DRIVE-THRU DIPLOMACY

OPINION EDITORIALS.COM ^ | OCTOBER 7, 2004 | GREGORY A. BORSE

[CHARLITE]

October 07, 2004

Drive-Thru Diplomacy Gregory A. Borse

HERE’s the slippery thing about credibility. You can earn it in one of two ways: you can prove that you are trustworthy by following through on instructions that you have been given. Or, you can earn trust by following through on what you say you are going to do.

In the Vice-Presidential debate, it became clear which side each campaign is on in terms of credibility. The Kerry-Edwards ticket, via the “global test” for the use of military force in defense of U.S. interests, is clearly interested in establishing credibility via the former route—by following (France, Germany, the U.N.—maybe even North Korea and Iran). Bush-Cheney reflect the latter—arguing that U.S. credibility is established by leading.

The debate moderator, Gwenn Ifell, asked Edwards (and give her credit, she phrased the question beautifully), “What is a ‘global test’ if it’s not a global veto?” Edwards answered that we pass it by “Telling [other countries] the truth.”

Well, about what? About whether we are following U.N. instructions faithfully, or whether we are going to follow through with the War on Terror, one central aspect of whose victory is the full liberation and stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan, the capture of Osama Bin Laden and the destruction of Al Queda? In other words, are you going to follow or lead the world to victory over terrorism?

The distinction is an important one—and the Kerry-Edwards’ definition of global credibility ought to put into serious doubt their ability to handle the world that they will inherit should they ascend to the White House.

For credibility with France, (now) Spain, Russia, and the rest of the War on Terror fence-sitters is manifestly less important that credibility with Iraq, Afghanistan, our coalition partners (especially Poland, thank you very much), and, that other minority of people with huge stakes in the War on Terror—the terrorists themselves.

In short, Osama Bin Laden is serious about victory in the War of Terror he has been waging against the free world for more than a decade now. And such seriousness can only be defeated if it is met with equal seriousness, greater resolve, and superior military force.

And much, much more patience.

It is a fact of American culture that we are impatient for immediate results—so much so that having to wait more than 4 minutes in the “drive-thru” (see? We don’t even have enough patience to spell out the word!) at the local Whopper-Hut is a grave imposition. Of course, when we are made to wait, we fool ourselves that we are comforted if we are informed about how long. Hence, when we call our cellular phone service provider with a complaint, we are weirdly relieved and emboldened when the automated female voice tells us that our wait will be . . . . 27 minutes. “Oh yea?” we think, “Well, honey, I’m prepared to wait 27 hours if that’s what it takes!” But, of course, after a marathon 15 minutes, we hang up angrily and jump on-line to see if there is someway to contact the president of the company directly . . . .

Of course, the European countries that do not support the U.S. led War on Terror suffer from way too much patience. In an e-mail received about a week ago from a reader of one of my earlier articles, a gentleman from Australia wrote to the effect that he could not understand America’s newfound anxiety about terrorism following 9/11. He wrote: “What is all this fear of terrorism in the US? How many terrorist attacks has the US had? Five in thirty years? . . . When I lived in UK we had terrorist attacks weekly and hundreds in total. During the 60’s and 70’s and early 80’s the IRA killed 3600 Ulster constabulary members alone . . . .” He goes on to give many more examples. Then he explains the difference between the current US approach and the European approach: “The British . . .the Spanish. . . and the French response [to terrorism] is to stand firm, police the situation, persist and be smart.”

This, presumably, was the Clinton approach as well.

But, it doesn’t work. That is, it works in the sense that it attempts to minimalize, as best it can, the casualties that such a policy takes for granted. But police action does very little to neutralize the threat at its source. It, in fact, guarantees that the terrorists—those not yet arrested—will wage the war on our shores. For this is the nature of police work: the policeman is always at the disadvantage because he or she must wait for the crime to be committed in order to respond. The Kerry-Edwards’ foreign policy “plan” seems to say that not only will we follow, via the “global test,” world opinion about our options to defend ourselves, but that we will follow the terrorists, depending upon where and when they unleash their murderous rage against us.

And this is the key difference between the Bush Doctrine on terrorism and the (essentially European) Kerry-Edwards’ position on foreign policy at a time of war. The Bush Doctrine assumes that one 9/11 is not the “price you pay” for thwarting twenty other terrorist attempts. The Bush Doctrine has a “zero-tolerance” view of terrorism.

It is a misnomer to call the War on Terror “pre-emptive.” Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (and Libya's Ghadaffi) have or had been at war with the West for decades before, as Condoleeza Rice put it in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the US was “on a war footing.” We are now on a war footing. This is a defensive war. The question facing the American public is whether it wants to elect an administration committed to winning this war or one that is committed to conducting it according to a pre-9/11 paradigm.

We cannot afford “drive-thru” diplomacy, vetted by the U.N. and submitted to a vague "global test." The real global test is the terrorists' penchant for attempting to kill us and our ability to stop them.

The United States can only maintain its credibility with the world by establishing its credibility with the terrorists. But credibility with the world is not as important as credibility with the terrorists. One thing at a time. We must establish credibility first with the terrorists—and there is only one measure our success in this endeavor: total victory. Comments? Email author: GREGORBO@peoplepc.com