My letter to the editor

Here is the link to the article I responded too.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.2350743175000386&bhcp=1

Here is my letter to the editor

To the Editor of the Washington Post:

Dan Eggen’s September 15, 2008 editorial “Bush’s Overseas Policies Begin Resembling Obama’s” completely misses the major issue. It is no surprise that several of the foreign policies of Bush and Obama are similar. Both men are politicians who know that the fundamental role of the President is to keep America safe. The relevant point is to recognize the important differences in their policies.

Bush’s approach to foreign policy is profoundly different than Obama’s. Bush’s foreign policy is based on a belief that other countries are either with us or against us. If you are an “evildoer,” we will not enter a dialogue with you, but will make nonnegotiable demands and take unilateral actions. Bush’s foreign policy is based on so much arrogance and condescension that even when our allies agree with us, they try to distance themselves. Bush’s rush into Iraq, based on horrible intelligence, is a case in point. The Bush Doctrine really starts with the answer and then collects the facts that support that case. Bush’s intentions, of course, are still up for public debate.

Obama, on the other hand, realizes that foreign power is most effective when used indirectly. Public threats, coercion and unilateral actions play well in the first few news cycles at home, but they persuade both friend and foe that America is a bully. No one likes a bully. Obama is even willing to start a dialogue between the United States and hostile nations, how can you expect to come to an understanding without communication? Iraq was never a war Obama wanted to enter. To even suggest the Obama’s foreign policies are beginning to resemble Bush’s is ridiculous.

John McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time; to suddenly forget this overwhelming similarity is certainly misleading. Bush is one of the most unpopular Presidents in the history of America for a reason, and both candidates are trying to distance themselves from him. The author clearly understands this and selects facts to make it appear that Obama’s foreign policies are closer than McCain’s to the failed foreign policies of President Bush.

Dan Eggen’s defense of carefully selected portions of Obama’s foreign policy ideas that line up with the Bush administration’s recent changes in foreign policy misses the point. Foreign affairs is similar to community organizing, but on a global scale and with higher stakes. Reaching a consensus on the goals and methods to obtain these goals depends on the world view held by the key players. Most people would agree that Bush and Obama hold almost perfectly diametrically opposed world views. To suggest otherwise, as Dan Eggren’s title does, is to deliberately to mislead the public.

David Frick

Fort Worth, Texas