With due respect, you as candidates for the presidency of the US have so far shown little vision about where you would lead this nation in international affairs, including national security and foreign policy, should you enter the White House on Jan. 20 next year.
Each of you, for instance, has declared how you would conduct or end the war in Iraq. There has been little said, however, about what comes after that. All wars must end but the issues confronting the US will go on so as long as the Republic endures.
The US armed forces today are stretched thin and are deployed further afield than any force in history, including the Roman legions and the cavalry of Genghis Khan. The US soldiers posted in Bagram, Afghanistan, are about as far from the geographic center of the continental US as they can go and still be in the Northern Hemisphere. US troops have been standing on ramparts in South Korea, Japan, England, Germany, Italy and elsewhere or patrolling the seven seas for more than 60 years since World War II.
What then, candidates, are your plans for rebuilding the tired and depleted armed forces to make them ready to defend the national interests of the US for the ensuing years of the 21st century? Will you continue the far flung posting of US forces -- or pull back to a more manageable alignment?
Recall that Sun Tzu (
Second, poll after poll in recent years have shown clearly that ending the threat of terror by Islamic extremists is high on the list of priorities of US voters. Only the economy ranks higher among the concerns of the electorate.
Yet none of the four remaining candidates have enunciated a strategy for the nation to cope with what may be as long and intense a threat as Soviet communism was during the Cold War.
A third issue: Americans, for a variety of reasons, have a thick strand of emotional, political, and military ties to Israel and an abiding national interest in seeing that the hatred and menace of the Palestinians and their Arab cousins is abated.
US President George W. Bush, perhaps desperate to leave behind some sort of positive legacy after so many failures elsewhere, has been making a final endeavor to bring peace to that part of the Middle East and by encouraging the birth of a separate Palestine. What his successor might do is unclear.
A fourth concern confronting the US is the rise of Asia, particularly China. The armed forces of the US are gradually adjusting to this fact of life, repositioning troops and seeking to revitalize alliances and friendships in South Korea, Japan, the Central Pacific, Southeast Asia and South Asia.
In contrast, the Bush administration's senior officials, including the leaders of the Defense and State Departments, have been so preoccupied with the war in Iraq that they have not fashioned a comprehensive strategy for coping with the rising East. Nor have you potential successors.
Last is an issue hard to define and maybe can only be sensed, which is the fatigue of Americans. The US has been at war, more often than not, for 110 years, since the Spanish-American that began in 1898. Americans have fought in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm in Iraq.
In-between have been deployments to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Libya and Lebanon, all of which have induced tensions into the body politic. Add to that the long Cold War with the Soviet Union, the constant alert of nuclear forces and the economic strains of rebuilding former enemies after World War II. Then the terrorist assaults of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a new era of peril.
All this, and undoubtedly more, probably explains why several polls in recent years have reported that 70 percent of the voters and taxpayers think the nation is headed down the wrong track.
Rumbles of isolationism and protectionism may be a consequence of feelings that The US' burdens have become overwhelming.
Of your plans to lift the spirits of the US people, candidates, the voters have heard practically nothing. After the primaries are over and the Democratic and Republican candidates have been chosen, perhaps you will favor the voters with a vision of where you intend to lead the nation in the international arena.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Chinese social media influencer “Yaya in Taiwan” (亞亞在台灣), whose real name is Liu Zhenya (劉振亞), made statements advocating for “reunifying Taiwan [with China] through military force.” After verifying that Liu did indeed make such statements, the National Immigration Agency revoked her dependency-based residency permit. She must now either leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Operating your own page and becoming an influencer require a certain amount of support and user traffic. You must successfully gain approval for your views and attract an audience. Although Liu must leave the country, I cannot help but wonder how many more “Yayas” are still
Earlier signs suggest that US President Donald Trump’s policy on Taiwan is set to move in a more resolute direction, as his administration begins to take a tougher approach toward America’s main challenger at the global level, China. Despite its deepening economic woes, China continues to flex its muscles, including conducting provocative military drills off Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam recently. A recent Trump-signed memorandum on America’s investment policy was more about the China threat than about anything else. Singling out the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a foreign adversary directing investments in American companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies, it said
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
RSS