Lets "compare & contrast" with "critical thinking"!
The Democrat's approach and subsequent results:
Jimmy Carter had tried accommodating America's enemies. He cut back on defense. He made humility the hallmark of American diplomacy. Our foes responded with aggression: Iranian revolutionaries danced in the rubble of the U.S. Embassy; the Soviets sponsored armed insurgencies and invaded Afghanistan.
Small wonder that people are saying the world looks like a rerun of the Carter years. The Obama Doctrine possesses many Carteresque attributes: a heavy reliance on treaties and international institutions; a more humble (and, often, apologetic) U.S. presence around the globe, and a diminishment of U.S. hard power.
And the Obama Doctrine has reaped pretty much the same results. When asked if he feared a U.S. military strike against his country's nuclear program, the Iranian president scoffed at the notion.
Meanwhile, after yielding to Russian complaints and canceling plans to build missile defenses against an Iranian attack, Obama signed an arms control treaty which, the Kremlin boasts, will further limit our missile defense. Yet Moscow still complains that the more limited system the Obama administration wants to field is too much. Once again, American concessions have only encouraged Moscow to be more aggressive. And now Russia state tv is boasting that they have the capabilities to turn the U.S. into "radioactive ash".
And lets not forget Bill Clinton ignoring Al Qaeda and pulling out of Mogadishu because he didn't have the political stomach for either - which was the dog whistle signal for our enemies to go on the offensive and eventually lead to 9/11.
The Republican's approach and subsequent results:
As Reagan entered his presidency, the U.S. economy and the American spirit were low. Still, he committed to a policy of "peace through strength." And, even before he put his plan into action, our enemies began to worry.
Yuri Andropov, the chief of the KGB -- the Soviet's spy network -- feared that Reagan planned to attack. "Andropov," wrote Steven Hayward, in his "Age of Reagan"ordered the KGB to organize a special surveillance program in the United States -- code-named Operation RYAN -- to look for signs of preparations for an attack."
Reagan's assertive approach to foreign policy did not spark war. It produced peace. The Kremlin discovered Reagan was not the cowboy they feared. But they respected the more muscular United States. Russia agreed to the most effective arms control treaty in history.
The benefits spread. According to the Canadian-based Human Security project, deaths from political violence worldwide (even accounting for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) have declined continually since the end of the Cold War ... until recently.
Lesson from Jimmy Carter: Weakness invites aggression
The Democrat's approach and subsequent results:
Jimmy Carter had tried accommodating America's enemies. He cut back on defense. He made humility the hallmark of American diplomacy. Our foes responded with aggression: Iranian revolutionaries danced in the rubble of the U.S. Embassy; the Soviets sponsored armed insurgencies and invaded Afghanistan.
Small wonder that people are saying the world looks like a rerun of the Carter years. The Obama Doctrine possesses many Carteresque attributes: a heavy reliance on treaties and international institutions; a more humble (and, often, apologetic) U.S. presence around the globe, and a diminishment of U.S. hard power.
And the Obama Doctrine has reaped pretty much the same results. When asked if he feared a U.S. military strike against his country's nuclear program, the Iranian president scoffed at the notion.
Meanwhile, after yielding to Russian complaints and canceling plans to build missile defenses against an Iranian attack, Obama signed an arms control treaty which, the Kremlin boasts, will further limit our missile defense. Yet Moscow still complains that the more limited system the Obama administration wants to field is too much. Once again, American concessions have only encouraged Moscow to be more aggressive. And now Russia state tv is boasting that they have the capabilities to turn the U.S. into "radioactive ash".
And lets not forget Bill Clinton ignoring Al Qaeda and pulling out of Mogadishu because he didn't have the political stomach for either - which was the dog whistle signal for our enemies to go on the offensive and eventually lead to 9/11.
The Republican's approach and subsequent results:
As Reagan entered his presidency, the U.S. economy and the American spirit were low. Still, he committed to a policy of "peace through strength." And, even before he put his plan into action, our enemies began to worry.
Yuri Andropov, the chief of the KGB -- the Soviet's spy network -- feared that Reagan planned to attack. "Andropov," wrote Steven Hayward, in his "Age of Reagan"ordered the KGB to organize a special surveillance program in the United States -- code-named Operation RYAN -- to look for signs of preparations for an attack."
Reagan's assertive approach to foreign policy did not spark war. It produced peace. The Kremlin discovered Reagan was not the cowboy they feared. But they respected the more muscular United States. Russia agreed to the most effective arms control treaty in history.
The benefits spread. According to the Canadian-based Human Security project, deaths from political violence worldwide (even accounting for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq) have declined continually since the end of the Cold War ... until recently.
Lesson from Jimmy Carter: Weakness invites aggression
