the Statesmens' View
A statesman could be said to be a specialist who due to the nature of his psyche and responsibility views international affairs from an international perspective... weighing not so much what is politically fashionable or advantageous, but rather considering the largest picture and the narrative of history(as well as the interests of humanity writ large...) and thus decides how to use his time and influence.
In past decades, Russia was in most respects far worse than it is today... It was a totalitarian empire famous for its mass purges even of loyal soldiers and public servants. It was also known for its propagandic mind control, for its ghoulags etc..
And yet, every society has its strengths, and due to certain advancements in the sciences and intellectual arts etc. as well as the art of spycraft, Russia was able to develop nuclear missiles, and the ability to hit American cities, establishing a Cold War: a state of hostility in which both sides have the capacity to inflict unthinkable damage.
And yet, statesmen such as Einstein, Truman and Kennedy all had to make political sacrifices and fight the prevailing martial winds in order to adopt truly considered policies such as the Cuban missile embargo and the Berlin airlift. In the nuclear era, even the coldest of rivals have to interact with restraint and civilization.
Some times, the momentary sentiment of certain crowds tends to be to take jingoistic, hawkish positions.. a situation that exists most likely because we have not yet had a two-sided nuclear war. But we have come close, and I have been among that unfortunate club of statesmen who've had to weigh our statements and actions in light of the terrible possibility of an apocalyptic outcome.... without any of the honor, comraderie or battle-field jousting of past wars: just major cities leveled in minutes in a mutual mass tragedy.
See, the actual fact is that American greatness has prevailed, and we have so far gotten the best of our former Cold War adversaries that we have come to have a power and control over them, to such an extent that is probably not desirable considering that, for example, for all its flaws Russia is a proud and resourceful nation with a fully intact, presently modernizing, nuclear armada. Despite her flaws and archaic political structure, Russia still must be respected.
Likewise, however unpopular North Korea might be in American state and media circles etc., a minority had to speak out and question whether we might be on the brink of an undesirable nuclear war... if only in returned loyalty to our pacifist ally Japan, whose security we have long promised, who would have been left in a most vulnerable position, not to mention the neighboring state of South Korea which is more inclined to share an olympic flag with North Korea than to go to war with them.
War would not be intervening for local allies... but rather a pursuit of global and imperial dominion on behalf of a single nation, a shoe too big and God-like even for the world's leading nation, the U.S.A..
Democracy and the future is in our imperfect human hands. Ultimately, there are few safe guards. And even without the spectre of nuclear missiles, decisions effecting war and peace must be made with insight and prudence.
Journalists, politicians and all involved in our public discourse should be aware that though it is largely hidden lest the public be disturbed, we are as close to an apocalyptic nuclear war with Russia as we were at any height of the Cold War... this situation being exacerbated by media narratives which should belong to the world of B action movies, rather than the dialogue of university educated participants in the global modern world.
At the close of the Obama administration, Russia took the unusual step of making an official statement that relations with America were at a moment of non-communication and deeply concerning conflict.
The Russians are an estimable civilization: resourceful, cultured and industrious. It should be noted that Russian-Americans are among the wealthiest and most successful ethnicities. We are as much alike as we are different... though we are different regarding the west's embrace of democracy and free markets of ideas and products, whereas Russia being the bridge between Asia and the west,it has always tended toward unquestioning reverence of authority and centralized control of markets and thoughts.
Nonetheless, a war is a major investment in treasure, limbs and national spirit... and from Vietnam to the 2nd Gulf War, it is all too evident that decision-makers listening to the jingoistic voices in the crowd can get these decision entirely wrong, thus draining our resources and will to do battle for those military conflicts, present and future, which really would serve our national interests and spirit.
It's a necessity that the U.S.A., in coordination with our allies such as France and Britain, serve as global police-men, even to the point of entering into major military conflicts. But every time we become deeply embroiled in a war such as Vietnam or the 2nd Gulf War, wherein both the right of our cause and the efficacy of our strategy are transparently open to legitimate question(before the eyes of the American people and the world...) our willingness to go to war diminishes as does our interest in advancing democratic civilization abroad, and a cynical and backward nativism sets in.
In a nut-shell, we must have no more disastrous wars, but rather should engage only in military conflicts wherein citizen and soldier alike can take pride in the nobility of our cause, and in the quality of our war effort.
Part and parcel of making this a reality is to couple the power of the sword with the educational weapons of diplomacy. Republican administrations are more likely to take us to war, but in the aftermath they must rely upon all the nation-building work and research done under the administration of former President Bill Clinton etc.(as we failed to do in the after-math of the second Gulf War, leading to the long and costly insurgency, and the general disaffect of the Iraqi population eventually leading to the emergence of a strong I.S.I.S.(now decimated partly in thanks to the zeal and innovations of the current administration.)
If our decision-makers, following the fall of the Baathist regime, had risen above partisan politics and simply utilized the work American tax-payers had funded during a Democratic administration, all of this could have been prevented.
Let us consider all these matters with open and enlightened minds, and let us proceed with prudence and sagacity.