Forty-eight years ago, President John F. Kennedy learned of the presence of Soviet missile bases in Cuba. The crisis that ensued in the final days of October 1962 brought the Cold War’s combatants to the edge of the nuclear abyss. Only after painstaking negotiations and the removal of American missiles from Italy and Turkey did the frightening prospects of nuclear war recede.
Today, Reeves Field is best known as the home of AU’s soccer and track programs. Somewhere between the white lines, however, rests an enduring memory, one often forgotten in the dominant stories of our nation’s diplomatic history. On June 10, 1963, President Kennedy delivered the commencement address on the grounds of Reeves Field. Coming less than eight months after the Cuban missile crisis, the speech, “A Strategy of Peace,” served as the president’s public introduction of the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
Most consider Kennedy’s speech extraordinary because it extended a friendly hand to the Soviet Union at the height of the era’s global tensions. I find it courageous because of what it represented—a president presenting their foreign policy with a long-term focus in mind. Kennedy recognized the absurdity of spending billions of dollars each year on warheads we prayed we’d never have to use. He worried that peace was not being given a fair chance, believing that war was framed as the inevitable conclusion of mankind’s struggles on Earth. “Our problems are manmade,” Kennedy proclaimed, “… and man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.”
The United States now stands at a crossroads on the international stage. Iraq is more stable, but not yet secure in its push for democracy. The situation in Afghanistan grows darker by the day and Pakistan’s loyalties remain questionable. At a time when Defense Secretary Robert Gates is trimming the Pentagon’s budget, the Chinese military is making bold moves in Asia. Yet in a polarized political climate that rewards shortsightedness, will any president opt for long-term planning over the safer choices of the present?
First, there’s the proverbial elephant in the room — energy security. Dependence on imported oil complicates our relationship with nations across North Africa and the Middle East. Unless we want our children to be held hostage by the same foreign events we’ve tried fruitlessly to control, the federal government must radically increase its exploration in natural gas, nuclear power and wind power. New high-speed rail lines and conservation measures could boost efficiency and discourage consumption-based habits.
Moreover, the U.S. can’t rely on periodic invasions to drive out dictators or drone attacks to quell terrorist threats. For every spectacular “Shock and Awe” campaign or successful targeted killing, there are countless insurgencies and the tragic deaths of innocent civilians. For example, we have a long record of providing military aid to erratic regimes in Somalia and Yemen. Both are deeply impoverished countries in which millions of people have little trust in their central government. Such states are obvious breeding grounds for Al-Qaeda. However, our mix of military support and limited aerial attacks from afar is like applying a Band-Aid to a gaping wound. Instead, we should direct our money toward reshaping their stagnant economies. We should look to empower their local police forces and enhance our understanding of their societal structures.
Washington prides itself on pushing its fractured agenda on a day-to-day basis. Anyone willing to map out the future, tough choices and all, doesn’t stand a chance in this town. Nearly half a century after Kennedy’s AU speech, America’s foreign policy is devoid of consistency, purpose, and substance. Even if someone is brave enough to take a stand, I worry that our time to influence long-term international affairs is waning.
Michael Stubel is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Communication and a moderate Republican columnist for The Eagle.
edpage@theeagleonline.com
