The President's Speech

In American foreign policy, to oversimplify, there have two major streams of thought--the idealists and the realists.  The idealists ask, “How can the United States make the world a better place?”  The realists ask, “How will this policy affect the interests of the United States?”  

Saying that doesn’t tell you much about how a realist or idealist will respond to a specific situation.  A realist might say of the Vietnam War, “We must act to keep Communism from spreading, and it is in the U.S. interest to fight North Vietnamese aggression.”  An idealist might say, “We must protect innocent South Vietnamese from the kind of oppression we see in North Vietnam.”  Both would support U.S. involvement.

I have a Ph.D. in International Relations, and I still don’t know into which category I fit.  I do think any country that uses poison gas or chemical weapons should be punished.  I am also aware that the U.S. used Agent Orange on millions of acres in Vietnam, and if Agent Orange is not a chemical weapon, what is?

If you are waiting for my pronouncement on what the U.S. should do, or whether or not I approved the President’s speech tonight, wait a little longer.  President Obama made a compelling case for why the U.S. should be the one to punish the Assad regime, but he was wise to postpone the vote. 

If the U.S. can get Russia and the Syrian government to turn over chemical weapons to an international body without the use of military force, that would be a major step forward.  I would also like to hear the U.N. report on the chemical weapons attack which is due out in a few days.

I’m sorry.  I just don’t have any answers.