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-

[expatpat]

'UNirrelevance'.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

NEVER FORGET



...The same HILLARY RODHAM...

...that aided HO CHI MINH's...

...Communist Victory over...

...US and FREEDOM...

...for a once Free South Vietnam...

...now sits on our most sensitive...

...Senate Armed Services Committee

...overseeing our most secret...

...Military Operations and Budgets...

...in a new -Time of War-..

...in a new Century...

...with an Enemy that is now...

...just around the corner...

...and up your street.


So...again I ask:


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



NEVER FORGET

[arthurus]

The last couple of lines in the piece is a caveat that would be laid to rest if we deal decisicely and soon with North Korea.
Our preeminence will not last very long if we allow our nation to utterly change character with the unrestricted immigration we are now experiencing, legal and illegal.

[Budge]

Yes, it is a good article.

I love the line, "Again: the policy is not one of retribution, or for that matter of "unilateralism," per se. Its ultimate purpose is to call bluffs."

It's about d@mn time!

[risk]

>>>>we care about what happens to the US.

Indeed. And those who doubt it had best think again.

[Dialup Llama]

>For decades, foreign powers have been able to influence U.S. policy simply by fomenting anti-American displays. This is what Arab regimes do, to put pressure on the U.S. State Department -- it's called the "Arab Street"

An interesting observation. Its almost as if we ourselves train up and radicalize the youth of these nations by being vulnerable to such displays of 'street rage.'

[EternalVigilance]

"strategic indifference"?

Brilliant!

[papertyger]

The "World" is a paper tiger.

Well...well....well just nyah on you.

You PROLA!

[Joe Bonforte]

How about Foreign Utilitarianism

I see your point - it does have a better acronym.

[TheDon]

"The rest of the world doesn't seem to understand that the US policy change is a reaction to the failure of the rest of the world to deal with real security threats, like al Qaeda and Saddam."

Well said. The rest of the world seems to be lingering in the pre 9-11 world.

[HardStarboard]

This amounts to Bush telling Chirac, "not only do we not need you, we do not want you, and, in fact pay you no notice".

Implied and unsaid is: "Don't get in the way sonny boy, we're playing hardball and you might get hurt!".

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Its almost as if we ourselves train up and radicalize the youth of these nations by being vulnerable to such displays of 'street rage.'

the [Americans], at least, seem now convinced that anti-Americanism should no longer be either subtly or overtly rewarded. It will instead be subtly ignored, or overtly punished.

. . . and not a moment too soon.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

More like it, indeed!

[Howlin]

More like it, indeed!

I guess we don't have to wonder why you and I are not in an elected office, do we? :-)

[MEG33]

My admiration grows and grows for David Warren's columns.

[nicmarlo]

the new "we don't care" policy:

"My mindset is this. One, I weep and mourn with America. I wish I could comfort every single family whose lives are affected. But make no mistake about it. My resolve is steady and strong about winning this war that has been delcared on America. It is a new kind of war and this government will adjust. People who conducted these new acts, and those who harbor them, will be held accountable for their actions."
- President George W. Bush

The policy is not one of retribution, or for that matter of "unilateralism," per se. Its ultimate purpose is to call bluffs. . . . The Americans and British went into Iraq [despite anti-American displays] and the former, at least, seem now convinced that anti-Americanism should no longer be either subtly or overtly rewarded. It will instead be subtly ignored, or overtly punished.

America First and Foremost, the Rest be Damned.

[PGalt]

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

[krogers58]

France's behavior, as of late, is akin to that of the soviets, throughout the cold war, and as far as I am concerned, as much a threat to American National Security, as that of the soviets, throughout that period, and should be treated accordingly.

[geedee]

Hey geedee, I added your info as my tag line. Spread the word!

LOL. THAT is an amazing stat (3000 out of two million) . . . and it does look cool as a tagline. You doctored it up good with the Islam-online bit . . . because you know there'll be some "non-believers" who'll challenge us on it.