Opinion OPINION: Republicans Report — Democrats consistently call for war By Aaron Reining Posted on October 21, 2019 7 min read 0 15 200 Aaron Reining is a senior double majoring in history and political science. He is a member of the Ohio University College Republicans. The following article reflects the opinion and views of the author and does not present the thoughts of the Ohio University College Republicans. This is a submitted column, and please note that these views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political. I remember first liking Barack Obama primarily for his promises in 2008 to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He spoke of the repercussions of our involvement in such a decidedly complicated affair, one which many argue we have no legitimate right presiding over. As his term went on, his demeanor and willingness to increase American foreign intervention led to my own disembarkment from the Democratic movement. I saw a man who made great promises buckle to a consuming military-industrial complex, one which he passionately criticized when under the marshalship of the Bush administration. This betrayal is further reflected in the former president’s eagerness to increase unmanned drone strikes, an action many believe to be counter-intuitive toward fostering peace and good will in hostile regions. While sending drones to murder the enemies of America is beneficial in terms of safeguarding the lives of our brave and cherished service members — something that is in no doubt a huge positive — they also have a major downside. Drones regularly strike targets and individuals that they were not intending to strike. These individuals are also not threatening to our national security most of the time. It is this action that many believe spawns new enemies and adversaries. What would you do if Canada was hunting a terrorist in America and droned a highway, killing civilians in their pursuit of just one man? The reality is that too many civilians are killed on the president’s orders, putting America in danger of radicalizing even more fighters against our mission objectives in the region. During the Oct. 15 debate last week, some Democrats on stage supported continuing the American military action in the Middle East, striking themselves as the party that is pro-war and regime change. Only Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, herself a veteran, declared fervently that war would only make matters more complicated. Her point was that the United States was funding multiple factions in the region, some of which are even militarily opposed to one another. Alarmingly, her challengers all chastised her for holding a position Democrats once lauded. Ever since former President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton advocated for participating in the Libyan Civil war, a war that destabilized the whole North African region, Democrats have supported military intervention all over the world. Not to mention, the destabilization led to the murder of Ambassador Stevens and his aids in the American Embassy. From pushing for more intervention in Syria to escalating a nuclear conflict with North Korea, Democrats have become the most dangerous threat towards American domestic and foreign stability. The jingoism displayed on stage should present a clear message to lovers of peace and stability, as previously American entanglements have been as financially costing as they have been corrosive towards our perceived international image — one that is of an unjust conqueror and hellraiser, rather than liberator or bringer of democracy. In Libya, for example, the actions of the United States and its NATO allies have allowed the emergence of the largest modern slave trade. These issues are never discussed because it’s easier for democrats to talk a big game on idyllic promises, rather than explain the ramifications of their incredulously destructive armchair war planning and fear-mongering war hawking. Rather than blowing up countries that we oppose or sanctioning states that we disagree with, perhaps the United States should take a more diplomatic and hands-off approach. There is much more to the world than the complicated and often partisan desires of our own national interests, and judging from our historic failures in nation-building, the best course may be to leave everyone else alone while we reestablish our own domestic course. America first, now and forever.