Chris Stevens and 3 Other Americans Died Because American Foreign Policy is Broken

Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Sudan — the violence against Americans continues in the Arab world. Unfortunately, Barack Obama, the "feel good" president who seeks not to offend anyone in his foreign policy, is patently offensive to American interests abroad. This is too bad, as it is a fantastic opportunity for the American government to define a foreign policy based on the only rational objective it should have: defend American lives and property from the threat of violence against aggressors.

The result of Obama's actions are clear, though. Americans have died needless deaths at the hands of butchers.

Realistically, one cannot hold Obama completely responsible for the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issuing a statement saying the “United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” 

However, that statement in and of itself does reflect his influence on our foreign policy objectives, which now seem to include the concept of enforcing political correctness on our own citizens so as not to offend religiously-minded individuals overseas. Therefore, while we cannot hold President Obama completely responsible, he does have ownership of the jumbled foreign policy mess that our government now finds itself in.

For years, America has lacked much in the way of a foreign policy objective. While the Bush administration was right to attack Afghanistan in response for 9/11, how the Iraq War fit into the foreign policy of protecting American lives is hard to understand. Obama decries Islamic fundamentalism, then offers $800 million in aid and military assistance to a regime with ties to religious fundamentalists and terror organizations. In either case, an inconsistency in philosophy produces an inconsistency in policy, and the result is that American lives are lost. 

Our foreign policy needs a radical realignment, and that policy must make explicit three objectives:

1. Our military will not intervene in foreign conflicts unless American lives or property are threatened.

2. Our military will only attack foreign nations or populations when American lives or property are attacked.

3. When such attacks occur, the American military will attack foreign populations, military units, and government agencies without reservation.

Such a foreign policy will make clear that democracy and nation-building are not in the interest of the United States, nor should they be. The policy of forcing freedom on people is irreconcilable with free choice; its success may be a bit questionable when considering the results of radical theocrats rising to power in “democratic” nations as a result of the Arab Spring.

Additionally, this foreign policy would signal that America is ready and willing to use its vast military power to destroy any would-be threat to Americans abroad. That should reasonably include the willingness and express intent to use tactical nuclear strikes if necessary Likely, neither the right nor the left would be happy with such a foreign policy, but it does make explicit the state’s responsibility to protect the individual rights of American citizens no matter their location in the world.

Obama’s dropped the ball. True, past presidents have failed in their own unique ways as well, but Obama is the current Commander-in-Chief. He campaigned on the promise of building a new bridge between the United States and the Muslim world. It appears that bridge is not wanted by those we tried to reach out to, and as a result, Americans have died.

The real tragedy here is that Americans would have likely died regardless, because when irrational thugs know nothing other than force, they will understand nothing of diplomacy other than force.