Want World Peace? Try This

Oooh, I love love LOVE this plan for world peace, and I'm deeming it an absolute must-read:

President Obama's UN address inspires Jennifer Rubin to observe:

The president keeps telling us he isn't naive (funny how Ronald Reagan and even Bill Clinton didn't have to keep compulsively telling us that). Well, maybe he's just incredibly cynical. Or uninterested in facing the real dangers to America and its allies. In his view, they simply don't exist.

Rubin uses "cynical" in a pejorative sense, whereas I consider cynicism a healthy thing, the basic gut-hunch belief that whenever a politician starts speaking in glittering generalities of lofty goals and noble causes, he's probably up to something crooked.

Where's Howard Jarvis when America really needs him? The ferocious onslaught of Hope has left our nation with a cynicism deficit. When Obama speaks, we need more taxpayers asking themselves: "What's this gonna cost me?" or "What's in it for him?"

Cynicism is a necessary ingredient of successful foreign policy. Start with this basic idea: We're the Big Dog, and we need to stop being embarrassed about it. When push comes to shove, the Big Dog's got to be ready to fight his own fights, even if he's fighting alone.

Look at our so-called "allies." Never mind the worthless Italians, the cowardly French and the degenerate Dutch. Canada? You think anybody's afraid of Canada? Canadians are useless as allies because no one has ever feared Canada as an enemy. The last thing any belligerent Third World despot has to worry about is arousing the wrath of Ottowa.

Now, look at the president's U.N. speech: Lots of high-flown rhetoric about his "comprehensive agenda," a "coordinated international response," "a new era of engagement," yadda yadda yadda. 

Any speech sounds great when delivered with that trademark Obama baritone. AsI've said before, "He could read the ingredients from the side panel of a box of pancake batter ('…dextrose, partially hydrogenated soybean oil with mono- and diglycerides…') and inspire standing ovations from an audience of adoring Democrats." Or belligerent Third World despots, for that matter. But when you start looking at the text and breaking it down to its non-baritone elements — "the occupation that began in 1967″? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

My blog buddy Da Tech Guy has promulgated a "Statement of Common Principles"about foreign policy and it's not bad. But what we need is not so much the correctprinciples as the correct attitude. You're not going to get the right foreign-policy attitude when your top speechwriter is a valedictorian from Massachusetts who worked for Habitat for Humanity before joining the Kerry 2004 campaign.

America's basic foreign policy problem is that we've got too many valedictorians writing speeches, and not enough Marines. What we need is a foreign policy that the average truck driver can understand, so that he'll be proud to have his son go to the recruiting office and sign up for a free vacation at Parris Island.

We need something that can be boiled down to one of those Dirty Harry-style phrases that Ronald Reagan was so good at: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Six words, and once you get past "Mr. Gorbachev," they're all single syllables.

This need for simplicity inspired me to take a stab at a comprehensive foreign policy doctrine:

So far as I'm concerned, the world can be divided into four categories:

1. U.S.A.
2. Countries that we're at war with.
3. Countries that we're not at war with.
4. Countries that are watching from the sidelines and thinking, "Hmmm. Maybe we should jump in on this war against America."

The objective of policy should be for category 1 to whip the living dog$#*t out of category 2, and thereby transfer them to category 3, so as to send a message to category 4: "Don't even think about it, @$$holes."
Peace Through Superior Firepower. Anybody got a better idea?

The State Department would never go for it and the New York Times will not approve, but that truck driver can understand it, and by the time his son gets through Parris Island, he'll understand it, too.

YES!!!  It's brilliant!

For the record, this is why Sarah Palin is able to command such grass roots support: simplicity.  The most obvious recent example was when she referred to Obama's 'end of life care advisory panels' as 'death panels'.  It's easy, it's graspable by everyone, and it conveys a walloping emotional impact that makes the Left quake in their boots.  Reagan had that gift, and so does Palin.

This opinion is right on.  We need more politicians who can -- and are willing to -- speak plainly, speak clearly, speak simply, speak truthfully, and speak forcefully.  We need politicians to cut the politically correct bullcrap and tell us the real deal.  The above peace plan embodies all of those things, and a politician can explain it in a 30 second sound byte with ten seconds left over for the raucous applause.

Oh, and if we show that we have the spine to enforce this, the rest of the world will figure it out pretty quickly, too.

There's my two cents.