Posted on 08/23/2007 10:39:56 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
With that arrogance and boorishness that is characteristic of diplomatic overtures from the Putin administration, the Russian military chief of staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, chose the 39th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia to advise Prague this week to "think again" about allowing radar installations for the U.S. missile defence shield to be installed on Czech soil.
"We say it will be a big mistake by the Czech government to put this radar site on Czech territory," he said, according to the Reuters report.
This is the kind of language that seems to appeal to Vladimir Putin himself -- the swagger of the old Cheka, whose product he was. It goes over well with a large section of the Russian electorate, still pining for the recovery of superpower status after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
Baluyevsky did better than choose the ugliest possible moment to issue his threat. He then added the sarcastic suggestion that if the Czechs were contemplating the wrong decision, they should stretch out their decision-making process until after November 2008.
And in case that wasn't bald enough, he then explained that he was referring to the next U.S. presidential election.
Like al-Qaeda in Iraq and the many other adversaries America and the West must continue to face, the Russians are looking forward to the time after George Bush leaves office.
It is assumed that the American electorate has by now tired of playing policeman to the world and that the next president will be a liberal Democrat, eager to make unilateral concessions, slash military budgets to fund social programs and cut-and-run from foreign battlefields.
They might well be right.
One of the things the non-U.S. West fails to appreciate is the frustration of even the right-wing Republican constituency with allies who lack the will, and refuse to put up the money, for their own defence -- all the time assuming that the American taxpayer will pick up the slack and that the American military will be there to protect them should they ever really need it.
And that includes not only protection from potential invaders, but policing the high seas from pirates, monitoring airspace for intruders and providing an international rescue service after natural disasters.
(The most urgent aid to the areas worst hit by the Asian tsunami of 2005 was "naturally" delivered by the U.S. and Australian navies, while the United Nations and victim countries tied themselves up in red tape and whining.)
America is demonized as the "cowboy," going it alone, and Western politicians, especially on the left, score easy points by smugly playing to their domestic anti-American galleries.
The lethal enemies of the West cannot help but notice this dynamic, and from car bombings in Iraq to the rhetoric of Russian and Chinese military commanders, they exploit it to drive further wedges between the U.S. and her allies.
Against which backdrop the most encouraging thing we can see is the new tone in French foreign policy. President Nicolas Sarkozy has not only refused to resume his predecessor's condescending lectures to the Bush administration, he has made an important symbolic statement by sending the first French envoy to Baghdad, acknowledging that the fate of Iraq is of interest to all free peoples.
At a time when the British, under their new head of government, are squirming for ways to distance themselves from their historical special relationship with the U.S., the French gesture showed courage and maturity.
The fate of the Czech Republic, and all those frontier states that stand to benefit from the security conferred by the U.S. missile shield, must also be of interest to all free peoples.
The Russians complain an advanced system designed exclusively to intercept missiles from rogue states is necessarily a security threat to them.
Yet it can be only to the degree that Russia herself behaves as a rogue state. Lately, in a succession of aggressive posturings, from claiming the North Pole to resuming Cold War bomber flights over the Atlantic and Pacific to flourishing the oil weapon in most disputes with neighbours, they are doing seemingly everything in their power to confirm just such a status.
We are caught in a trap. The very success of the Bush strategy, in preventing another major terror strike on the U.S., confronting and arresting the progress of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere and also in consolidating the post-Cold War European gains of NATO and the European Union, contributes to an illusion of security in a world that has seldom been such a dangerous place. People forget what alliances require.
"We are caught in a trap. The very success of the Bush strategy, in preventing another major terror strike on the U.S., confronting and arresting the progress of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere and also in consolidating the post-Cold War European gains of NATO and the European Union, contributes to an illusion of security in a world that has seldom been such a dangerous place. People forget what alliances require."
The big question is, How do you convert this situation to a campaign strategy to assist a good conservative Republican presidential candidate for the 2008 election?
Especially if Hillary gets elected.
I have personally believed that we will not see the next major terror attack until Bush is out of office. They know how Bush will react to an attack, so they’ll wait and see how “the new President” reacts. Just been a theory of mine for a few years because I believe if they had wanted to pull off a major attack they could have/would have. So in my mind there’s no other reason we haven’t seen a major event other than that Bush is in office. Maybe I’m wrong, and if I am, and an attack happens, I think a Republican will easily be elected as President.
Not if we’re smart enough to elect Duncan Hunter...
Also, if the next President is a Democrat, the first attack will be a “freebie”. It will be easy, with the assistance of the MSM, for a Democrat President to deflect the attack back onto the Bush administration. The spin will be something along the lines of: “Bush created the conditions that provoked this attack; he left us vulnerable; he was too aggressive; he didn’t take strong enough action; etc.” (It doesn’t matter how self-contradictory the spin is — they’ll just throw everything they have at the wall.
I'm not sure I like where this logic takes us. The world would be safer had the terrorists been allowed free reign to wreak havoc on the Western World? We'd be better off with a few dozen more 911s?
The writer seems to be suggesting the world is more dangerous because Bush policies have prevented another 911 style attack on the U.S.
Look for the Chinese to test us on Taiwan if Hillary is elected.
I think what he’s saying is that Bush’s strategies have worked so well that people have come to believe that the world would be a peaceful Utopia if only the U.S. stopped it’s “aggression”. People don’t realize that, in the absence of that U.S. “aggression”, things would really get out of hand.
“The very success of the Bush strategy, in preventing another major terror strike on the U.S...”
Why should Al-Qaeda want to hit the US now that Bush is still POTUS? All they have to do is to be patient and hope some bleeding-heart liberal occupies the WH.
I think that we are safe for the time being, and so is Europe. In fact, it is probably safer to be in Europe than in the US. Al-Qaeda knows that if the US should fold, Europe will fall without a fight. Europe is only a secondary target.
I think he meant that the danger will increase because the administration likely to succeed Bush will not be willing to confront the dangers we face, but instead will try to appease.
No, not at all. The writer is simply saying that since we have not had attacks, that people (liberals) seem to forget that there is a persistent threat.
The world became much more dangerous because a certain rapist and perjuring scumbag decided that playing cigar games with interns, allowing the ChiComs to get missile technology, and not answering a growing enemy who hit us several times was business as usual for a president and leader of the Free World.
These Democrats who wish to be president are afraid to face questions from Chris Wallace or Brit Hume. They are afraid to offend any member of their vast left wing constituency. How in God’s name are they going to face Putin, Kim, Ahmadinajad, Chavez, et al?? I am truly afraid for the future.
A. A certain rapist
B. A perjuring scumbag
C. Playing cigar games with interns
D. Allowing the ChiComs to get missile technology
E. Not answering a growing enemy who hit us several times was business as usual for a president and leader of the Free World.
F. All of the above
This is a tough one Doug. I choose "F," all of the above.
This is the really sickening thing about the Democrats. Since Vietnam the Democrats haven’t learned a thing. Their Foreign Policy is all carrot and no stick.
Unless someone is in a coma, it is an easy one. Even if someone doesn’t speak English, they could figure this out.
Show me just what the Democrats brought that was new, and there you will find only crap, controversy and confusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.