icon-email icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-print icon-rss icon-search icon-stumbleupon icon-twitter icon-arrow-right icon-email icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-print icon-rss icon-search icon-stumbleupon icon-twitter icon-arrow-right icon-user Skip to content
Senior Correspondent

I believe the United States can intervene in international conflicts without putting boots on the ground. Or handing out gobs of money to people who hate us. Yes, that's a strong term but applicable.

After four and a half years I'm wondering why the President chooses not to do so. It deems Hillary's chances for the presidency no good that this is the path he's chosen, for the consequences have been on her watch too. Being a good soldier only goes so far. It should end when the policy is obviously detrimental to the country. Choosing to remain in office to me is a sign that one is in agreement with that policy. Ambition should not trump country.

It has often been said we don't intervene because the winner of the conflict could be an unknown quantity. So now we have the Muslim Brotherhood ruling Egypt in place of an imperfect ally but an ally never-the-less. We pour money and weapons into that country on top of the 18 billion Qatar has already poured in with 3 more billion coming.

Libya is still in shambles and Benghazi still unsolved. Silence from the White House. Why?

We know al Qaeda has spread into Mali with some success. We've let the French handle that one. Are their national interests in the region so much greater than ours?

The Syrian rebels too have asked for our help. Nothing.Here come the Islamic radicals.The Islamic State in Iraq and Jabhat al-Nursa have now joined forces with those rebels to push Assad from power. That leaves the rebels, who have no strong leadership or western support, at the mercy of the radicals. We know how those situations turn out. It's no matter a question as to whether or not we'll approve.

We can shell out money for fancy White House concerts on what seems a weekly basis, continue to fund hundreds of redundant programs and refuse to examine each individual department's budget to cut out the waste and satisfy the sequester, yet what we cut is our  military, our fleet in the Mediterranean and fund weaponry for our enemies to use against one of the two allies we have left. And they're iffy! Israel doesn't trust us and Jordan is at risk.

What I don't understand is why this is happening. Rand Paul and his father before him have been accused of being isolationists, but isn't that what this President is? At least the younger Paul believes the military should be strong even if seldom used. This President wants to gut the military and our arsenal, make it easier for illegals to have a path to citizenship than it is to vote and deprive kids from visiting the White House. Why?

Frankly, the man scares me. Slowly and methodically he is changing the country. I still can't believe we want to go where we're being taken. Sure, there will be another election but people who tell me they vote for the candidate rather than the party are doing a disservice if they vote for one because there is no other.

Without a 'none of the above' on the ticket, no vote if done in enough numbers could speak volumes. State that neither candidate is acceptable.

All the what ifs may be for naught however. Between North Korea and the Islamic radicals we may be entrenched in conflicts currently beyond our comprehension. It doesn't have to be. Why is it even possible?

Stay Up to Date

Sign up for articles by Mari Meehan and other Senior Correspondents.

Latest Stories

Choosing Senior Living
Love Old Journalists

Our Mission

To amplify the voices of older adults for the good of society

Learn More