Disengagement from World Affairs Is a Failed Policy

[Wetzelbill]

An article I wrote was just made a main headline at OpedNews.com. -Bill


Disengagement from World Affairs Is a Failed Policy
by Bill Wetzel

The most important lesson the United States can learn from the latest war in Lebanon is that the Bush administration's policy of disengagement has been a catastrophic failure.

This war could have definitely been avoided had the American President been a man of vision interested in proactive diplomacy, alliance-building, and conflict resolution. Instead, the President has substituted the hard work of statesmanship for rhetoric and a rather perplexing blind support of Israel, which is wholly devoid of any regional, historical or cultural understanding.

However, there are absolutes which must be addressed in dealing with the Arabic-Israeli conflict, and without a doubt, the United States must be cognizant and respectful of them. The first is that the two countries have been close friends ever since the Israel's inception. In no way, should the U.S. ever back away from a commitment to Israel's security and right to exist. But this is not to say the U.S. cannot be a creditable arbitrator in fair, just and equitable negotiations for peace and security.

The second absolute is that any diplomatic efforts in the Arabic-Israeli conflict will likely be arduous and trying affairs. No agreement will come easily, yet this does not mean diplomacy is not worth pursuing. It takes time and effort for fair and viable solutions to difficult problems, and the Arabic-Israeli conflict may be the most trying problem in the world today. The solution will not occur in one day, in one conference or even over the course of one presidency. The problem is generational and requires the full engagement of every administration that comes into office.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_wet_060809_disengagement_from_w.htm

http://www.opednews.com/

[Oversea Visitor]

1. He fucking delay it for Lamont result

UN now going to vote on resolution.

If US veto, bad thing will happen

Condi knows. Talk Condi for heaven sake open your mouth and talk.

[Wetzelbill]

2. oh that is low

I bet the US does veto. I would be surprised if they didn't.

[enigmatic]

4. Kicked & Reccomended.....

..........................Reccccomennndedddddddd...........:)

[Wetzelbill]

3. shameless kick

:kick:

[JackNewtown]

5. Engagement alone won't solve this. Engagement must be truly fair

If the US engages as essentially the ultimate lobbyist for Israel that will not improve things. Right now, with both parties, with a few brave exceptions in each camp, having the same exact position as Olmert/Netanyahu US engagement would not solve the problem. The US needs to have a balanced ME policy, not one that always backs Israel's position. If you replaced Bush with Lamont or Lieberman, or for that matter Trent Lott or George Allen, for this crisis you would see no difference. That sounds harsh, but look at their positions. They are identical to the Olmert/Netanyahu/neocon position, which is also the position of 98% of the Senate, every single major presidential contender, well over 98% of the House, etc. The US needs to lose its knee-jerk support of anything Israel does, not only for justice but to win the war on terror.

Thanks for the post, though, it was an interesting article with many valid points.

[Wetzelbill]

6. yeah that's why I say

a fair, just and equitable solution. But I don't necessarily mean engagement right now. I mean engagement in general. As in 6 years of fair and impartial diplomacy. This crisis has already manifested itself into what it is, about the best anyone can hope is when it is over there is something salvageable there for future efforts.

[JackNewtown]

8. I agree nt

[Rex_Goodheart]

7. What's not to understand?

Instead, the President has substituted the hard work of statesmanship for rhetoric and a rather perplexing blind support of Israel, which is wholly devoid of any regional, historical or cultural understanding.

I understand it. It's part of "the birth pangs of the new Middle East." "Birth pangs" as in "Condi and I share the same Biblical understanding of the Apocalypse."

It's entirely religious. We're being commandered by a religious nutjob.

[Wetzelbill]

9. perplexing to a normal person

Although, I don't think Bush is religious at all. That's more of a political thing. He was asked once what passage of the bible he read that morning, as he supposedly reads a passage every day. He couldn't come up with an answer. The guy rarely attends church. I don't think this administration is so much religious, as much as they cater to fundamentalist Christian constituencies. It's politically convenient to say your religious, and Bush has never shown any capacity or actual knowledge of the bible. Nor has Condi, or anyone else in the administration. I think you are correct though, in that we are commandered by a rube who happens to be commandered by religious nutjobs.

[DemReadingDU]

10. K&R

[MrCoffee]

11. Stay the course!