Sunday, September 19, 2021

He wants a new round to replay the losing game

Let’s say you just played a game and lost. It could be a game of hockey or soccer or something similar.

 

One of your teammates that’s not happy with the outcome, pushes you to ask the winning team to come back and play a revanchist round. It will be a round in which your team will play the same as it did before, thus prove that it was the right way to play this game. And the team’s strategy will be vindicated.

 

You dismiss the suggestion in your mind, thinking that it is a dumb idea. You don’t even bother asking your teammate what will happen if you lose a second time. But sensing that you’re not taking him seriously, he proposes a change in the way that you will play the game next time. He says that instead of playing to score goals as the team did previously, it should concentrate on playing defensively this time to prevent the other team from scoring. That does not change the strategy that still needs to be vindicated, he assures you, but only puts the emphasis unto a new priority.

 

You still think that the idea is a dumb one, and dismiss it. What makes it even dumber, in your view, is that it has its analogue in the real world where the stakes are life and death situations, and the score is measured by the number of dead people that result from playing the senseless game.

 

You get a clear view of what that is when you read the article which came under the title: “The Afghanistan failure should not deter a strong foreign policy,” written by Larry Farnsworth, and published on September 17, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Farnsworth began his discussion by admitting the following:

 

“In 2001, the idea of going to Afghanistan to topple a government that harbored the individuals who masterminded 9/11 was popular. Recent polling indicates that the American people oppose the idea of nation-building as a policy goal. We cannot continue nation-building as a foreign policy priority when those countries refuse to stand and fight for themselves”.

 

Larry Farnsworth seems to have put down a marker. It is that America may accept to do nation-building again if the country in question is willing to stand and fight for itself. However, above and beyond all of that, Larry Farnsworth clings to the following set of ideas:

 

“The absence of American leadership is making the region less safe, and a cut-and-run strategy has created mayhem that will empower radical terrorist networks. The Afghanistan example must not inhibit the US from pursuing a robust national defense that stresses opposition to China and Russia while focusing on targeting terrorist havens. This disaster in Afghanistan has forever weakened the perception of America as an effective exporter of democracy and individual freedom”.

 

This means that in Larry Farnsworth’s opinion, America must continue to pursue the same old foreign policy, but without getting involved in nation-building unless the government that America installs in the country it invades, joins America in fighting what amounts to a civil war against the part of the population that refuses to submit. So then, what does that boil down to? It boils down to the following:

 

“Strong rhetorical support for smaller nations facing threats like Taiwan and Ukraine is essential to build the confidence of allies, and also serves as a deterrent to bad actors on the global stage. The Russians have long-term plans to expand into former Soviet Republics like Ukraine. Putin has spent seven years fighting to take land from Ukraine. China is another challenge. Vice President Harris reiterated that the US would keep a strong military presence in the South China Sea. That’s a good start. The most immediate threat to the peace is Taiwan, as China talks about taking control of that island nation”.

 

But why do all of this? What’s America’s ultimate goal? Larry Farnsworth says it is essential for America to do all of that because of the following reason:

 

“America’s resolve is being tested, and only a foreign policy strategy that has America leading will protect our citizens, our allies, and our homeland”.

 

The assumption here is that America is a prey that’s surrounded by predators waiting for the opportunity to pounce on it a devour it. There was a time when America did not believe in this theory, and it was loved by the rest of the world. It was only when America began to treat others as if they were its enemies that they became its enemies.

 

The truth is that nobody is out to hurt America for no reason. Those whom America is eyeing, just want to be left alone. If America comes to its senses and starts to believe it has what it takes to be valued by the rest of the world, it will quickly regain the standing in the eyes of the world it used to enjoy. What America needs to do to get there, is stop listening to those who advise her that the world is full of predators waiting to pounce on her for no reason except that they are evil.

 

In fact, the only evil actors in this unfortunate drama, are those who go behind the back of the people they hate, and slander them by whispering lies in the ears of those who listen to them. This is why those who used to listen should listen no more to the lowlife leeches that live at the expense of others.