Spring 2014—The World’s Policeman: Why Defending Freedom Is A Tradition Worth Keeping

Another Memorial Day is upon us. A few more days after that comes the anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, France during the Second World War.

We live in a day and age when many, if not most, of the rising generation—my generation—are unfortunately forgetting the perilous world developments that made the observance of such historical occasions necessary in the first place. I suppose holidays and other special dates of remembrance have a tendency to do that, to gradually lose their significance as the years pass by. We tend to forget that Christmas and Easter are meant to be celebrated as commemorations of the Savior, Jesus the Christ; Saint Nicholas and the Easter Bunny are supposed to be less important. We see other holidays, like Columbus Day, fading into oblivion as people turn against the very idea of celebrating them in the first place, arguing that some historic occasions are best left remembered with nothing more than contempt.

I suppose that the changing value of holidays is, in some ways, inevitable. I’ll be the first to admit that Saint Patrick’s Day and Halloween have never meant much to me (I welcome anyone who can inform me more about the significance of these holidays). Yet, I do believe that there are some holiday meanings worth keeping alive in perpetuity. There are some holidays that deserve remembering, and I think Memorial Day and the anniversary of D-Day are two of them.

If you think that I am self-righteously declaring my own appropriate observance of these holidays, you’d be wrong. I too have been guilty of treating the special days of patriotic remembrance on our calendar with nothing more memorable than attending a family barbeque, a day at the beach, or a movie night with friends. On the other end of the spectrum, I also don’t know if elaborate ceremonies would be adequate enough for celebrating Memorial Day or the Fourth of July. No—a simple time of reflection and gratitude is, I think, good enough for anyone to ask for. Why? Because holidays like Memorial Day are ultimately about principles that men and women have lived, suffered, sacrificed, and died for. There’s very little that any of us can do more to honor Memorial Day than to simply remember.

And, if we are brave, we might take it a step further and try to learn a lesson or two from those who have gone before.

It is that extra step that I would wish to take with today’s blog post.

What lessons can we learn from Memorial Day? We ostensibly celebrate this holiday to remember and honor those men and women who have died while serving in the armed forces of our country. What did they die for? What job were they performing for us? And what makes that job worth remembering with a federal holiday?

You may have your own answers to those questions. For me, however, I believe that Memorial Day offers all of us a chance to ask ourselves if the United States we live in today is continuing yesteryear’s tradition of maintaining freedom across the globe. I would like to say a few words about this tradition and how our country currently stands in fulfilling this tradition.

I truly believe that the United States has always stood for freedom. I also believe that freedom is one of the most abused and overused words in historical or political rhetoric. With that said, I admit that freedom has not always been expressed similarly or equally throughout America’s history. As a guarantor of the rights of freedom for the world’s population at large, the United States of America has only stepped up to fill that role since its entrance into World War II. It wasn’t until imperial Japan attacked American forces in the Pacific that U.S. citizens became overwhelmingly convinced that the best way to protect their own rights and privileges would be to protect the rights and privileges of others. It was not until the 1940’s that the United States became a willing international superpower bent on defending all innocent states from untoward aggression and oppression. Since that time, the United States has, for the most part, performed its role as “world policeman” with admirable vigor; on the other hand, the times when the United States has failed to protect the rights of freedom for all nations have led to some of the most shameful moments in world history.

As we celebrate the anniversary of D-Day, we would do well to remember that D-Day would not have happened without Pearl Harbor. Memorial Day would not be necessary were it not for the fact that there have always been individuals and groups who do not share our vision of freedom for all men and women. Memorial Day stands as a symbol for remembering our fallen comrades-in-arms, it is true. But in a more practical sense, Memorial Day calls out for us to remember the hard lessons we have learned as a liberty-loving people: that not everyone loves freedom as we do, that there are those who seek to take freedom away from us and our allies, and that freedom is something worth standing up and, if necessary, fighting for.

Fighting for our own freedom as well as the freedom of others is something that Americans have been very good at since Lieutenant Colonel “Jimmy” Doolittle’s B-25 bombers made their historic raid on Tokyo. But I have to wonder if this particular tradition of freedom is in danger of disappearing. It is a tradition that I think is worth keeping around for as long as possible, but it has become clear to me that other Americans do not seem to think so. U.S. President Barack Obama is one of those Americans.

President Obama can say whatever he likes. But observable facts reveal that in the strictest sense, President Obama will ultimately be remembered as a “redefiner.” This is a term that I have come up with on my own. The Barack Obama presidency will be remembered in history books as one which sought to fundamentally redefine America. I would venture to argue that this definition of Barack Obama is one which conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and even Barack Obama himself would agree on. After all, his was the campaign of hope and change.

In the wake of the 2012 presidential election, I learned for myself (and to my utter disappointment and sadness) that most American citizens seem to actively wish for the kind of change that Barack Obama represents. People like me take a dimmer view of what we see as Obama’s un-American vision for the country. In any case, we must all decide for ourselves whether or not Barack Obama’s brand of change is American or not. But certainly, changes have been made or attempted.

With bailouts, stimulus plans, and government-mandated programs of unprecedented scale, President Obama has redefined government’s relationship with the people. By protecting illegal immigrants and preventing deportations, President Obama has attempted to redefine what it means to be a U.S. citizen as well as the dignity that comes along with that particular social status. And by expressing his liberal views on marriage and the family, President Obama has also expressed a willingness to allow the redefinition of the most basic of human relationships.

Can it possibly be denied that President Obama is, indeed, a redefiner?

His approach to defending freedom also represents a break from the past. It is a break which will lead to adverse consequences for us and our allies. Let us take a moment and look at President Obama’s foreign policy through the lenses of two current news topics: the Ukrainian crisis and the Benghazi scandal.

Ukraine is a divided country. While many Ukrainians want their country to establish stronger links with the West through the European Union and NATO, other Ukrainians living in the eastern and southern portions of the country wish to reestablish ties with the Russian Federation.

Beginning in November of last year, these divisions exploded into violent public confrontations when former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union. Yanukovych’s opponents formed a movement known as Euromaiden and swept the country with large-scale demonstrations, creating a great deal of civil unrest in many parts of the country. In February of this year, Euromaiden was able to successfully precipitate a revolt which removed Yanukovych from power. This, in turn, sparked pro-Russian revolts in the eastern and southern portions of the country, leading to the eventual invasion and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation.

Tensions continue even now. As recently as this month, tens of thousands of Russian troops have been massed on that country’s border with Ukraine. Sporadic fighting still occurs in some areas, and Russian officials have said they would intervene in Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, has vowed that he will be “closely following developments in southeast Ukraine.” The possibility of further armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia remains high.

We should all be clear on a few things concerning the Ukrainian crisis. The European Union represents Eastern Europe’s best chance at freedom from Russian hegemony. Countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine deserve Western friendship and support if only to wean them away from further entanglements with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The Euromaiden movement is entirely deserving of U.S. support. The United States should do everything within reason to facilitate greater ties between Ukraine and the European Union. At the very least, this policy would provide a much-needed counterbalance to Russian machinations in the region.

As for Russia itself, let us not deceive ourselves. Russia is not a truly free country. It is run by the dictates of President Putin, at best a not-so-benevolent dictator who has monopolized political power for himself and himself alone. The Heritage Foundation’s 2014 Index of Economic Freedom has this to say about the Russian Federation:

“Former President and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was re-elected president in March 2012 on the heels of hotly disputed December 2011 Duma elections. Political repression is on the rise. Prominent opposition figures have been forced to leave the country, and others have been prosecuted on what appear to be trumped-up charges. Sergey Magnitsky, an anti-corruption crusader and whistleblower, died in jail. The state has reasserted its dominance in the aerospace, mining, and oil and gas industries, and the state budget remains heavily dependent on exports of natural resources, especially hydrocarbons. Russia’s reputation for cronyism and corruption and an inhospitable regulatory environment have damaged its investment climate as well as its emerging small-business community.”

When we also consider Putin’s invasions of Georgia and the Crimea, his increasing military ties to enemies of freedom in Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, I believe it becomes clear that as long as Russia belongs to Putin, what’s good for Russia is bad for the world’s freedom.

Now I am not saying that the U.S. should go to war with Russia. I’m not saying that military intervention is inevitable or even desirable. What I AM saying is that bullies like Vladimir Putin should not be allowed to feel comfortable with pushing other people around on the world stage. If the United States had properly fulfilled its role as the guarantor of freedom—if the United States government had focused on national security in the prioritized way that it deserves—countries like Russia wouldn’t feel comfortable doing the things they do.

The enemies of freedom should feel nothing but fear for the United States and its defensive capabilities. Instead, I worry that they feel nothing but derision and mockery for the United States and its increasing lack of influence on world affairs.

Truthfully, the blame for this does not rest with the Barack Obama administration alone. But at the same time, we must ask ourselves, “How did the Obama administration react to the Ukrainian crisis?” A March Washington Post article written by Scott Wilson and William Branigin gave a disturbing answer to that question.

Wilson and Branigin reminded us that during the campaign season leading up to the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama mocked his opponent, Mitt Romney, for referring to Russia as the world’s most dangerous geo-political threat. Back in March of this year, President Obama dismissed Russia as a “regional power” that did not pose a leading security threat to the United States. “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors— not out of strength but out of weakness,” Obama said in response to a reporter’s question about whether his 2012 election opponent, Mitt Romney, was right to characterize Russia as America’s biggest geopolitical foe. “They don’t pose the number one national security threat to the United States,” Obama said in a news conference. Defending his response to the Ukrainian crisis, Obama dismissed criticism that a perception of weakness abroad had prompted Putin to seize Ukraine’s autonomous Crimea region, an act the United States and Europe have called a violation of both Ukrainian and international law.

Russia a “regional power”? Vladimir Putin operating from a position of “weakness”?

Statements like this from the man in charge of my country’s national security really worry me. They demonstrate President Obama’s unwillingness to see reality for what it is, to confront the enemies of freedom as the very real dangers they represent.

The Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi scandal and to Islamist terrorism also concerns me. In other blog posts, I have criticized Obama’s handling of the Arab Spring, of trying to move on from what he believes is President Bush’s war against terrorism. I don’t need to say any more about that here. But I would like to remind the reader that President Obama has attempted to declare premature victory against Islamic fundamentalism precisely because he needs that kind of political victory to capitalize upon. Barack Obama needs the war on terror to go away. His successful apprehension of Osama bin Laden necessitates a grand follow-up; he needs Islamic fundamentalism to disappear from the Middle East. Unfortunately, the President has allowed his dreams to distort his perception of reality in much the same way that his grasp of the Ukrainian situation has been compromised.

When the September 11^th, 2012 attacks against the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya occurred, I have a feeling that the Obama administration went into panic mode—but not for the right reasons. Investigations on this particular scandal (and by the way, if ANYONE ever decides to write a book about the scandals of the Obama administration, there will surely be PLENTY of source material) are just beginning to get off the ground, but it has become abundantly clear to me that the Barack Obama administration has engaged in obfuscation, dishonesty, and misrepresentation of facts to deliberately confuse the public’s understanding of what happened leading up to, during, and after the Benghazi attacks took place. We may not yet know who is guilty. We may not yet know the general chronology of what went wrong. But it has become clear that, at best, the Obama administration is guilty of gross negligence regarding their duty to protect and defend American citizens and interests in Libya.

My theory is that the Obama administration saw the Benghazi attacks as an invalidation of everything the Commander-in-Chief has been saying about U.S. progress in the war against terror. Benghazi destroyed Obama’s sunshine and rainbows narrative; it shattered the illusion that Islamic fundamentalism is on the decline in the Middle East. It is my opinion that Benghazi heightened Obama’s fear that the extremism of the Arab Spring was spreading to other parts of the Middle East, and that the spread of such extremism would undermine Obama’s claim to victory in the war against terrorism. This is why I believe Obama’s administration has attempted to cover-up the facts of the Benghazi attack. They cannot afford this kind of defeat. They would rather distort reality than confront it.

At the beginning of this month, Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, wrote an article that talked about this very thing. His article focused on the Obama administration’s “blame the video” phenomenon we are all now familiar with. McCarthy believes that the Obama administration’s dishonesty regarding the Benghazi attacks began in the context of the 2012 presidential election:

“It was intended, in the stretch run of the 2012 campaign, to obscure the facts that (a) the president’s foreign policy of empowering Islamic supremacists contributed directly and materially to the Benghazi massacre; (b) the president’s reckless stationing of American government personnel in Benghazi and his shocking failure to provide sufficient protection for them were driven by a political-campaign imperative to portray the Obama Libya policy as a success—and, again, they invited the jihadist violence that killed our ambassador and three other Americans; and (c) far from being ‘decimated,’ as the president repeatedly claimed during the campaign (and continued to claim even after the September 11 violence in Egypt and Libya), al-Qaeda and its allied jihadists remained a driving force of anti-American violence in Muslim countries—indeed, they had been strengthened by the president’s pro-Islamist policies.”

McCarthy went on to conclude that everything the Obama administration has done to confuse the public regarding what happened—and why it happened—comes from the administration’s desire to ignore its own failed policies:

“Thanks to President Obama’s policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists in Egypt, post-Mubarak Cairo became a very hospitable place for jihadists. That included al-Qaeda leaders, such as Mohammed Zawahiri, brother of al-Qaeda emir Ayman Zawahiri; and leaders of Gama’at al-Islamia (the Islamic Group), the terrorist organization led by the Blind Sheikh.

“In the weeks before September 11, 2012, these jihadists plotted to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo. In fact, the Blind Sheikh’s son threatened a 1979 Iran-style raid on the embassy: Americans would be taken hostage to ransom for the Blind Sheikh’s release from American prison (he is serving a life sentence). Other jihadists threatened to burn the embassy to the ground — a threat that was reported in the Egyptian press the day before the September 11 ‘protests.’

“The State Department knew there was going to be trouble at the embassy on September 11, the eleventh anniversary of al-Qaeda’s mass-murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It was well known that things could get very ugly. When they did, it would become very obvious to Americans that President Obama had not ‘decimated’ al-Qaeda as he was claiming on the campaign trail. Even worse, it would be painfully evident that his pro–Muslim Brotherhood policies had actually enhanced al-Qaeda’s capacity to attack the United States in Egypt.”

So what does all of this mean? Why would President Obama distort the realities of the Ukrainian crisis? Why would he do the same for political purposes concerning the Benghazi scandal—a scandal that is emblematic for Obama’s handling of Islamic terrorism?

I currently work as a teaching assistant for the history department at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. A few days ago, one of the professors I work for attempted to explain British military strategy in the American War for Independence to his students. In explaining how the British first attempted to conquer New England, then attempted the severing of the New England colonies from the Middle Colonies, and finally settled on an invasion of the South, this professor jokingly compared Britain’s attempts to subjugate the American colonies to President Obama’s foreign policy—completely lacking coherence, an overarching plan, or a well-reasoned pursuit of sensible objectives.

The students laughed at this professor’s joke. But how much of a joke is it, really? Many a truth is said in jest, and I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Barack Obama’s foreign policy team is guilty of incoherence, ill planning, and unreasonable and insensible behavior. The Ukrainian crisis and the Benghazi scandal are just two examples of that evidence; they are two illustrations that readily come to mind whenever we read the newspapers, check our online newsfeeds, or turn on the television or radio.

Why has President Obama’s foreign policy been filled with weakness and vacillation?

The answers to all the questions posed in this blog post regarding Obama’s foreign policy can be answered in this simple way: weakness and vacillation are integral parts of Obama’s redefining of American foreign policy.

Does anyone remember Obama’s “apology tour” of the world? Does anyone remember his campaign rhetoric against President Bush’s legacy of unilateral action? Does anyone remember Obama’s whiny remarks about Guantanamo Bay, about the nations of the world despising the U.S. because we tend to “go it alone”?

President Obama doesn’t believe in the vision of freedom I talked about earlier. He doesn’t believe that the U.S. should be the defender of the world’s freedom. He may say otherwise, but his actions speak far louder than his words. He believes that the best thing for world freedom is for the United States to back off, to retreat, to stand down. Complications have arisen because Obama’s dreams have been confronted by the harsh realities of international relations. This is why Obama criticizes Guantanamo Bay while expanding unmanned drone operations. This is why Obama declares victory in Iraq and Afghanistan but then promptly pulls out as many of the troops as possible, leaving room for the enemy to regroup and reform. This is why he trumpets the killing of bin Laden but then downplays the triumphs of Islamic fundamentalists in Egypt and Libya. This is why he laughs at Mitt Romney for calling Russia a “geo-political” threat and then awkwardly confronts Russia when Putin once again goes on the march.

President Obama’s dreams tell him that a weak American foreign policy will be better for the world. Reality tells him that American weakness will lead to political failure at home. American interests and the interests of American allies get left somewhere in the middle. The conflict between Obama’s dreams and reality has directly resulted in the haphazard foreign policies we’ve been witnessing since Obama first took office as President of the United States.

Peace through strength is a much better course for us to take. The harshness of reality is far better than the dreams of fancy that Obama has been peddling to us for the last few years. Putin’s Russia IS the most significant geo-political threat to human freedom. Islamist terrorists HAVE NOT magically disappeared from the face of the earth with the death of bin Laden. There are no easy ways to confront these international threats to freedom. But at the same time, “easy” is not the same as “simple.” The simple solution to the problem of countering these threats involves basic leadership, foundational principles, and honored traditions. The United States needs better leadership than that currently offered by the White House. The United States needs to reconnect with her foundational principles—the principles that remind us that holidays like Memorial Day exist precisely because not everyone loves freedom as we do, because there are those who seek to take freedom away from us and our allies, and because freedom is something worth fighting for. And finally, the United States needs to value the tradition started during World War II; Americans needs to remember that if we do not fulfill the role of world policeman, then someone else less friendly to the basic concepts of human freedom surely will.

Anyone who keeps current with my seasonal blog posts may be tempted to accuse me of pursuing a personal vendetta against President Barack Obama. It would be very easy to read these blog posts and conclude that the author thinks of Barack Obama as the focus of evil in the modern world.

Such a conclusion simply is not true. Barack Obama is NOT the focus of evil in our world. Believe me—he’s not smart enough to deserve that much credit.

The content of Barack Obama’s character, while definitely a subject of doubt and concern for me, is ultimately not my concern. But Barack Obama’s vision for America IS my concern. President Obama—whether he likes it or not—is a symbol. He is a symbol for the forces that seek to redefine America. Some people embrace the change. I do not. I never will.

After all, Memorial Day comes around on the calendar often enough to remind me that what this country has achieved in the last 70 years is just too precious to give up just because some community organizer from Chicago starts prattling on about “hope and change.”

--Christopher Peterson, May 25^th, 2014