Not only did it take some of us quite some time to realize that 21st century American foreign policy was founded upon the conversion of the entire system into a vehicle for aimless adventurism and “Flights of Fancy” around the world, but it took even longer to realize that beneath the blind and clueless adventurism and “Flights of Fancy” was a deliberate and treacherous evangelical and neoconservative plot to destroy humanity by virtue of the foolish and intoxicated conversion of the system on the part of certain individuals and entities.
I was also split between salvaging Afghanistan or salvaging America when it became clear and palpable that things were going awry and downhill a few years ago. I chose to put all of my energy and efforts into salvaging America, even though my ancestral roots were based in Afghanistan. Hence, not only are there a hierarchy of threats that we face with an evolution in our geopolitical and social context, but there are also a hierarchy of priorities and interests that we have to reckon with as a result of this evolution. We can get our house in order per se through a collective effort and a public-private joint initiative or enterprise. As John F. Kennedy famously said: “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” He added: “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
In turn, a free and open exchange of ideas and thoughts is both beneficial and healthy as we get our house in order in the United States. As one scholar wrote: “As the national security enterprise evolves, efforts to ensure a healthy exchange of diverse opinions within the interagency process is one guarantee that the agency will play a positive role in formulating successful foreign policies.” The more open and transparent this process is and the more input this process receives from the American public, the better. And as stated in the Bible: “Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.”
And if it is true that the American state is reconsidering its rules and positions on citizenship and identity, it is a step in the right direction. As Americans, we are now caught in the throes of a very complex and global game, and the rules of this game have to become clear and refined so that the game is played at the highest level and with the greatest efficacy and proficiency. We need to make clear whose team we are on, and the rules and positions on citizenship and identity is one way of making this clear. In any other game or sport, one player cannot play for two teams at the same time. So why should “The Great Game” be an exception to such rules and norms? Plus, the United States is largely a newcomer to this game, given the brevity of its history. But we as Americans have learned a lot during the course of this brief history, and it is still not too late for us to apply these lessons heading into the future.