Michael Gerson: Three history lessons: Costs of inaction in today's foreign policy

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 28, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    Badger.. nice nit picking to no avail.

    Sorry Michael, for writing Dan.

    My bias is showing. I hope so that's the point of an opinion piece.

    Now Badger, let's see something of substance from you. Just what does standing up to Russia mean?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 27, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    On our foreign policy, and Nuclear disarmament...
    Remember Obama's Speech in Berlin (June 19, 2013)...

    "We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe". (Applause.)...

    Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world WITHOUT nuclear weapons; no matter how distant that dream may be. And so, as President, I've reduced the number and role of America's nuclear weapons. Because of the New START Treaty, we're on track to cut American and Russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest levels since the 1950s. (Applause.)

    But we have more work to do. So today, I'm announcing additional steps forward. I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures. (Applause.)

    At the same time, we'll work with our NATO allies to seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe"....


    I hope we have a list of lessons learned on Russia, as we negotiate nuclear disarmament in the Hague today.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 27, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    Prag - your massive bias is showing. This is Michael's piece, not Dan's.

    It must be hard to see straight when all you see is red.

    When you put words in quotes, they should be the actual words used by the writer. "reasonable" and "responsible" are not the same word.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    March 27, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    What inaction? The only thing that could be provided as an answer is that we didn't go to war. Let's compare. Syria - OK, assume 100,000 Syrians dead. We can pursue sanctions and diplomacy and try to get that to work. Or we can go in like we did in Iraq, where 4486 U.S. soliders died and upwards of 500,000 Iraqi citizens died. The vibrant Christian community was wiped out. Why? Either revenge by Bush or for oil, or both. U.S. intervention in Iran in the early 1950s still plagues us today. As soon as we leave Afghanistan, after spending billions (the stories about waste are astou9nding!), it will likely revert back to the way it was. What did we gain, especially as the problem was really centered in Pakistan? Did we just want a toehold in that region? Ukraine? We think there is anything we could have done to stop Russia? What? All I see is whining and criticism, all of which would be silent if a Republican occupied the White House.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 27, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    Well Dan's at least well versed in the Fox talking points.

    First of all he picked the world atrocities that fit his theme, then he told the nice and neat sanitized version of them.

    I like the part about if we had just supported the "more reasonable" rebels in Syria. I suppose that means groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are no reasonable groups in that kind of war Dan. It's a political talking point and that's it. Pick them if you will to further your goal, but don't be deluded to think they're going to be your friend and or a proponent of western democracy after the fight.

    It also not just the country is weary of war, but the country looked out and said why. What did we create with Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Over ten years ago Amy Chua wrote a book "World on fire". The premise, which has proved again and again to be correct was, the citizens of the world will be who they are and democracy won't change that. In fact it will worsen the situation in many cases. American military involvement is an ego centric fools errand.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 27, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    Now that it is clear that getting and having WMD makes a country more powerful, I hope the Obama doesn't go try to negotiate with Putin to get rid of ours. I don't want to be annexed to Russia, nor do I want a world filled with impotent countries who cannot/will not stand up to Russian, Iranian, North Korean aggression.