These are dangerous times for America.

Nothing exemplifies that statement more than the recent decision by North Korea to fire half a dozen missiles (one of them of the long-range variety that could theoretically reach our western states) in our general direction. Granted, these missiles didn't get very far – they all landed in the Sea of Japan – but that fact is irrelevant. These were test firings aimed at identifying problems with the missiles. Even in failure these launchings have brought the North Koreans closer to being able to deliver a nuclear payload within our borders.

What is America doing in reaction to this threat from North Korea? As I write this our response has not yet been made entirely clear by our leaders, but for the sake of our country's safety (and international stability) I can only hope that whatever we do is both a strong and decisive rebuke of that country's actions. And by “strong” I mean something more threatening than a strongly-worded statement issued from the UN Security Council or even directly from the White House.

Anything less makes America look weak in the eyes of it's enemies, and appearing weak to our enemies makes Americans less safe.

You'd think that the wisdom of the above statement would be self-evident, but unfortunately not everyone in America gets it. Instead many advocate for a softer, gentler approach to foreign policy. They feel that all problems can be solved through diplomacy and that displays of American military strength and prowess only serve to unite our enemies against us.

This, to my mind, is a dangerous manner of thinking. I'll not argue against diplomacy as I firmly believe that we should avoid war when we can, but I also believe that in recent years we have been far too soft in our foreign policy.

Historically, North Korea is a good example of this. In August of 1998 that country fired a Taepdong-1 missile (the predecessor to the longer-range missile I mentioned above) over Japan. What was America's reaction under then-President Bill Clinton? Three months later America initiated diplomatic talks with Pyongyang, which ultimately resulted in the lifting of sanctions against North Korea and a contract for delivery of two power plant nuclear reactors from the United States.
In other words, North Korea behaved itself like a spoiled child in order to get attention and our government was only to happen to give that attention. Now, nearly a decade later, North Korea is again firing missiles. We know that the country isn't really trying to start a war (not even Kim Jong-Il can be that crazy), so it's obvious that they just want some more coddling from the international community. And as they learned from the last time they threw a fit in 1998, the worst they can expect is a few sharp rebukes from the international community before they get whatever it is they want.

Now think for a moment: Would North Korea be firing off missiles today if Bill Clinton had responded to the 1998
missile launches by blowing up a few launch pads in that country and then threatening more hostile action if the nation's leadership didn't cease and desist their saber rattling immediately?

I don't think so. Unfortunately President Clinton chose the “path of least resistance” with North Korea, and we're all less safe because of that decision.

But North Korea isn't the only example of weak foreign policy making us less safe.

Consider America's 1993 military operations in Somalia under President George H.W. Bush and then later President Clinton. In the Battle of Mogadishu (made famous by the movie Black Hawk Down) American forces were successful in completing their mission, but because two of our helicopters were shot down and 19 soldiers died (one of whom was dragged through the streets by Somali fighters) the public perception of the mission (steered largely by intense media coverage of the downed choppers and the desecration of one of our fallen soldier's bodies) was that it was a failure. This despite our troops having achieved their objective and only losing 19 soldiers while inflicting casualties estimated from 500 to 2,000 on the enemy.

Because President Clinton was a leader who was very concerned about public opinion polls, he decided to act on these negative perceptions of the mission and cut-and-run from Somalia. While that move may have helped Clinton's public approval polls, it had very serious ramifications for the safety of America. In a 1998 interview done with ABC reporter John Miller Osama bin Laden pointed to America's cut-and-run from Somalia as the point at which he became certain that American soldiers were "paper tigers" who would "after a few blows" run away "in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies" of their fellow soldiers.

Three years after that was 9/11.

The “MAD” policy used to keep this country safe. In the nuclear age of the past our enemies didn't dare declare war on America lest they find their countries in ruin. In an era where our enemies wear no uniforms, have no capitals and may even live among us the only thing “assured” about “mutually assured destruction” is that it won't work. The enemy we face now has no cities to bomb.

But that doesn't mean America can't find safety in a strong, stiff, take-no-nonsense foreign policy. When our enemies ask for peace we should give them peace, but when they ask for war – be it with their actions or with their deeds – we should give them war.

Anything else simply invites disaster to our doorstep.

This post will also be appearing as a column in the July issue of the Dakota Beacon.