Posted on 03/04/2002 3:37:27 AM PST by Elkiejg
THE "axis of evil" caused a sensation around the world because it established a new American foreign policy based on three distinctive principles: morality, preemption and unilateralism.
Our sophisticated European cousins are aghast. The French led the way, denouncing American simplisme. They deem it a breach of manners to call evil by its name. They prefer accommodating to it. They have lots of practice, famously accommodating Nazi Germany in 1940, less famously striking the Gaullist pose of triangulating between the evil empire and primitive Yanks during the Cold War.
The Europeans are not too happy with preemption either. Preemption is the most extreme form of activity, of energy, in foreign policy -- anathema to a superannuated continent entirely self-absorbed in its own internal integration. (Hence the paralysis even in the face of fire in its own Balkan backyard.) The Europeans hate preemption all the more because it means America acting on its own. And it is our unilateralism above all that sticks in their craw.
Tough luck. A policy of waiting to be attacked with nuclear (and other genocidal) weapons is suicidal. Moreover, self-defense is the self-evident justification for unilateralism. When under attack, no country is obligated to collect permission slips from allies to strike back. And there is no clearer case of a war of self-defense than America's war on terrorists and allied states for whom "death to America" is not just a slogan but a policy.
I was a unilateralist before it became unfashionable. Long before the axis of evil, long before the Afghan war, long before Sept. 11, I argued that the multilateralism of the Clinton years inevitably produced lowest-common-denominator foreign policy -- diluted, ineffective, as feckless as the pinprick cruise missile strikes Clinton liked to launch as an ostentatious pretense of assertiveness.
When the Bush administration came to power advertising its willingness to go it alone when necessary, the Democrats were apoplectic. Early last year, for example, when Bush made it clear he would be junking the ABM Treaty, Sen. Carl Levin, now chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and thus a man who should know about these things, declared: "I have great concerns about [such] a unilateral decision . . . because I believe that it could risk a second Cold War."
Wrong. Totally wrong. In fact, when Bush did abrogate the ABM Treaty, the Russian response was almost inaudible. Those who'd been bloviating about the diplomatic dangers of such a unilateral decision noted quizzically the lack of reaction. Up in arms over the axis of evil -- "it will take years before we can repair the damage done by that statement," said former president Jimmy Carter -- they are warning once again about how the world will rise against us. Wrong again.
Our enemies have already turned against us. Our allies will not. Europe knows that in the end, its security depends on our strength and our protection. Europeans are the ultimate free-riders on American power. We maintain the stability of international commerce, the freedom of the seas, the flow of oil, regional balances of power (in the Pacific Rim, South Asia, the Middle East) and, ultimately, we provide protection against potentially rising hostile superpowers.
The Europeans sit and pout. What else can they do? The ostensible complaint is American primitivism. The real problem is their irrelevance.
Click link for rest of story..................
Z-grade xenophobic propaganda, designed to whip up any crowd of morons silly enough to believe it. Hey Krauthammer, have you tried out for The Jerry Springer Show yet?
"Jer-RY!"
"Jer-RY!"
Ouch!
Thanks for posting this - had read it and did not have time to 'share' it. Krauthammer is not afraid to step to the plate and call it like it is. . .and he does so with such astute analysis. . .
A 'brilliant bump'. . .
You ARE kidding right?
. . .or perhaps you just have 'been there' a little too often. . .
There are times when a nation--any nation--has to act in its own best interests. There have been times I thought the U.S. was wrong, for the same reason: our foreign policy mandarins trying to push other nations into doing things which are wrong for them. It's wrong when our State Dept does it, and it's wrong when their Foreign Ministries do it, too.
Not afraid to play on any prejudice for a headline, is more like it.
Whether you are here or in Australia or wherever, you are cordially invited to Eastern Afghanistan to be a recipient of the latest rolling thunder of our magnificent museum piece B-52's. Still doing freedom's work after all these years!
One major point of Krauthammer's piece is that we do not need Europe's opinion. How on earth can that be wrong? We started making a serious mistake in Europe in World War II when we submitted to the silly notion of war by committee. Our first cold war resulted from the fact that we did not take Patton's suggestion and finish off the Soviets while we had the military power in place to do it. We do a lot better when we decide for ourselves.
You bet they do. But can you hear it ringing?
Larry Suid: The Japanese had invaded Manchuria in 1931, and we had protested. They started to be successful in China, and negotiations did not stop the advance. Ultimately, President Roosevelt embargoed the oil and iron. That left the Japanese feeling very threatened. They figured that by attacking, we would not have the backbone to respond and would instead negotiate and remove the embargo.
http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2001/05/25/suid/
Since these nations regard capital punishment as barbaric, I take it that, if American troops witness European troops about to capture Osama bin Laden and thus take him out of danger of execution, they will understand when we shoot their troops to take Osama into custody, won't they? What do you think?
I think everyone ought to calm down and weigh this Axis attack plan with a cool head. There has been no link shown between 911 and any of the 'Axis' countries. None. So what are the planned attacks intended to achieve? Do the risks, which (IMHO) in the case of North Korea may well lead to a very difficult confrontation with China, outweigh the positives? I don't want to offend any of my (fast-disappearing!) Freeper friends, but what I really believe is that the escape of Bin Laden means that there's been no closure of 911 for America, and its people and leaders are in the mood to lash out.
. . .guess my second point re your comment was closer to the truth - you have been there!
Krauthammer writes a brilliant analysis and like any good Liberal you respond throwing out the 'feeling' words (ie 'codewords')that Libs love - good words but made 'z-grade' because Libs use them 'thought-LESS-ly. . .hoping they will get the job done without the support of honest, intelligent criticism; somethings Libs can seldom come up with. . .
You made the three-word average of Lib favorites; xeno-phobic, prejudice, and one more universal - morons. . .for your responses. . . Not bad, but for a Liberal, expect to see more from the 'A' list. . .
When intelligent, or even honest criticism fails - Libs let the words do the talking. .
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.