Happy St. Patrick's Day (soon) Everyone.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 3/16/2003, 12:10:21 AM by MadIvan
On Thursday I shook the hand of the world’s most reviled man. No, not Saddam Hussein but George Bush. The occasion was the St Patrick’s Day reception in the White House. It was a very small affair compared with the days of Bill Clinton. Only about 60-80 people were present and of that number probably less than a quarter were Irish.
The fact that Bush turned up at all was a minor miracle. The previous day he had cancelled all engagements to muster support for a further United Nations resolution and it was entirely possible that he might have done so again on Thursday. But he met Bertie, accepted the bowl of shamrock, discussed the north and Iraq and then addressed the reception — again talking about the north — after which he met anyone who wanted to meet him.
That he showed up at all reveals how patient the Americans are with the Irish. It also highlights how successfully the government has walked the tightrope between pacifying domestic opinion, which is mostly anti-war and anti-American, and maintaining good relations with America — still our best friend in the world.
It’s as well for the friendship that Bush wasn’t at the bash in the Irish ambassador’s residence that night because it would have been put severely to the test. Almost every Irish person at the reception who offered an opinion was against the impending war against Iraq — and loathed Bush. All the usual fabricated nonsense was being spouted. It’s about oil; the Americans armed Iraq in the first place; Bush is the real threat to world peace.
Dealing with this level of ignorance is like draining an ocean with a thimble, but let’s try anyway. First of all, it’s not about oil. If oil was so important, why would the world’s stock markets be heading south so fast? You’d imagine they’d be soaring in the expectation that the Yanks would get hold of all that black stuff. And, if it was really about oil, why didn’t the Americans grab the oilfields during the first Gulf war? No, the US didn’t arm Iraq. The Russians and the French did that. You remember them, don’t you? They’re the ones doing their level best at the moment to try to protect their ally Saddam from the Americans. The Iraqi air force, such as it is, comprises Soviet and French fighter planes and bombers and its tank fleet is full of antiquated Soviet models.
The Americans have passed on almost no weaponry to Iraq and whatever material aid was given to it was in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war when it looked as though Iran might win. At that time, Iran represented the greater threat in the region.
It was not an endorsement of Saddam. It was the equivalent of giving Stalin weapons with which to defeat Hitler. Stalin was awful, Hitler was worse, and when the second world war ended it was time to deal with Stalin. When the Iran-Iraq war ended, and Baghdad then turned its attentions to Kuwait, the time had come to deal with it.
As for Bush being the real threat to world peace — well, we’ve been here before. The same kinds of accusation hurled against Bush with monotonous regularity were hurled against Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan was Ronald Ray-gun. Ho ho. Like Bush, he was a moron. Like Bush, he was a warmonger and a menace to world peace. Except that back then, being a threat to world peace meant you were making more likely a devastating nuclear war. So Reagan was even worse than Bush, if that’s possible. For good measure, Reagan was a failed Hollywood actor whose best part was played opposite a monkey. Oh yeah, and he was a cowboy, again like Bush. Reagan reached the peak of his unpopularity when the Americans were fighting Marxist guerrillas in Latin America and when the time arrived for the basing of cruise and Pershing medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe. That was when the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was at its peak. Every trendy belonged to it. Huge demonstrations took place regularly all over Europe, just like the anti-war protests of February 15. I was at university back then and I remember being the only person in my class who backed Reagan and favoured the basing of those missiles in Europe. Had Ireland been one of the countries in which the missiles were to be based, we would have had protests as big as the one we had last month.
Time has shown that Reagan’s muscular approach to the Soviet Union was the correct one. Weakness only emboldened the Soviet regime. A tough attitude made it back down. In no time at all, the Reagan policy of challenging Soviet power around the world and outpacing it in the arms race paid dividends. Within a year of Reagan finishing his second term, the Berlin Wall fell.
Had Reagan listened to his critics and appeased the Soviet Union, there’s a good chance that the Soviet bloc would still be in place. The French were especially critical, looking down their noses at Reagan. So much for the wisdom and sophistication of French foreign policy.
During the Clinton era, anti-Americanism abated because the Democrat president backed the sort of multilateral approach to world affairs so in vogue in this neck of the woods. The result was that Osama Bin Laden was able to turn Afghanistan into a base for his activities, and Iraq defied the weapons inspectors and began to weaken the sanctions regime, in both cases with Russian and French co-operation.
Multilateralism of the sort pursued by Clinton only served to make American foreign policy subject to the whim of countries with interests of their own to pursue, as well as to multiply the threats to America and the West in general. The nature of the threat was brought home to America on September 11.
The Americans now know that the softy-softly approach favoured during the Clinton presidency does not work. Unfortunately, Paris and Berlin, with most of European public opinion, don’t yet know this.
What has yet to dawn on them is that unless regimes such as that of Saddam are dealt with, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will continue. If America backs down now in its confrontation with Iraq, more countries will feel free to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. When enough regimes have these weapons it will become a mathematical certainty that some will find their way into the hands of terrorist groups — if they haven’t already — and they will be used in western cities.
A vote on another UN resolution on Iraq is due to take place soon. It is vital for Ireland that it goes America’s way, although that seems unlikely at present. If the security council decides to vote against America and its allies, it will present the Ahern government with a predicament. On the one hand, it wants to allow the continued use of Shannon by the US military. On the other hand, without the cover of a second UN resolution, domestic opposition will become so strong that it may force the government to ask the Americans to refuel elsewhere.
Last week in Washington, two Republican congressmen managed to have the name of the french fries and french toast served in restaurants on Capitol Hill changed to “freedom” fries and “freedom” toast. If the Americans can no longer use Shannon, then we may find Irish stew renamed “freedom” stew. The result of Irish anti-Americanism is that Americans may soon get the message that we don’t much like them. The only losers will be us.
Happy St. Patrick's Day (soon) Everyone.
Regards, Ivan
American by Gods Grace!
At least 100 million Americans have ancestors from the British Isles, including Ireland. What they say and do has more meaning to us as a nation than they realize over there.
Very true. I'm part Welsh/English, and feel both a cultural and "blood" bond to the British Isles. Thank G-d the UK at least has a US-friendly Prime Minister.
Sorry, Ireland, but you folks are the ones who are being arrogant. You propose to tell us what our bearing toward the world should be, but you do not have to deal with foreign entities coming into your country and killing thousands of your citizens. It is not your economy that has been decimated by attack.
The Islamofascists are our Cromwell. You hated, feared, and fought Cromwell when he attacked Ireland, so how can you not understand that we would fight the same thing here? Or have you forgotten your own history?
Britain has been a fairly reliable ally since WW2. France on the other hand...
Muslims have immigrated in waves to Europe before and each time were expelled when they became too numerous. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the coming years, some countries like France are already on the verge of becoming a Muslim majority.
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.