Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Red Lines & Lost Credibility
Townhall.com ^ | Nov 07, 2017 | Pat Buchanan

Posted on 11/06/2017 10:31:50 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom

A major goal of this Asia trip, said National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, is to rally allies to achieve the "complete, verifiable and permanent denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."

Yet Kim Jong Un has said he will never give up his nuclear weapons. He believes the survival of his dynastic regime depends upon them.

Hence we are headed for confrontation. Either the U.S. or North Korea backs down, as Nikita Khrushchev did in the Cuban missile crisis, or there will be war.

In this new century, U.S. leaders continue to draw red lines that threaten acts of war that the nation is unprepared to back up.

Recall President Obama's, "Assad must go!" and the warning that any use of chemical weapons would cross his personal "red line."

Result: After chemical weapons were used, Americans rose in united opposition to a retaliatory strike. Congress refused to authorize any attack. Obama and John Kerry were left with egg all over their faces. And the credibility of the country was commensurately damaged.

There was a time when U.S. words were taken seriously, and we heeded Theodore Roosevelt's dictum: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1991, George H.W. Bush said simply: "This will not stand." The world understood that if Saddam did not withdraw from Kuwait, his army would be thrown out. As it was.

But in the post-Cold War era, the rhetoric of U.S. statesmen has grown ever more blustery, even as U.S. relative power has declined. Our goal is "ending tyranny in our world," bellowed George W. Bush in his second inaugural.

Consider Rex Tillerson's recent trip. In Saudi Arabia, he declared, "Iranian militias that are in Iraq, now that the fight against ... ISIS is coming to a close ... need to go home. Any foreign fighters in Iraq need to go home."

The next day, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi responded:

"We wonder about the statements attributed to the American secretary of state about the popular mobilization forces. ... No side has the right to intervene in Iraq's affairs or decide what Iraqis do."

This slap across the face comes from a regime that rules as a result of 4,500 U.S. dead, tens of thousands wounded and $1 trillion invested in the nation's rebuilding after 15 years of war.

Earlier that day, Tillerson made a two-hour visit to Afghanistan. There he met Afghan officials in a heavily guarded bunker near Bagram Airfield. Wrote The New York Times' Gardiner Harris:

"That top American officials must use stealth to enter these countries after more than 15 years of wars, thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent was testimony to the stubborn problems still confronting the United States in both places."

Such are the fruits of our longest wars, launched with the neo-Churchillian rhetoric of George W. Bush.

In India, Tillerson called on the government to close its embassy in North Korea. New Delhi demurred, suggesting the facility might prove useful to the Americans in negotiating with Pyongyang.

In Geneva, Tillerson asserted, "The United States wants a whole and unified Syria with no role for Bashar al-Assad ... The reign of the Assad family is coming to an end."

Well, perhaps? But our "rebels" in Syria were routed and Assad not only survived his six-year civil war but with the aid of his Russian, Iranian, Shiite militia, and Hezbollah allies, he won that war, and intends to remain and rule, whether we approve or not.

We no longer speak to the world with the assured authority with which America did from Eisenhower to Reagan and Bush 1. Our moment, if ever it existed, as the "unipolar power" the "indispensable nation" that would exercise a "benevolent global hegemony" upon mankind is over.

America needs today a recognition of the new realities we face and a rhetoric that conforms to those realities.

Since Y2K our world has changed.

Putin's Russia has reasserted itself, rebuilt its strategic forces, confronted NATO, annexed Crimea and acted decisively in Syria, re-establishing itself as a power in the Middle East.

China, thanks to its vast trade surpluses at our expense, has grown into an economic and geostrategic rival on a scale that not even the USSR of the Cold War reached.

North Korea is now a nuclear power.

The Europeans are bedeviled by tribalism, secessionism and waves of seemingly unassimilable immigrants from the South and Middle East.

A once-vital NATO ally, Turkey, is virtually lost to the West. Our major Asian allies are dependent on exports to a China that has established a new order in the South China Sea.

In part because of our interventions, the Middle East is in turmoil, bedeviled by terrorism and breaking down along Sunni-Shiite lines.

The U.S. pre-eminence in the days of Desert Storm is history.

Yet, the architects of American decline may still be heard denouncing the "isolationists" who opposed their follies and warned what would befall the republic if it listened to them.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: foreignpolicy; northkorea
Unfortunately, Pat, our hand is now forced thanks to the inaction of Presidents who didn't use the big stick when they had the chance.
1 posted on 11/06/2017 10:31:50 PM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
Thanks Oshkalaboomboom. Pitchfork Pat Buchanan still sucks after all these years.

2 posted on 11/07/2017 12:53:45 AM PST by SunkenCiv (www.tapatalk.com/groups/godsgravesglyphs/, forum.darwincentral.org, www.gopbriefingroom.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

*** Either the U.S. or North Korea backs down, as Nikita Khrushchev did in the Cuban missile crisis, or there will be war. ***

Oh, Pat, Pat, Pat. I would’ve thought you knew better. The big picture timeline of what happened in those days is this:
1-US missiles to Turkey
2-Soviet missiles to Cuba
3-Soviet missiles removed from Cuba
4-US missiles removed from Turkey.

In order to make Kennedy look tough, the MSM calls events 2 & 3 the “Cuban Missile Crisis”. But don’t be fooled, Nikita Khrushchev got exactly what he wanted, which was to have those missiles in Turkey removed.


3 posted on 11/07/2017 7:33:51 AM PST by libertylover (Kurt Schlicter: "They wonder why they got Trump. They are why they got Trump")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oshkalaboomboom

Pat’s good at leaping into the saddle and riding off to the sound of his own gums.


4 posted on 11/07/2017 11:43:30 AM PST by sparklite2 (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libertylover

You are 100% correct.

Most people think Kennedy stared down Kruschev but all Kruschev ever wanted was to get our missiles out of Turkey.

Kennedy fooled the American public, and most people are still ignorant of this today. I would have expected Buchanan to know the truth, though.


5 posted on 11/08/2017 10:43:08 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson