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-

[nicmarlo]

PC, and I hope it's on its way out the door, at least for the most part.

[marron]

I have to say also that my attitude has changed substantially in the last couple of years. I have never been afraid to defend my point of view, or the US point of view, to my overseas friends. Its amazing, in most cases they simply have never heard the opposing arguments, and when presented with my, or our, views, they quite often come around.

But the US almost never does a competent job of explaining itself or defending itself, so that the job of explaining us is left to our enemies, our journalists, and Hollywood. Which is to say, we leave the task of explaining us to the those who least understand us.

I have often joked, however, that in the case of big trouble, I would break out the "Maple leaf" t-shirt, and if things really got dicey, head for the Canadian embassy. This is due to the belief that whatever happened, the US was not going to protect us, and it would be better to avoid being associated with a country that wouldn't even defend itself. Remembering back to the bad old days of Carter and Clinton, and even Reagan's impotence when our Marines were killed, and hostage after hostage taken, and my joke was a grim one.

But since 9/11 I don't even joke about such things. I don't care if our foreign friends don't understand us. I don't care if they don't like us. I don't care if we are alone and despised in this world. I'm not hiding, I'm not backing down, and I'm not apologizing when we're right. Which, given moral leadership, is much more often than when we're wrong.

[LibKill]

but we can't take them all on at once.

You are right.

Now, remember how one eats a whole roast elephant.

One bite at a time.

[merak]

Brilliant article.

[TheLion]

Thanks....great article!

[sweetliberty]

Isn't it though? Now wouldn't it be nice to do that with liberals? Just imagine, the first time one rears its ugly little head to rail against poll watchers next election, and we say "I'm doing what I need to do for the good of our country and I don't care if you don't like it." They're so used to being able to mash our guilt buttons. It would leave them bewildered if the magic was lost. Hehehe....

[Anamensis]

Until someone has invented a more pretentious expression, I will call this the new "we don't care" policy.

How 'bout the "laissez faire fautre" doctrine?

[lainde]

Thank you for posting this fantastic article!!!

[concerned about politics]

It doesn't matter what the socialists "feel." Americans didn't elect THEM to "feel" for us. We elected Bush to "lead." That's his job.
Sheese!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See this :

American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super

I think the NY Times has an agenda!

[Bernard]

Yes, and it would end with, "And the horse you rode in on".

[section9]

The Americans and British went into Iraq anyway 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.

Well put. As clear an understanding of present Ameirican policy as I have read in some time.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Kadric]

Here's another possible.

Strategical
Total
Force
Utilization

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for getting this on the list!

Ping to the readers for a good article!

[Ciexyz]

"Protect our homeland first" bump.

[BunnySlippers]

I have a hard time believing this. I hope its true, but I doubt it.

Fox News replayed it. It was awesome. Powell shortened his reply to one word ..."yes" with dramatic effect.

[McGavin999]

Americans and British went into Iraq anyway 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.

When you care too much what other people think, you hand them a powerful tool. Once you decide that what others think of you doesn't matter as much as doing the right thing, you take that power back.