Blinding Loyalty: Trust but don't verify?

Blinding Loyalty:

Trust but don’t Verify?

I was inspired tonight by an excerpt from a column, written by Thomas Friedman, foreign policy columnist for the New York Times. His column was named Israel’s Best Friend. In it, he writes,

In recent years, Republicans have tried to make support for Israel a wedge issue that would enable them to garner a higher percentage of Jewish votes and campaign contributions, which traditionally have swung overwhelmingly Democratic. This has led to an arms race with the Democrats over who is more pro-Israel — and over-the-top declarations, like Newt Gingrich’s that the Palestinians “are an invented people.”

The topic tonight is not going to be about Israel. That speaks for itself, you are either pro-Israel or anti-Israel; rarely is there someone in between. However, the larger point, I think, being raised in his column, is: Should we always be loyal to our Allies? Should we never verify what our close friend says? Do we always take what is presented to us as truth?

This is a small-er problem when it comes to dealing with  allies such as Canada, the U.K. and France; it is a larger problem when dealing with nations such as Bahrain. In Bahrain, we weren’t exactly close with them, but we did have a military base there. Was it right for us to completely ignore the rebellion there, the results of which have been oppression and downright human right violations? I do not think so.

Further, what of South Korea? What if South Korea does something deliberately (alternate universe here) to attack North Korea? Should we blindly voice our support to our ally, attack North Korea, and possibly risk war with China? I do not think that this would lead to any great results.

For a micro-example, consider GWB’s looking into the “soul” of Vladimir Putin. And look at what has happened since then: Putin has taken charge of Russia once again and has wreaked havoc on his own people, who are protesting the election and censorship of the very man whom we once trusted.

Certainly, taking things at face-value has its benefits: Russia takes Syria’s claims that there are terrorists in its country at face value and thus avoids a costly war, which it can stymie by not allowing the UN Security Council to draft a resolution; but it also has its negatives as well: America decides to stand by (for better or for worse) and allows the UN to try to keep peace in Kosovo, rather than trying to foster an agreement or remove its troops entirely in protest—the UN peacekeepers do not seem to be doing a good job there. Should we be mad at the UN one day, but be perfectly happy with it the other? This does not seem to be a productive discourse.

I think Ronald Reagan’s words sum it up best: Trust, but verify.