This is a pic from the Rose Monday carnival parade in Mainz, Germany. This sort of irreverance towards Bush and the U.S. is unprecedented. We have never been held to a level of worldwide disregard such as we face today. This country has lost much of its standing atop the world.I still believe this is the greatest nation, but no matter how great and powerful we are we still need other countries, whether it be China for cheap labor, the Middle East for oil, or Europe for political and military support against terrorist regimes like Iran. For example, the recent "evidence" of Iran's meddling in Iraq was immediately discredited as yet another fabrication by a war-mongering administration. Although Iran does have a hand in the current violence and is working towards a nuclear weapon, nothing short of a signed confession will sway world opinion. The leniency once granted the U.S. is fading quickly. The picture says quite a bit about where we stand and how far we have to go.
4 comments:
I am not sure that we should be worried about what Western European countries, particuarly Germany, think of the United States. For the most part, these countries have chosen the secular and socialist paths and are thus, careening rudderless toward economic and social ruination. Tax rates are at historic highs, busines investment is practically non-existent, and birth rates among natives is alarmingly low. Conversely, birth rates for the low income and low educated Islamic immigrants to these countries are skyrocketing. These countries now lack the spiritual fortitude and moral ceritiude to withstand the onslaught of radical Islam, which is so successfully bred among the lower classes that Western Europe's welfare states attract. In short, Western Europe is in its cultural death throes and is too passive and weak to do anything about it. I have always been more of an isolationist regarding US foreign policy anyway, very much along the lines of what George Washington and John Adams advocated for our nation at its founding with the "Neutrality Policy." However, if you really don't think that Germany wants us to have a role in Europe, propose withdrawing all our troops and military bases from the area and you will truly see what Germany thinks of the US. The reality is that the masses of Western Europe keeps themselves intoxicated on anti-Americanism so that it will not have to deal with the impending disasters of their own making.
I was highlighting the worldwide condemnation of US actions (both foreign and domestic), not specific to one country or region. I am well aware of the economic and cultural problems European countries face. However, I don't think that precludes them from making valid points, that perhaps Bush is leading America down the wrong path. Normally I don't care what the French or Germans think, but the criticism is not confined to them. I'm not sure I know of a period when the U.S. was the object of so much ridicule. Regardless, the current one certainly ranks highly.
In regards to isolationism, generally speaking the U.S. can, and does, act without regard for others. The situation in the Middle East highlights why that is not always possible. The only way to stop Iran is with international support via sanctions. We most definitely cannot handle an invasion while failing in Iraq, and surgical strikes will only delay nuclear development. As for our presidential forefathers, George Washington and John Adams never faced a fraction of the foreign policy woes our presidents face. I cannot imagine their views would be similar were they alive today.
Like it or not, we need other countries. Points for excellent use of the dictionary though. I find our vocabularies are so limited these days. Your average word length must have been about 10.
I only used Germany as a glaring example of the rampant anti-Americanism in Western Europe especially. My point here is that anti-Americanism is the current "opiate of the people" around the world that prevents people from dealing with the corruption and ineptitude of their own governments. Of course, there are other nations that are critical of our government and its policies. That is their right. It is no surprise that the "biggest kid" on the block is typically viewed as a bully, unless you need him to come to your aid. After you no longer need his help, he goes back to being a bully. My main point was that we should largely withdraw from our role as the world's police force and concentrate on defense (missile defense, shoring up our borders and restricting immigration). We should also drastically cut our government's funding of NATO and other mechanisms that subsidize the defense of other countries. It is the height of folly to pour billions of dollars into these basically socialist countries to defend them from a threat which is largely non-existent today. I would also drastically cut funding to Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons of their own and therefore, holds the ultimate trump card to deal with their Islamo-Fascist neighbors. As crazy as some of these mullahs are, they have to know that when a country is fighting an existential war, nuclear weapons (at least tactical) are on the table.
As to your point on Washington and Adams, you are probably correct that they did not face the sheer number of foreign policy challenges but that was because they intentionally defined the new country's interests much more narrowly. This was an intentional decision that Washington and the Federalists made and by design limited the "fronts" of our foreign policy. The overriding focus of the United States' policies was on the survival of the country, which was very much in question at the time. This danger created a huge foreign policy dilemna for Washington and Adams in that the US had to be very careful in dealing with the current enmity between England (upon which we depended for economic survival) and France (our ally in the Revolution and the owner of the only Navy to counterbalance the British from trying to retake the "colonies"). Compound this with the fact that the French were in the middle of their own revolution at this time and I wouldn't underestimate the difficulties faced by Washignton and Adams. Again, recent US governments have not had to fight the existential threats from both internal (Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans, slaveholding states,etc.) and external forces that our early governments faced.
As far as Iran goes, a miltary strike (which I do not support, by the way) is the only way that they will be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. No matter how high the US standing was in the world today, the rest of the world lacks the consensus and the will to stand unified against them. As we saw with Iraq, even UN Security Council members, faced with multiple egregious violations of their own resolutions, could not muster the courage to take effective action. With the Oil for Food scandal, we again learned the age old lesson that nations will ultimately act in their own self interest and have little compunction in cheating for their won benefit. With the secular erosion of ideas like "the common good" and moral absolutes, the rest of the world has no basis to do anything other than to continue to act in their own self interest. If Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons, there is nothing, short of a military strike, to prevent them from doing so.Did the world's supposedly better view of the US under Clinton prevent the North Koreans from developing nuclear weapons? How the workd "views" the US has almost nothing to do with whether we can get them to take action. Other countries will only "join" us in action when the benefits to them outweigh all costs to them. It is naive to think otherwise.
You are correct that if the US wants to continue its present role in acting as the police force of the world then we DO need other countries. If instead, we would concentrate our interests primarily on domestic issues and let the rest of the world take care of itself, then not so much.
I think it has become the "opiate of the people" because of Bush. When more than 70% of America, and however much of the world, disapprove of one man, it may be worth some inward reflection.
I think of the funding we give to countries like Israel as greasing the wheels. Those countries come in handy when we want to sell billions of dollars worth of jets and tanks and establish launching platforms for military campaigns. Plus, in the wake of disasters like Katrina, it's good to have friends who supply aid. I believe in cyclicality. World powers come and go. We don't know for how long we will be the lone superpower, or when the next disaster might hit. It seems as though being the lone superpower (in regards to funding) is an all or nothing venture, either you give nothing and isolate yourself or you give fruitfully with the expectation that countries will return the favor. At some point even the most powerful country needs help.
Back to Iran...our "intelligence" has little idea where nuclear material is being developed or how many sites there are. Experts on Iran agree that a military strike would merely delay their work by a couple of years, assuming we even hit key targets. The U.S., U.N., EU, and Russia are all backing sanctions against Iran, and the economic squeeze is affecting Ahmadinejad's clout at home. Recent elections dealt his supporters many defeats and the ayatollah is said to be unhappy with him. Militarily speaking, the only realistic option to ending Iran's nuclear program is invasion. Since that is impossible right now given Iraq, sanctions are the only viable solution. So far they appear to be working. I think it's worth a shot.
As for "How the workd "views" the US has almost nothing to do with whether we can get them to take action." I am not suggesting we should improve their views of us to get them to take action. Again, I am suggesting that the growing disapproval around the world of the US should give pause to some inward reflection and not more nationalistic "we can do whatever the hell we want" attitudes, which have gotten us into difficult situations, such as Iraq.
North Korea is a slightly different situation. The country is entirely dependent on foreign aid. They were able to develop nuclear weapons because their neighbors, who supply the bulk of aid, were to afraid to cut that off. Rightly so in light of the fact that millions of starving refugees would have flooded their borders and dpressed already sagging economies.
Post a Comment