Diplomacy is not a weakness

A few days ago I wrote a blog post in praise of the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy, as demonstrated via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent visit to Asia. I pointed out how we've quickly progressed from a policy of aggression, finger pointing, and fear mongering to a policy of warmth, listening, and learning -- exactly what is needed to repair our relationship with the rest of the world.

The resultant influx of hate mail from the right wing was swift, predictable, and -- in most cases -- flatly lame.

An example:

"Democrats have a three part plan for defense, 1. Run. 2. Hide 3. Wave the white flag."

In other words, this person seems to believe that diplomacy = surrender. If you don't adopt the Bush doctrine of preemptive war on unthreatening unarmed nations, and if you seek active diplomatic engagement as opposed to swaggering finger pointing, threats, and unnecessary violence, then you're a wimp.

The logical errors here are numerous. I'll just address a few of them.

First, those who would suggest that Hillary Clinton would promote a policy of running, hiding, and waving the white flag was obviously not paying attention to the 2008 Democratic primary season. If anything, Clinton was too aggressive here, and she's not going to suddenly sweep her moxie under a rug. In fact, her never-back-down fighting spirit might actually be one of the reasons why Obama chose her to head up the State Department.

That said, it was President Theodore Roosevelt -- a Republican, mind you -- who advocated that we "speak softly but carry a big stick." That is exactly what Obama and Clinton are doing. They are "speaking softly", and thereby winning hearts in minds in parts of the world where it's really, really needed. But they also carry a big stick -- arguably the greatest military force in terrestrial history. And they're not afraid to use that stick, as evidenced by Obama's recent decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, to finish the job that George W. Bush should have finished years ago, but didn't.

On a final note, I will point out that you can't solve the world's problems through violence. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Violence begets violence, as demonstrated most recently by the Bush administration. Proof: Bush's own intelligence experts have stated that Bush's foreign policy -- most notably the Iraq war -- has made us less safe, and has, in fact, worsened the terrorism threat.

However, it would appear that the indoctrinated "true believers" don't care about any of that. They just want/need to engage their irrational aggressive tendencies, no matter what the cost.

After all, as they see it, they are Americans, so they are invincible. Kick foreign ass and rule the world.

They have no idea how naive they really are.

Fortunately, as evidenced by the 2008 elections, these folks today appear to be in the minority, albeit a highly vocal minority.