Foreign policy matters

Having discussed the economic failures of the current administration and relating it to the Republican candidates in my last article, I will now bring my focus to bear on a much more important issue: foreign policy and defense. Some of you may ask, "Why would defense be more important than jobs?"

To this, I would answer that without defense, we don't have a free country, and without a free country, we don't have job opportunities.

To start, let's take a look at the situation in the world at large as it stands today.  Probably the biggest story is Iran and its ongoing nuclear enrichment program.  Add their military buildup in other areas and the provocative rhetoric coming primarily from their president, and you have a situation that greatly resembles Germany during the 1930s.

As if all that weren't enough, add to it the situation with North Korea and its nuclear program and the unending turmoil in the Middle East, and you have a tinderbox that, unless something is done, will flare up if a single spark is struck.

So how has the present administration handled all this volatility? Well, it started by apologizing for America's success and military power.  President Obama continued by bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia.

When it comes to the Iranians, Obama has said nothing conclusive about how he plans to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, to the understandable concern of the Israelis.

This may have caused the Iranians to believe they have nothing to fear, at least from the U.S.  He has taken much the same position with North Korea.  

When it comes to the Middle East turmoil, President Obama has succeeded in removing our largest defensive asset there: the troops in Iraq. With our soldiers there, they were able to keep our enemies busy fighting, thereby keeping us safer here at home.  

Finally, and probably worst of all, President Obama has initiated a program of defense cuts—cuts that will leave the U.S. more                                                      vulnerable to her enemies.

So if our current president won't stand up to our enemies, then which of the Republican candidates will?  

Mitt Romney has said that he will be tough on our enemies and stand with our allies, but since he has been only a state governor, he doesn't have the foreign policy experience of his rival candidates. I believe Ron Paul would most definitely be the worst candidate on foreign policy matters because his policy is to stay out of foreign affairs.

This type of policy can be summed up in one word—isolationism—and a brief history lesson shows that every time the U.S. has been an isolationist nation (most notable prior to World Wars I and II), it has ended up in a major war.  

So that leaves Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have some foreign policy experience as Senator and as Speaker of the House, respectively.

Both have a record to back their tough talk. Both are strong conservatives, and strong conservatives have good records when it comes to foreign policy and defense (if you have any doubts about this, just look at Ronald Reagan).

So to recap, Obama's foreign policy has been weak, Paul's is non-existent, and Romney really has no experience in this area. That leaves Santorum and Gingrich as the best people to re-establish America's foreign policy and re-assert our military supremacy.  

But I still believe, however, that this is not the most important issue at stake in this election.  In my next article, I will outline what I believe to be the most important issue affecting the United States today and who will be the best one to fix it.

Kazyak is a freshman music major of Manila.