David Warren: U.S. No Longer Cares What Others Think (Payback is a…)

The Ottawa Citizen ^ | April 26, 2003 | David Warren

[quidnunc]

It strikes me that something fairly big is happening, fairly quietly, in Washington. It amounts to a new diplomatic strategy, post-Iraq — of the kind which, given American power, generates in and of itself a "new world order". (The father talked; the son acted.) It emerges less from conscious thought than from years of frustrating trial and error, brought to a head in the Security Council just before the invasion of Iraq. And it begins to reveal itself as a way of dealing with immediate difficulties in Iraq and elsewhere (most immediately, North Korea).

But though not the product of committee foresight, I think it may emerge as the most important single element within the "Bush doctrine" that has been assembling itself since the morning of 9/11, and which may long outlive the administration of President George W. Bush. It may even penetrate into the U.S. State Department, over time.

Until someone has invented a more pretentious expression, I will call this the new "we don't care" policy. It consists of responding to major rhetorical and diplomatic challenges, including organized campaigns against U.S. interests choreographed through the United Nations, with something like total indifference.

But let me explain, not indifference to the challenge, but indifference to the argument given with the challenge. The U.S. will take note of the opposition, and act to defeat it, but without publicly arguing with it. Actual discussion on matters of significance is reserved to allies.

Example: yesterday, when the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, cut a verbal Gordian knot, by stating very simply that the U.S. would not allow a theocratic regime to arise in Iraq. One might deduce that it wouldn't matter whether the thing were voted or not voted, before or behind a façade of "democracy"; or one might fail to deduce that. Either way, the thing itself is repugnant, and the U.S. will stop it happening.

Example: earlier this week, when the secretary of state, Colin Powell, was asked unambiguously by media whether the U.S. intended to "punish" (their word) France for her recent behaviour over Iraq, and he replied in one word: "Yes."

One had to refer to other officials to gather that this would be done most likely by cutting France out of the consultation process in NATO and among other U.S. allies, and by "disinviting" France to other trans-Atlantic fora, thus isolating the Chirac regime diplomatically even within Europe.

-snip-

[Romulus]

That's funny, because Washington wasn't a Christian (he was a fine guy, but his religious opinions were Masonic-influenced deism), and Osama isn't a rebel (he's a terrorist).

[Psycho_Bunny]

Dude....don't drag me into your bizarro world.  Nobody has ever been able to credibly show Washington to be anything other than a Christian.

And while technically a type of mercenary, Bin Laden did fight with Afghani rebels against Russia.

[guitfiddlist]

This is ridiculously dense of the author.

Let me surmise our new tone - oh my Canadian dippleshittski: Unlike yesteryear, it is now - "slap me - I will slap the shittaki outta YOU...step on my toes... I will stomp your face with my shittaki-kickers...comprendes dipfrick?"

It is cetainly a far cry from the "slap my butt, I will turn around, drop trou' and grab ankles" of the fetid sh@t-eating-Clinton years, ain't it?

Read the new tea leaves and weep, frikk-head.

[bart99]

" (The sight yesterday of the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, sharing a podium with Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian foreign minister, while the latter issued crude threats against the U.S. -- then of Mr. de Villepin inviting an ayatollah to visit France in the wake of Robert Mugabe's visit, and recent French overtures to Libya and Sudan, was a reminder that French behaviour remains unspeakable.) "

---

France - even NOW you are doing this?? Why for god's sake? Kinda makes Powell's "yes" respond even more meaningful. Hope Powell has a chnce to make that "yes" remark in a Security Council setting.

[Jorge]

Until someone has invented a more pretentious expression, I will call this the new "we don't care" policy. It consists of responding to major rhetorical and diplomatic challenges, including organized campaigns against U.S. interests choreographed through the United Nations, with something like total indifference.

So far it seems to be a very effective policy.

As Janet Jackson once said... "I'm in control...and I like it".

[Yardstick]

It is better for them, and us, if the country that confronts Europe with the "I got yer dialog right here" scenario is the United States, instead of, say, China in 2022.

Hey, that's an interesting point.

Can you imagine if there were no United States, and the job of counterbalancing the world's toxic dictatorial and totalitarian regimes were left to the Europeans as they are now? The planet would just unravel. The Euroweenies would pull the covers up over their head and slip off into their post-modern dreamscape, and the crazies would run rampant.

[Romulus]

Nobody has ever been able to credibly show Washington to be anything other than a Christian.

Washington was respectful toward Christianity, but I'm not aware that he ever professed it as a theological proposition. The balance of informed contemporary opinion is that Washington was a Deist.

Bin Laden did fight with Afghani rebels against Russia.

If fighting Soviets who've invaded foreign countries makes you a "rebel", you can count me as a rebel sympathiser.

[George W. Bush]

A couple of years ago President Bush was greeting a crowd of people and a goofball said something like "I think you aren't doing a good job" (My words) and President Bush responded with "Who cares what you think?"

I'd like to see that clip.

[George W. Bush]

Just as an aside, quidnunc, you should post the full article unless it is one of the few papers where we are told to post only excerpts.

By forcing the reader to click the link for the full article, we end up browsing their web site which drives up their traffic and enables them to raise more ad revenue.

I think we should excerpt conservative sources but always publish the liberal ones in full if possible. That way, our hits subsidize the conservative and penalize the liberal.

We should use market forces in our own favor.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"... had Algore been elected...our nation's enemies would be all the more emboldened..."

And I believe we very well could have seen follow-up attacks to 9/11 that would have brought this country under algore and the damnable Dims to our knees. Pray to God that they do not soon return to any kind of authority!

In my opinion, if we, the diverse conservative base in this country unite solidly behind Dubya, and we voice our support of Dubya to the sheeple so that THEY understand the consequences, we can ensure that the Dims do not return to power, and we can gain in the House & Senate. This undoubtedly requires that each of us recognizes that the good of the country is more important right now than some of our diverse, and sometimes divisive other issues.

When we can establish a confident base of conservatives in Congress to support Dubya, I believe we will see many of our other issues going the way we want them to go. Another very important part of this is judicial appointments. Long term these become of lasting significance. The tide of leftist appointments to the various judicial benches must be stemmed and reversed with the appointment of conservatives who do not buy the "living document theory" regarding the US Constitution.

[ODDITHER]

" Anti-Americanism will no longer be either subtly or overtly rewarded. It will instead be subtly ignored, or overtly punished.

This goes to for the anti-americans within the US.

I call the this the Bush Doctrine is simply "We know the difference between right and wrong and will no longer pretend we don't" policy. If you are wrong and your being wrong doesn't affect American national security you will be ignored, if it does affect National security policy you will be punished.

Thus the difference between the treatment of Germany and Frnace. Germany is being ignored and France is being punished.

[ODDITHER]

How about foriegn Fulilitarianism.

[George W. Bush]

Actually, I think that if Gore had been elected, he would have declared a war on terror as well. But it would have been more of the usual ineffective bombing of aspirin factories and such. And if Al had screwed up the courage to invade Iraq, he would immediately have handed it over to France and Germany and Russia for profiteering by them and by the U.N.

The author does make a good point though. Even future Demo regimes are now far more likely to look to the Bush example as a precedent for American unilateralism in the modern era. It is, after all, much easier than dialoging with Europe.

Even Clinton didn't particularly like being restricted by Congress which is why he didn't consult them much. One of the reasons American presidents are so powerful internationally is exactly because they have such scope for unilateral action with our military. And any Democrat president likes that power just as much as Republicans.

So, I think the writer is correct. Despite all the Dim blather about mulilateralism currently, any future Dim president is likely to take advantage of Bush's precedent when necessary. Or convenient. It remains to be seen whether we'll all think it's a good thing in the long run. Next time, it might be us objecting to a Dim president taking such actions.

[MEG33]

I believe davidwarrenonline.com will be useful..He has some great essays.

[duzystopa]

If there are any leaks from the Armed Services Committee I know where they came from, the PIAPS.

[nicmarlo]

Thanks Happy....this article made me realize, people just don't get it. GW made a promise on 9/11. We're seeing it carried through. Perhaps the greatest "shock and awe" of this war lay with the people who are still in disbelief that our President's word means something.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

HILLARY Leaks =

Why I'm asking...

...."IS it SAFE?"....

[rocky88]

"Wouldn't be hard to come up with a more colorful name for this new policy than "We don't care"...LOL..."

My repsonse: Operation Indifference to Ignorance

My husband's: Operation "Don't be a putz"

OK, OK.... :-)

[Enterprise]

I'd love to see it. I had read about it in a newspaper and I didn't save the article.

[Kozak]

The author also observes that the new attitude in Washington may outlast the Bush administration. Maybe, but only if our Dubya is reelected so he has a chance to fully inculcate this new approach to foreign policy into our national bloodstream, so to speak.

A Kerry or Dean administration would be on it's knees to "world opinion" faster then you could say "Monica".