IS GINGRICH ANTI-APOLOGY TOO?

Newt Gingrich is running for president, but he does not seem to know anything about the three things that form the basis of good relations in international affairs; and they are courtesy, protocol and diplomacy.

Those three things combine to give credence to any type of undertaking on behalf of a group, an organization or a nation. They have been used to normalize volatile situations. When there is a breach, especially, if it (breach) is inadvertent or accidental between nations, a simple apology can settle the matter.

He criticizes President Barack Obama for apologizing to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, for the burning of the Quran by NATO military personnel, the backlash of which is causing religious uproar around the world and violence in Afghanistan itself.

Two American soldiers have been killed, according to reports, "by a person wearing an Afghan National Army uniform," and Gingrich is expecting the president to remain aloof over the issue.

Obama is the president of the United States, and he must have the political acumen to respond immediately to calm sentiments that are fueling the outburst of mayhem in a society, like that of Afghanistan, where even a sporadic word of mouth can start a riot.

For the president to just sit an wait for the situation to get worse before he acts does not make any sense. His action is appropriate, under the circumstance, to send a message to the leader of that country, appealing for calm.

That is exactly what Obama has done, to extend sympathy and to show respect to the Afghan people (who are people too, Mr. Speaker) and to bring understanding to find a common solution to the problem.

Apologies are not made just for their own sake, but to indicate that wrong actions demand responses that are fair and just to appease the offended.

As The Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, Obama is responsible for their conduct; and so, he is more than right to be involved in a situation that will affect the morale of all the U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, which is a very important aspect. Judging from how the citizens there are reacting to the incident, they (soldiers) are bound to feel disheartened.

In this particular case, one may say that only a few are culpable, but the effect will be widespread and will dampen the spirits of many of their own colleagues. Their presence in that country has several connotations; to protect U.S. National interest and to bring peace in that region, among others.

If Gingrich does not subscribe to peace around the world, then his presidency, if it ever materializes, will throw America into violent turbulence each and every time, because in some cases only an apology, as in this one, is required or expected to show sympathy and sincerity.

He must therefore recognize that Obama has done right to extend a friendly hand to Hamid Karzai, even only to demonstrate that he (Obama) cares about both the men and women under his command and the Afghan people, and for them to be able to settle their differences in peace and harmony.

No one knows the political points or impact Gingrich is looking to derive from his combative statements, with regard to the Quran burning event; however, it is a commonality that American voters always know better, and they will therefore side with President Barack Obama for rendering an apology to the Afghan people, on behalf of the people of the U.S.

Gingrich may be anti-apology. Obama is definitely not.