates do need to brush up a little on their responses to foreign policy issues, but perhaps their words also reflect a shift in the definition of "national security" and the views that our national leaders hold on war itself, that is, a shift toward the perpetuation of it. The irony of it all is that the vast majority of average citizens do not hold the same views, if any at all.
War, in this day and age, has extended beyond indicating mere protectionism for a country. Rather, it has become a symbol of power, dignity and competitive status in the global sphere. It is likely for this reason as well that the GOP, in particular, seems so interested in the pursuit of it in the upcoming years: They want to finish what they started. As the world becomes more economically competitive, such displays of power seem more necessary as well.
However, it may be in the best interests of the country, as well as of the party itself, to realize that aggressive agendas for the sake of having an aggressive agenda is hardly a sufficient reason for perpetuating war. Being on guard is crucial, but it's important to remember there is a fine line between being on guard and being antagonistic. Pursuing aggression for the sake of asserting dominance in a world where we no longer hold a definite and constant seat in the throne may be playing with fire on a very large and dangerous scale.
More importantly, it's important for our future leaders, be they Democrat or Republican, to remember that sunk costs are, well ... sunk. Reasons for engaging and continuing in war should be clear and distinct, or at the very least a little clearer than simply killing terrorists before they kill us. Our leaders have the power to not only make decisions that have great consequences but also shape the position of our nation in the world and how other nations react to it. They should use it wisely.
More Like This
Column: President Obama's illiberal hit list
By Ross Abbott | Oct. 28, 2015
Letter to the Editor: To beat Russia, aim at its economy
By Benjamin Smart | Feb. 23, 2015