Video foreign policy has run its course

The old days of media video transmitted by TV of the most terrible circumstances of mans' inhumanity to man still continue. What doesn’t continue is the savvy of the politicians and the voters who have been burned by letting emotionalism drive rationalism.

How else did the US get dragged into committing its military to the Balkans and Somalia. And these commitments of our military can go on for decades. Look at the Sinai and the Balkans. Forget the post WWII and Korea forces still there … they make more sense. And do remember when reporting media types and politicians talk about committing the military, as if it were some automaton robot they can wield as some geopolitical sword to accomplish their objective, they are really talking about fellow humans and Americans with families.

What is the final nail in the coffin of video foreign policy is this: If one doesn’t like what one commander-in-chief does, and if one thinks that 535 congressional mini-commanders-in-chief and secretaries of state are worse, imagine thousands of reporting media types, to include producers and editors trying to lead politicians to do their various moral quests. Suddenly, the established political system of politicians deciding about vital National Interests, and voters periodically influencing all this, makes more sense.

The atrocities and moral outrages going on around the world are just terrible. They include the Horn of Africa, Darfur in the Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Middle East, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, southern Thailand, Moro land in the Philippines, and the narco-states in South America. This is a business rich environment for the profit level reporting of business managers of the reporting media, and their hired minions. But are we going to let these business managers who devote assets to where they can generate the most terrible video scenes, that do generate income, also decide our foreign policy. Are we going to let them and their hired minions’ moral compasses which guide their reporting get our boys and girls killed in Darfur, for example. And how about the places where the bad guys kill and kidnap their assets? Does that mean it is not important because it can’t be reported in the Western video press?

How about some others pulling their weight, if it is “really” important. The International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War come to mind. Or do the western types who video report and suggest sending others in to “where ever” have more in common with those who send in suicide bombers than is at first apparent?