A couple of interesting articles. With worldwide respect for Bush's administration having done a 180 degree turn after the "axis of evil" speech, people are beginning to think about other ways to deal with the global crisis. (That phrase, btw, is well on its way to making a mockery out of Bush, just like the "evil empire" phrase did for Reagan. Physical power alone does not make one a leader. Without credibility and respect, people and nations will not follow. Bush is well on his way to squandering much of the real power the US held, and much of the goodwill it earned in the Afghanistan war and the Gulf war. I just don't get it. ) http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,651371,00.html http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,651674,00.html This is an ominous warning. "… But they should ponder the track record of US military campaigns in the past 100 years: whenever the US has fought wars alongside other countries and for a goal that had widespread support, as it did in WWI, WWII and the Gulf, the results have been an overwhelming success - both militarily and morally. When the US has fought wars largely alone and without significant international backing, as it did in Vietnam, the outcome has been a disaster."
When the Europeans actually develop a coalition that is willing and capable of sustaining a unified and proactive foreign policy, let me know. Until then, I'm going to assume that our allies are just as weak and indecisive as they have been since WWII. There's a reason they call us the "leader of the free world"... There's still nothing you can do about it, Grizzled.
This is what the articles were suggesting Europe and Britain should do. Which is? ?!? If this is some reference to your post the other night, I'm not gettin' it. I didn't read the whole post.
Yeah, that's an annoying statement. Who gives a **** if Grizzled can't personally determine international policy? None of us can. So what's the point in that sentence? We argue about "should be" not "is" on matters of policy, mostly. Nothing wrong with that...
You're telling me you don't know how the rest of the world viewed that comment? Let me see what I can dig up for you.
This is somewhat misleading.. how bout, "Whenever other countries, namely of Europe, has fought wars alongside the US, the results have been overwhelming success - without the US involvement in WWI and WWII, Europe would have been a disaster, not being able to partake in peacetime pursuits of higher unemployment, a saddled welfare program, and such." The French had Indochina. The British had South Africa and Egypt. The US had Vietnam. The USSR had Afghanistan. Every major power for the last a hundred and fifty years have gotten involved in coutries that were embroiled in civil/domestic struggles and have suffered due to lack of (willingness to engage with) resources. The two are mutually exclusive. Failure (or success) in these countries did not arise out of unilateral engagement. but i agree, even though the US may be the strongest nation now, in dealing with adversaries that hid within civilian populations and in remote places, we need all the allies we can get.. and we can't do it alone. Well, we could, but our domestic resoures would be stretched very thinly. aand we can't expect other countries, with long histories of sovereignties, to just "fall in line" behind our reasons. even though they're whiny and prideful, they're the only support we have.
No, I am expressing my complete disdain for the idea that Reagan's "Evil Empire" remark made a "mockery" of him. I'm well aware some of the damp-sheeted among us didn't like that remark, but I think "mockery" is reserved for statements more along the lines of "I did not have relations with that woman" than for accurate characterizations of a brutally repressive Communist regime which would topple six years later.
Grizzled: I know. I can read. The Euros have been dreaming of a European defense bloc for decades. I'll believe they can pull it off when I see it. Without the US as a leader, the Euros have been paralyzed when trying to deal with even internal disputes. Bosnia and Kosovo come to mind there. Name one successful intervention (aside from the Falklands war - and we helped there) in the past 50 years where the Europeans have been successful without the US taking the lead? They are simply incapable of carrying out large-scale military operations on their own, and have in the past proven incapable of even banding together to do so - unless the US takes the lead. Then why don't you read the whole post? It's not that complicated anyway. How is it relevant how the rest of the world viewed it? It worked, and the entire world is better off for it. haven: Oh, good lord man - obviously I'm not talking about Grizzled himself. I am talking about our allies. There is nothing they can do about it if we decide to act unilaterally. Is that better?
Fair enough criticism. I might quibble with the "whiny and prideful" bit because I think there are legitimate concerns, but I'll ask a different question. The US seems to be deliberately alienating its allies. The "axis of evil" phrase was bound to alienate people, so why use it?
In the interest of fairness, let me also add "Read my lips, no new taxes" as a Republican version of quotes that inspired mockery.
HOMERUN. Damp-sheeted, LOL... I heard one of the American leaders (Rumsfeld?) say this (paraphrasing): Let's develop the mission and then form the coalition not vice versa. Just lead, baby!
Well, I would argue that no empire is "evil." It's a silly, almost adolescent remark, and that made me nervous. How could the leader of the world most powerful country be saying this!? Is he unstable? I certainly won't defend the USSR, and its collapse was one of the great moments of our time, but I'm not at all convinced that the "evil empire" remark had any intentional positive effect.
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3ARHXB6XC Fascinating article about the implications of America's vast military superiority over the rest of the world. The author, once a leading proponent of American declinism & critic of our isolationist tendencies, has pretty much done a 180. We've always had our critics in Europe, but when we lead, they follow. The only real support in the "war on terrorism" that we need from Europe is intelligence, internal police work, financial support for liberated nations (Afghanistan & Iraq) and peacekeeping forces to follow American military action (all of which they have already pledged).
Now that is a very positive, productive, and non-narrow minded statement. BK, Whether you believe it a fair assessment (or if it is even important/of concern), Grizzled was correct in pointing out non-US mockery of Reagan's statement, as is happening now with Bush's. Of course, this happens with international politics no matter who the leader or country is.
"university of entertainment tonight" and "damp-sheeted" are two of the funnier comments I've read in a good long while. kagy is in rare form on this thread.
There will always be quibbling of some sort, but this is an order of magnitude or so different, IMO. This is a very particular and concerning statement. The more I think about this the more I think this was Bush's way of blowing off the allies. He knew this statement would unacceptable to anyone outside the US when he said it. The statement is not something to be thought about or debated. It is preposterous and ridiculous in its essence. He is saying "f*** you all, we're going to do whatever we want to." And of course you can, militarily. The above article demonstrates that clearly. But that attitude and the attitude of the author of that article show a lack of understanding of some fairly basic project management principles. The first of those is that the most important success parameter in any project that involves people is stakeholder satisfaction. The Afghanistan war was mostly about power (but even there PR was very important). This war is essentially about PR. Public opinion fuels the terrorists. Lack of public support amongst their own people will be the only thing that will ultimately stop them. Public support and solidarity amongst the allies will be what hunts down the terrorists who are out there now. Yes you are the most powerful country militarily on the planet by a wide margin. But even with your vast superiority there, that is only part of the story. And your leaders don't seem to understand the other part.
From who's viewpoint? The subjugated Baltics? The subjugated Eastern Europeans? (Have you ever lived under tyranny?) The millions of Russians Stalin murdered? Just remember that you are stating your opinion only; not fact. Many will agree with you, but many (with cause) will disagree with your assessment.
