FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
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..................
What "prejudice?" What are you talking about?
Gotta wonder how calm you would be if the terrorists had flown a 757 into a packed Sydney Opera House?
There has been no link shown between 911 and any of the 'Axis' countries. None. So what are the planned attacks intended to achieve?
The point of the article was that we are acting PRE-EMPTIVELY not RE-ACTIVELY. The "Axis of Evil" countries, while not directly related to 9/11, have openly sponsored terrorist groups in the past. We have put them on notice that such sponsorship will be responded to in the same or similar fashion as we have in Afganistan. We are making plans to attack them if needed or if such sponsorship is clearly indicated. You have a problem with that?
Do the risks, which (IMHO) in the case of North Korea may well lead to a very difficult confrontation with China, outweigh the positives?
Considering your proximately to China, at least as compared to ours, I could see how you would be worried. Understand, China needs the US, badly. We are their largest single customer and account for over 25% (some estimates are higher) of their exports. We could always buy cheap good from lots of low labor cost countries. Heck, we have several in our own hemisphere that could fill in if our relationship with China goes south. They, on the other hand, would have a hard time replacing 300 million affluent customers. They will bluff, bluster, posture and then ultimately back down.
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.
There are some serious "cons" to capturing or killing Bin Laden. His followers would make a martyr out of him. It could be the trigger for a new round of attacks. Multiple wimpy-socialist-lefties within and outside of our boarders would say we are done fighting terrorism and try to pressure us to stop.
The reason for our reaction is that this is a "War On Terrorism." This is a war on the mindset that randomly killing innocents is an effective way to attack an enemy. We will not stop until Terrorism joins Nazism and Facism on the ash-heap of history.
Isolated?? I don't think the U.S. can be isolated in any effective way. I dare say the U.S. is the domininant player in world affairs, which would be impossible to isolate.
A disagreement with allies is hardly isolation. The U.S., can, and always could be unilateral since the end of WWII, but has usually chosen favorable allied opinion in most instances.
Barely elected him President -- but to answer your question - I would have to lump them in with the Aussies!!
"...The Afghan war, conducted without them, highlighted how America's 21st century high-tech military made their militaries as obsolete as were the battleships of the 19th century upon the launching of the Dreadnought in 1906....
As everyone knows who cares about human history, and in particular the history of Europe--the ancient homeland of most of our ancestors and birthplace of all of the ideas that have made human life on this planet bearable, beauty graspable--however fleetingly--and religion humane--the launching of the Dreadnought in 1906 portended the opening shots in the agonizing conflict known as World War I.
It was not, as is so often parroted, a lone Serb gunman who set off WWI. Lone Balkan nationalist assassins had taken out VIPs in almost every year leading up to 1914. The difference was the Dreadnought. If human history has taught us anything it is that when we have a new toy we WILL find a context in which to try it out.
WWI, of course, lasted well over 64 years and saw one European generation annihilated another European ethnic group nearly wiped out, great European cities destroyed, uparralled human suffering and dislocation that continues--especially in Eastern Europe and the Balkans--to this day.
It is characteristic of the ghastly world view that now informs the Movers and Shakers of Washington DC like Mr. Krauthammer, that the real meaning of the coming of the Dreadnought would escape them. The dire OUTCOME, perhaps, is not as tragic to them as it is to me. I wonder why not?
Yes, we have our push-button military wreaking havok on the bugs far down below on the ground. But we haven't quite figured out how to stay up in the air permanently. Do we have the stomach to wipe out all the people down on the ground who now consider the United States their deadly enemy? They number in the billionsand are growing each day. Can we manufacture daisy-cutters fast enough? Can we train enough doctors in abortion procedures? Can we teach foreigners how to hate themselves--their culture, history and religion--as well as we have taught ourselves? Is there time to do everything that must be done to "win"?
Before we realize, as Dreadnought Europe discovered--too late--that everything has turned to dust?
I'm assuming you left off a sarcasm tag or something.
In terms of religion, Chistianity started in the Middle East. Europe added the torture and unbounded death. We could have done without that. In terms of art, China had, for thousands of years, artwork -- I'm thinking of their ink and watercolors -- which was so refined the Impressionists couldn't even grasp it when they saw it, and when they tried to emulate it they looked like jokes.
The world -- that is to say, human civilization -- could have gotten along just fine if Europe had never existed. Possibly even better.
Mark W.
Byron, actually it is a long time feeling over here that it is much of Europe that is, and has been irrelevant for a long time now. I had long considered Oz-trailians to be the one society in the world, with similar historical roots, that would understand the need to be self sufficient.
I think it would be a terrible idea for us (the west) to become as complacent as Chamberlain England and Vichey France.
Tell you what ole Freeping compatriot, what we do is today for our protection and fortunately the coat-tails will have benefit for the rest of the non-Islamic world. And trust me we have thick enough skins to let the limp wristed "fair weather" allies make all the noise they wish.
You may not care for Krauthamers rhetoric, but his message is "right on". When 3,000 plus of your residents are killed by a world wide movement of insane fanatical Islamists I would image your attitude might change.
However, I won't flame you on this one. You have stood shoulder to shoulder with Freepers for a long time and I unlike, some of the newer breed understand that even friends don't agree all the time on all subjects. Have a "good-A"!
great post
I might go out and celebrate tonight; we might finally agree on one thing.
So then our problem is with the Muslims?
Or are those "billions" merely the tiny fraction of Muslims who are nutcases and hate us?
Inquiring minds need to know.
Please don't pull a liberal on us and tell us who said, and when they said, we were going to attack North Korea?
George W should have just said BO! Who knows what countries we would attack according to Europeans and other factless liberals?
Yes I do have the stomach to destroy those who wish to destroy us.
Actually, Aussie, your own xenophobia and prejudice in regards to America and Americans is what comes through loud and clear on every thread you post to.
As I advised you on another thread, go play with your kangaroos and cane toads. Individuals such as yourself have made Australia as irrelevant in world affairs as Canada.
That's sad. Once upon a time, in 1939, 1940 and most of 1941, it was the British Empire with Australia and Canada that were at the vanguard of the protection of Western Civilization while the U.S.A. had it's head in the sand.
Back in those times, the British Empire's Finest Hour, your people did not give a damn what Continental European, East Asian or American appeasers thought about your fight against National Socialism. We, in turn, do not care about what the appeasers think about us now.
That includes you.
It was not, as is so often parroted, a lone Serb gunman who set off WWI. Lone Balkan nationalist assassins had taken out VIPs in almost every year leading up to 1914. The difference was the Dreadnought. If human history has taught us anything it is that when we have a new toy we WILL find a context in which to try it out.
The Dreadnought theory is a rather simplistic theory considering that The Schlieffen Plan was submitted in 1905.
Would France have given up hope of recovering Alsace and Lorraine if Wilhelm II had put all of his military resources into his Army and the German High Seas Fleet had never existed? No. The land war was irrelevant to German maritime ambitions and the invasion of Belgium that brought Britain into the war was planned a decade before it ever occirred and before the Dreadnoght was launched.
Mass mobilization, planned years in advance and timed to the hour was the "Use It or Lose It" weapons system of mass destruction in the early 20th Century. Each day of delayed mobilization was calculated in each country as so many miles of territory of the Patrie or Vaterland lost to the invading enemy army.
Go back and read about who mobilized first and who declined to give assurances that they would not mobilize and you will see how that powderkeg was set off.
The assasination would not have touched off World War One if the Czar had not ordered the mobilization of his armies.
The German High Seas Fleet and the Royal Navy were totally irrelevant to the start of World War One once the first mobilization order was issued.
'Brilliant analysis'? Come off it. There's not one fresh insight in the article. It's a pole dance, for low-IQ neocons.
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.