Pragmatism in Foreign policy

Let’s take a look at foreign policy for a moment. The effects of pragmatism are evident everywhere one looks. For instance, it is no longer fashionable to use the term Muslim or Islam when speaking of our enemies. Instead of Islamic extremist or Muslim terrorist the acceptable term for those causing trouble is now extremist or fanatic. In fact, the war on terror isn’t even mentioned by the new administration.

The catch word “moderation” has become the new symbol of respectability. One must always keep an open dialogue with their enemies and keep the peace process moving along. One cannot challenge the validly of these claims because who gets to decide what’s valid? Ambiguity rules the realm of the pragmatist and it is this philosophy that drives both domestic and foreign policy. Since pragmatism is a code of non-ethics there can be no rightful claims except to do whatever is expedient or popular at the moment.

Take another example from war on Terror. In Iraq, instead of fighting the war to win the U.S. has embarked on a path of crusading western style democracy in the same way the Christian crusaders went about spreading Christianity to the heathens, who did not want it, employing brute force to achieve it.

The idea that the Islamic world would ever accept a western style democracy is simply ludicrous at best.

First of all, the image of democracy as a symbol of freedom and all Islam needs is a heavy dose of democracy couldn’t be further from the truth. Folks need to understand democracy is fundamentally incompatible with freedom. Freedom is premised on the idea of individualism; which principally states that every man (and women) is an independent and a sovereign being. Freedom means one does not need anyone’s permission to act on the judgment of his own rational mind. In other words, a free man is not a merely an interchangeable component of society—he is free to cultivate his talents, take calculated risks, to think and act for himself, and enjoy the benefits of his creations.

Islamic culture on the other hand is the antithesis to the principles of freedom. Instead of recognizing and respecting individual rights the culture of Islam is built on the idea of tribalism. The function of the individual is to serve the clan or the larger organism. Islam rejects the values necessary for freedom to exist.

So while Bush may take credit for having liberated millions of people (at least on paper) by giving them the vote. The consequence of his policies was to fan the flames of American hatred throughout the Middle East—exhibited by mass demonstrations glorifying martyrs and celebrating 9/11.

What else did we get for our troubles? In almost every case voters support candidates that are overwhelmingly anti-west.

In Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine, where U.S. policy advances democracy and demands elections, in every case without exception, the populations of those nations embraced anti-western, freedom adverse, Islamic fundamentalist candidates.

This same failed policy of nation building and crusading western style democracy around the Middle East as a means of achieving victory is still being played out in the Middle East under Barrack Obama’s administration. It quickly becomes apparent that the outcome of pragmatic policies isn’t as important as having noble intensions.