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..................
He didn't get paid three million dollars, the payments weren't made by 'our country', and he made more than one speech.
Got that, dumbo?
This paragraph would be quite possibly the most ignorant piece of writing I've ever read on the Free Republic. I honestly thank God that fools like you aren't in charge of US foreign policy.
Deep analysis there, Mark. Krauthammer would be proud.
Thanks amigo. It is kind of sad that genuine and positive criticism of the WoT or the Patriot Act prompts cries of traitor/liberal/ arablover/kangaroo jockey, now. But you know FR, that too will pass, and the mob will go home.
It's not 'xenophobia and prejudice' that makes me dispute this Administration's planned foreign policy, it's real concern for friends.
They're not 'baring' down, Reb. And Australia's the same size as the continental US. But most importantly, we don't worry for pleasure like some of you guys do. Hey, I see on latest posts that tireless fighter for liberty and constitutional rights Ron Paul is now questioning the wisdom of an attack on Iraq :
France, Germany, Britain and more
Make up Europe, named for some Oberon lore.
Now LaBelleDameSansMerci
Says the way that we were, see,
Got its start on the Continent's floor.
The East and the Middle East need not apply
To this tunnel-vision homage to days gone by.
With Christ and the Tao
I won't have a cow
But this limerick zen is my sigh.
Mark W.
Well, you have done it again. . .'low IQ neo-cons?'
Down to the insults; still no cigar. . .
And why should we really care what you think? As the saying goes-with friends like you and Europe, who needs enemies.
Fair point. All I'll say is, it's very frustrating. No-one here can give me any reason why the US is going to war with Iraq again, and when I ask quite logical questions I'm 'anti-US.' The bottom line is there is no reason for attacking Iraq, and that makes me suspect the President's motives. He's a good man, and I trust his judgement, but if it was Clinton about to attack Iraq everyone here would say he was doing it for his poll figures.
I've thought about that and I reckon I'd be a lot calmer than many on FR. Matter of fact I think it's time for the President to provide an emotional rudder for the country and say something like, 'we'll never stop grieving and we'll keep hunting the terrorists but it's time for America to move on, and get back to business.' I think the way the US media are churning September 11 for bucks is disgusting.
You don't have to care what I personally think, but it's crazy to start a war for no good reason, against the wishes of your allies. The idea that America from now on will be constantly making war and installing garrisons around the world needs to have some solid cost and benefit considerations, at least.
If you condemn Australia based on hiring Clinton for a speech what do you expect the rest of the world to think about "us", America, electing him President twice???? If I were you, I wouldn't go there…
Indonesia, which is in financial meltdown, has more than enough domestic problems of its own, with about four outer provinces already in armed revolt. And they don't have the military capability to project power into those provinces, let alone across to the Australian coast. If they were to commence an armaments program it would be years before they even came up to our level of striking power. Whether it's Iraq or Indonesia you need to put anti-Muslim prejudice to one side and weigh up the realities, Reb.
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.