A bout with the flu made it impossible to read without instantly falling asleep and producing weird cough-suppressant fueled dreams. So I am just now catching up with my reading. Charles Krauthammer's two recent columns concerning Iraq, multinationalism and diplomacy are a must read. In the first, Krauthammer asks:
How is it possible to ignore the Iraqi war's most blindingly obvious collateral benefits?
Yeah, sure. After 18 years of American sanctions, Moammar Gaddafi randomly picks Dec. 19, 2003, as the day for his surrender. By amazing coincidence, Gaddafi's first message to Britain — principal U.S. war ally and conduit to White House war councils — occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And his final capitulation to U.S.-British terms occurs just five days after Saddam Hussein is fished out of a rathole.
...Imagine this kind of thinking 58 years ago: "Japan Surrenders — Years of War Deprivation Proved Too Much."
Dateline Tokyo, Aug. 14, 1945. Japan capitulated yesterday to the allies, worn down by the accumulation of hardships from the war begun with the sudden outbreak of violence in Hawaii in December 1941. The housing shortage in Tokyo had become particularly acute, especially since the nights of March 9 and 10. And there also has appeared to be an abrupt downturn in recent economic activity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Sen. John Kerry was equally ridiculous in his explanation of the Libya deal: "An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military preemption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy."
Krauthammer's Viewpoint in this week's Time Magazine offers insights into the machinations behind multinationalism as we knew it pre-9/11; how diplomacy failed to rally our traditional allies and why we must now form new alliances that serve common interests.
Posted by feste at January 8, 2004 12:43 PM | TrackBackNow they are neutrals. America can stand tall without them
Within days after Saddam's capture, France, Germany and Russia announced their willingness to consider relieving Iraq's crushing debt burden. This was no burst of conscience about unrepayable billions lent Saddam to squander on grotesque palaces and grotesque weapons. This was the wind shifting America's way in Iraq — and the neutrals adjusting course accordingly.
But this is not the beginning of a great reconciliation. These countries were no help before the war, during the war or after the war. France tried to rally the world to stop the U.S. from deposing Saddam. Russia was sending night-vision goggles to Saddam. Not one lifted a finger to help the postwar reconstruction.
Some Americans are bitter about this, others merely confused. Democrats think it's our fault. They charge Bush with mishandling relations with the allies. Theirs is an etymological problem. Events have overtaken vocabulary. These countries are not allies. It is sheer laziness now that counts France and Germany as old allies, sheer naivete that counts Russia as a new one.
...To be sure, there are some countries that see their ultimate security as dependent upon the international order maintained by the U.S. These are not insignificant countries, and over time they may become the kernel of an entirely new alliance system. They include Anglo-Saxons (Britain, Australia) and a few Europeans (Italy, Spain, Poland, other newly liberated East European countries). They understand that the sinews of stability — free commerce, open sea lanes, regional balances of power, nonproliferation, deterrence — are provided overwhelmingly by the American colossus. They understand that without it, the world collapses into chaos and worse. They believe in the American umbrella and are committed to helping the umbrella holder.