Foreign Policy Beyond War, Terror, and “National Security”

 

Last night’s debate was frustrating. Drones, Pakistan, manufacturing jobs, centrifuges…

I kind of wanted President Obama and Governor Romney to talk about people when they talked about foreign policy.

As a Christian, I want us to love our enemies–seeking their good, their redemption, their health. There will be tremendous pain in that journey, but I’d like that possibility to be the end goal, our ultimate aim. Merely protecting ourselves and worse yet our assets is woefully inadequate.

But I don’t think all of foreign policy is wrapped up in national security concerns.

As a Christian, I care deeply about orphans and widows, child soldiers and amputees, people in grinding poverty (and “crippling sanctions”). I care about people in hard places, people in hard situations.

I think most U.S. citizens also care about people who are vulnerable and at risk, even when we have troubles domestically.

But maybe if we started actively solving real problems, really helping people in hard places (not having a disproportionate amount of “foreign aid” buying bombers for Israel), maybe there would be less war and terror and more true national security.

President Obama and Governor Romney don’t seem to think so.

What do you think?

 

 
Content Director’s Note: This post is a part of our Election Month at Patheos feature. Patheos was designed to present the world’s most compelling conversations on life’s most important questions. Please join the Facebook following for our new News and Politics Channel — and check back throughout the month for more commentary on Election 2012. Please use hashtag #PatheosElection on Twitter.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X