Axis Backlash By Ken Adelman NEW YORK -- The after-effects of President Bush's "axis of evil" speech have hit. Europeans are pushing back hard -- fearful that Bush just might, once again, mean what he said. He's like that. Unlike many former presidents - including his father and especially Bill Clinton - George W. Bush signals where he's going. He spoke his mind on the Kyoto accord and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and, sure enough, got out of both. He gave his thoughts about the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and, by God, attacked them both. And last week he leaned forward and grimaced about the evil trio of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. But it was Iraq that got the biggest grimace. So beware, Baghdad. That grimace set the Europeans into a tizzy. Here in New York City, at the gala Davos World Forum, they started to push back, and hard. The "global" crowd was momentarily relieved by Secretary of State Colin Powell's diplo-speak about our determination to alleviate "the conditions for terrorism." By this, quite strangely, Powell meant poverty. Well, Osama bin Laden's sure not poor. The 15 of 19 terrorists on September 11th who hailed from among the world's wealthiest states, Saudi Arabia, weren't poor. Nor were the other four from Egypt. The father of key ringleader Muhammad Atta cruises around Cairo in a Mercedes -- not exactly the national norm. Atta attended school in the West and reportedly checked out of an American hotel, shortly before 9/11, because it lacked an Internet high-speed portal in his room. Nonetheless, that's become part of the mantra of peace against the Bush talk of war. Besides that pitch about alleviating poverty, the Europeans stress the need to bind the international coalition. While at Davos, for instance, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stressed that when thinking "about attacking Iraq… it is important that we bear in mind the cohesion of the international alliance against terrorism. I have also said that it needs to include leaders of moderate Arab nations." That may sound sensible, but misses some key points. First, to place the "cohesion of the international alliance" as top priority is a recipe for inaction. The most reluctant coalition member(s) then gets a veto. Had Bush adopted this approach on Afghanistan, the Western and "moderate Arab" diplomats would still be conferring about what might be done. Nothing would have been done. The main point bears repeating: The international coalition must follow the mission, rather than determine it. Different nations will join us to different degrees on different activities at different times. If lots join us against Al-Qaeda and few against Iraq, well that's fine. Second, Europeans have no good ideas on what to do about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The German defense minister said earlier this week that he favors a "political strategy" on Iraq, rather than a military one. Does he know of any negotiation that has ever worked with Saddam Hussein? Or does he mean "hitting" the dictator with a tough speech at the United Nations? Or a diplomatic demarche? He evidently means anything, but action. Meanwhile, his boss Chancellor Schroeder said that "Iraq would be well-advised to allow unconditional inspections -- a reasonable demand that the United States… is making." Yet Saddam refuses to have inspectors. And even when they were allowed in Iraq, they missed every major part of his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons program. So that's a real non-starter. Third, the European track record on threat assessment inspires scant confidence. During the 1930s, the U.S. government under Franklin Roosevelt was more accurate on the Nazi threat to civilization than any European government. From the 1940s to the 1980s, the U.S. governments -- spanning from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan - was more accurate on the Communist threat than any European government. And today, President Bush is sounder in his tough stance than they are in their waffling. Last, it was America that was attacked on Sept. 11th -- not the Europeans. When one of them is attacked as viciously, we would yield to that country on how best to react. But that's improbable. America was attacked before -- and we're most likely to be attacked again - because we're the world's symbol of freedom, tolerance, and progress. Since we're attacked as the leader of such values, we should act like the leader in defense of these values. Whoever among the Europeans - or "moderate Arabs" - is with us, in taking a strong stance, is welcome. Whoever is not, just stand aside so we can act responsibly on behalf of your, as well as our, values. http://www.defensecentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-020602B I agree.
I'm not going to bother addressing the majority of it. It's been played out here. But That's sort of the highschool history book interpretation of European action. One *can* interpret the situation that way... or one could also say that Chamberlain was setting a tripwire with his "peace in our time" speech. Not so naive, but rather Machiavellian instead. Piece loses a lot of credibility here. The US wasn't attacked because of our "values." It was attacked because we're A. supporting Israel and B. maintaining a military presence in Saudi Arabia. There are some other minor quibbles, but those are the big ones. Neither one of those positions are integral to our "values."
haven: I was actually hoping that you'd be the first to respond to this... I guess your drinking schedule corresponds with my propagandistic insanity schedule. Let me start by saying: Thank you for avoiding the main point of the article - that multilateralism is detrtimental to our security interests in some cases. Let me end this post by saying: Thank you again for completely ignoring the main point of the article. You must be getting a really good education to be able to ignore the primary point of an Adelman article... I'm getting the impression that you don't want to actually talk about this "Axis of Evil" crap? And what it really means for our "allies"?
Nice article, but the axis of evil I'm more concerned about consists of Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling and Dick Cheney, among others.
I avoided the main point of the article because I'm losing interest. This debate, imo, has been played out on this board. We know we disagree. I'll never convince you, and you'll never convince me. Why bother arguing over something so unproductive? I don't know why you continue to belabor the point. The only reason I ever respond anymore is because I don't want people who still have open minds about the subject to be browbeaten. I don't post every French, British, etc article on the subject that opposes your view point. If people are interested, they can look for themselves. I mentioned some minor points of interest to me that I thought you might have some interesting things to say about them. I still maintain that states operate according to self-interest. Such self-interest can almost always be defined in realpolitik power considerations. I think that assuming that the other side is somehow irrational and evil tends to be either delusional, or self-serving rhetoric that masks the underlying way that the world functions. There are exceptions, of course. Some people are really nuts. Some people are philanthropists (some would argue that nuts and philanthropists are the same thing, although I wouldn't).
It is nice to have a President that acts instead of waiting for the world to act. Maybe this will have a negative affect on terrorism by sheer fear versus the Black hawk Down scenario in Somalia in which we tucked tail and ran. But this statement: "America was attacked before -- and we're most likely to be attacked again - because we're the world's symbol of freedom, tolerance, and progress." That statement is so ignorant as to why we were attacked. And of course you have Rocketman Tex's completely ignorant judgements that make every argument Anti-Bush....
Thanks for the compliment, sunshine! You have your opinion, and I have mine. Have a wonderful life, or whatever you want to call it.
"Too bad that hardcore Realpolitik has been abandoned even by most staunch conservatives... and that it's fundamentally unable to address problems of assymetric warfare..." Oops. Suprising that both these statements are from Haven.
This article is a good example of faulty reasoning and short-sighted analysis. This war is essentially about public opinion and popular support. If it was about "might is right" then the US, and the west, would lose, just like Vietnam. The US military cannot beat a group of dedicated terrorists that use the kinds of techniques that Al-Quaeda has used. This is not to say that there shouldn't be a line in the sand at some point, but the objectives of the mission must stem from a more holistic vision, and must be aimed at being above reproach. This is what sustains a cause, throughout a country and between countries in a coalition. The loss in morale around the world after Bush uttered the "Evil Axis" phrase was palpable. The associations with Reagan, perhaps the most ridiculed major leader in modern world history, were unavoidable. The second paragraph is simply baseless sophomoric analysis. This is a recipe for failure. It's a "non-starter" not worthy of moment's consideration, really. No one is going to write the US, or anybody else, a blank cheque. Silly. And the more latitude is demanded, the less it will be given. Trust is earned, not demanded. Any child knows this. But when you have presidents that make statement like, "it's time to start the extermination of the evil empire" (or however that quote went) and "the evil axis" we feel that we are dealing with children, children who haven't learned proper manners or common sense.
Actually the US does have the military and economic power to impose its will on the rest of the world. The fact that we have not done so as of yet is a testament to our benevolence.
I thought you were a Brit, HayesStreet? And how do you come to this conclusion? I can't imagine how you're defining your terms in order to come to that conclusion.
Naw, American Werewolf in London... How do I come to this conclusion? How could you conclude anything else? The US economy is the glynchpin that holds the world economic system together. The US military is unmatched in projection capability. When we are resolved to do it, there is not another nation on Earth that can stop us.
Apparently, the "axis of evil" comment has spurred Iran to do something it wasn't doing before the comments. Breaking news over at CNN: "Iran says it has arrested 150 Arab, African and European nationals it suspects are members of the Taliban or al Qaeda. Details soon." They certainly weren't arresting anyone before the comments.
HayesStreet: You are the biggest dog on the block, no doubt, but you are not close to being as powerful as the sum of the other dogs combined. The US has roughly 5% of the world's population. Your GDP is roughly the equivalent of the EU's GDP, never mind China, India, Japan and the rest of the world. Your military is by far the most powerful, but China, for example has a potential army the size of the entire population of the US! I would suggest that you couldn't, and wouldn't want to, impose your will on the world. An efficient team is greater than the sum of its parts. A team with one star player, who plays for himself instead of the team, usually loses. This is true of world politics as well a basketball. Surfguy: That's an interesting point. I don't know if we can make a direct cause and effect connection there. There was certainly a negative reaction to the comment from the people who are pushing for democratic change in Iran, and that can't be good. I don't feel I have a good understanding at all of the dynamics in Iran, so it's a hard country to comment on.
<B>That's an interesting point. I don't know if we can make a direct cause and effect connection there. There was certainly a negative reaction to the comment from the people who are pushing for democratic change in Iran, and that can't be good. I don't feel I have a good understanding at all of the dynamics in Iran, so it's a hard country to comment on.</B> Iran is a bit of an odd-ball country. The funny thing is that Iran was already ready to help us before "Axis of Evil" thing in issues that affected them. They were ready to help and support in any operation to topple Hussein.
I'll tell you what they were doing before the comments....asking for proof. They were playing dumb saying give us the documents and proof that Al Quackos and Taliban are escaping to Iran. Funny how they can round up 150 of them in no time at all after they realize were not playing their little "show us proof" game. How do they round up 150 of them and play dumb like noone is crossing over? It's their absurd, naive claims that drew the critical comments in the first place. They needed a little kick in the arse to get the job done.
Odd, and interesting. Many of the people in Iran certainly don't like the radical Ayatollahs. Evidently, when Khatami was first elected, there was a general expectation that this was a radical revolution on the same scale as the first one, in Iran. Obviously, that didn't happen. But power is divided oddly, there. My favorite example is the issuing of newspaper licenses. Khatami's people have the sole authority to issue them... and the right-wing clergy the authority to shut them. Some liberal newspapers in Iran have literally opened and been shut down hundreds of times. The Boston Globe ran an article after Khatami's recent re-election... and most of the people are disillusioned, now. He still won in a landslide, but nobody expects him to do so much anymore. The article also mentioned that either side would be more aggressive to the other... except nobody knows what the military would do if they received completely contradicting, hostile orders. Interesting situation. IMO, Iran is balanced upon a razor's edge. We need to be careful, or it could fall the wrong way. Incidentally, it wasn't always necessary that Iran and the US should have such hostile relations. Originally, the Revolution was not particularly hostile to the US. In fact, some in the Revolution thought that the US would support the "people's movement" against the Shah, an autocrat. The US' acceptance of the Shah into the country ruined relations.
