WHO CARES WHAT EUROPEANS THINK?

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.

Two points.

One, had Clinton attacked Iraq competently with the goal of removing Saddam after he repeatedly violated the surrender terms of the Gulf War I would have supported Clinton in that effort. Instead Clinton shot a few cruise missiles into Iraq at strategic domestic political moments. Nothing more.

Two, Saddam has absolutely failed to live up to the terms of his obligations under his countries surrender. American blood paid for the terms of that surrender. To let the terms of that surrender slip away because of the previous occupants incompetence is to ultimately cheapen the value of the lives lost achieving it. With what few successful inspections that were done in Iraq, hard evidence of both nuclear and chemical weapons development was found. We know he continues to push to develop these weapons even at the expense of starving his citizens. We also know that Saddam setup a large commercial jet as a training facility where al Qaeda and others learn to hijack planes among other things. Saddam, the head of state of Iraq, attempted to assassinate George Bush Sr. That alone justification of Saddam's removal. If we don't follow through what will a "surrender" in a war to our terms mean to anyone if they are not later enforced? Clinton emboldened our enemies by not following through. He made us weak. By making us weak we became a bigger target. It is time for us to reclaim our strength as a nation. To mean what we say and to follow through with action if necessary. To crush those who threaten to or have already attacked us.

...that M. Atta had meet in Pruge(SP?) had meet w/Iraq intell people...

Yep, but I didn't read a 911-Iraqi connection into that.

I put a lot more weight on the OBL video tape, where he said even some of the 911 terrorists didn't know their mission until they stepped onto the planes. Unless that tape was a disinformation exercise (and you have to ask that, considering how and WHY it was found) it means that the 911 planning was conducted with maximum security with perhaps only two or three people knowing about it.

Actually, we owe any foreign country a debt of gratitude for putting up with Clinton, it keeps him away from here. His speeches, (gag) his constant hugging of any limelight.....(ralphhhh!). Eight years befouling the Presidency and he'll never go away.

I see your point that we need to carefully reason who and what we're going after and pissing the world off needlessly is not in our best interests. Hopefully, Ridge is gaining a good perspective on the world-wide terrorist spider's web. It's been long in the making and would seem nearly impossible to get a grip on.

Anyway, g'day to you, Ausie. You've been known to provide hospitality to freepers visiting Sydney, wish I could make it there.

". . . but if it was Clinton about to attack Iraq "

Clinton never had a much of a problem with poll numbers; he could have talked 'pig latin' for an entire term and his numbers would stay high. . .

. . .but he did want to move his sordid, scandalized Presidential pastimes, off the front page and onto more 'serious, Presidential matters'; there was this 'Legacy' thing. . .which was not compatible with discussions of Impeachment. . .Clinton took care of the headlines easily and wantonly. . .thoughtlessly using our Military to clean up the front pages of the daily news, by dropping bombs and starting wars. . .

Clinton, and we know this. . .used his office for personal reasons; personal agrandizement; nothing more. He abused his power and insulted the trust of the American people and jeopardized the future of every American and non-American living here in America.

President Bush's polls have been consistently high; he does not need to bomb Iraq for personal gain; nor would it be even a consideration. . .so that he might look Presidential.

He is quite secure, as to 'who he is' and does not need Presidential 'powers' to enhance his identity. . .President Bush is ever mindful of the respect that office requires from the 'office holder' and how much respect is owed to the American public whom he represents.

As for serious motivations as to why Bush would want; as in 'need'. . .to bomb Iraq; mainly, (my guess. . .)is because we are so very close the juncture where it is just a matter of who will do 'what', first.

We have fear and trepidation and mindfulness of this task; President Bush would not ask our Military to wantonly kill populations of people; Iraq on the other hand. . .well you know or should, what they are willing to do and have no second thoughts about doing it. . .and have promised us in so many words; that they will.

All other reasons aside, bombing Iraq seems almost reasonable. . .and no one who knows anything, should ascribe personal motivations to President Bush, should he make that decision.

Hope you are seeing more of the 'light'. . .here on Free Republic.

"...The Dreadnought theory is a rather simplistic theory ..."

Well yes, but I cited it specifically in reaction to the author of the original article's use of the image to cloak the American military Colossus in some sort of annointed historical imperative. Reactionary screaming seems to be all that is left to those of us who lack the conservative sang froid that all will be well as long as we can bomb from high altitude and the Commander In Chief has an "R" marked in the box for "political affiliation"..

Of course, all the political streams flowing out of the French Revolution--mass conscription, mass industrialization, mass urbanization, central planning, science as the only admissable State religion--came together and were just waiting for the right series of events in order to be unleashed and drown the remains Old Europe. The attempt to pin the "first shot" on one "side" or the other is...well...simplistic. (Strange how that word is flying around lately.)

The image of the Dreadnought is as useful as any to combat Krauthhammer's simplistic assertion that the war we are now waging is Good, True and Beautiful--and the indisputable proof of that is the progressive superiority of our weaponry. He cites the Dreadnought in an breezy attempt to dismiss European concerns as nothing more than the flotsam and jetsom of dead civilizations.

I shriek, cassandra-like, "don't you understand the significance of what you have just said? How did they get there? Will our high altitude bombing capabilities protect us from the same river that drowned them?"

No....

"...The world -- that is to say, human civilization -- could have gotten along just fine if Europe had never existed. Possibly even better....

Well, it appears you will be able to find out--sooner rather than later. The US Ruling Class--lustily cheered on by most conservatives here on FreeRepublic--is doing its damdest to blot Europeanism and all its wicked pomps right out of the historical time line. I hope you enjoy your watercolors.

I will be gazing, beady-eyed and alert, from some cave somewhere....

"...In terms of religion, Chistianity started in the Middle East. Europe added the torture and unbounded death...."

Welp. I tried to turn the other cheek. Really I did. I just can't help myself. Christianity would be nowheresville had it not had the good sense--dare I call it Divine Inspiration?--to courageously embrace the glories of Greco/Roman civilization and the energy and playfulness of European Paganism.

As for the torture and unbounded death--well, I've heard tell of that stuff going around--even on Golgotha. But as archaeologists are now discovering, those frisky Euros were hanging out in all sorts of unexpected places on the planet, so perhaps we can pin all the bad habits in the world on them.

As for the good---well, I'll leave that to your fastidious watercolor interpretation.....

The world -- that is to say, human civilization -- could have gotten along just fine if Europe had never existed. Possibly even better.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the best joke I've heard all day.

Seriously now. Without Europe where would the important parts of civilization have come from? What exactly has China produced besides tyranny decorated by a few watercolors? Maybe civilization could have come from Polynesia or Africa or some other place with no native word for freedom?

"...So then our problem is with the Muslims?...."

Many Muslims--and then some. Never forget that a significant minority of muslims are intimately dependent upon the corrupt Western Ruling Class for their daily bread. Should democracyactually bust out in many moslem countries--which our government constantly declares to be its holy grail--we might be disconcerted at what the Will of the dear People will look like.

As for the and then some--I think we are, unfortunately, in for some nasty surprises from that direction. Muslims will turn out to be a piece of cake compared to the "and-then-somers"...

But it's OK. Everything is fine. We have high-tech weapons and Mr. Bush sleeps only with his wife.....

>Have a bit of mercy on a reactionary wandering around on a conservative forum.

Opium Wars (1839-1842, 1856-1860), two conflicts between Britain and China over trading rights. In the Second Opium War, also known as the Arrow War or the Anglo-French War in China, French forces joined the British. The wars are so named because they centered on the trade of opium, a powerful narcotic that British merchants were smuggling into China in vast quantities. The Chinese lost both wars. As a result, they found themselves forced into the emerging world of global trade and diplomacy, while Western nations gained significant commercial privileges and territory in China.

[Encarta - Opium Wars]

Mercy?

Merci?

Babel Fish (french to english) translates Merci as Thank you

You're safe with me. The last thing I'm about to do is "courageously embrace the glories of Greco/Roman civilization and the energy and playfulness of European Paganism."

Mark W.

Sorry kangaroo jockey, the bigot label isn't gonna work on me, especially when it comes from an Aussie whose own people showed little concern or respect for the Aborigine and religions they crushed, but who now accuses others of being "prejudiced" against Islam? Gimme a $*&$&$# break. Besides, wallaby boy, this isn't about Islam, it's about the craven sloth of Euros who are both clueless and naive about militant religious madmen and terrorism of which Australia, from your example, seems to be a part of. Until I encountered many Aussies on the internet, I assumed most of them were pretty solid, clear thinking, and resolute folks. However, I have come to the conclusion that sadly, Aussies are no better than the degenerate, morally corrupt human trash here and in Europe that have forgotten their hertitage and devalued the sacrifices of their forebears. Clearly "political correctness" is an international epidemic of cancerous proportions and that is why it is imperative that it be killed for the sake of civilization and the future. I mean, look at what it has already done to you. Of course, there is still time for you to abandon the prissy, limp-wristed wussy socialism for the bush hat wearing rough and tough Aussie outbacker we all know, love, and respect. G'day.

...I see your point that we need to carefully reason who and what we're going after and pissing the world off needlessly is not in our best interests....

Yes. I take great reassurance from the fact there's been no real protest about the Afghanistan war from the Muslim world. Maybe, in their fundamentalist way, they understand the justification for it better than some Westerners do? But widening the campaign to other countries without the same clear justification is another thing altogether. If the President has unimpeachable evidence proving the necessity for the coming attack on Iraq, then let's see it. Compromising the methods of the intelligence agencies isn't a big enough downside to make damaging the alliance worthwhile.

And thanks for those nice words about visiting Freepers. I get a lot in return, X; for instance, I've got enough Ban Hillary mousemats to last me through to 2020. :) Cheers, By.

..we have fear and trepidation and mindfulness of this task; President Bush would not ask our Military to wantonly kill populations of people; Iraq on the other hand. . .well you know or should, what they are willing to do and have no second thoughts about doing it. . .and have promised us in so many words; that they will....

Yes, it's all true, what you're saying. The only thing I might gently add to that very well reasoned post is a little maxim of mine; don't mess with something that's going well. If Europe has been onside thus far in the War on Terror, why get them offside, unless it's really necessary? Bend a little; accomodate the realities of their domestic political situation, where they often have to make these alliances palatable for a sizeable contingent of American hating leftists. It's no good giving international Socialism a transfusion. And as for Krauthammer espousing a polite but no less vehement version of the 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' theme, he's a disgrace. The French know what it's like to be invaded and occupied, bombed and slaughtered, twice this century alone. Plus they have a strong sense of history, that the promises of politicians and the excited mob that victory will be quick don't always prove to be true.

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.