| Its ultimate purpose is to call bluffs.
The idea that a new, enlightened future is taking shape in Brussels, where diplomats schmoozing each other over wine and Brie have made war a thing of the past, has become an almost dangerous obsession among those whom, until someone has invented a more pretentious expression, I will call "Euroweenies", or alternatively, "weasels." We have seen serious people, who ought to know better, looking down their long snouts at us, huffily explaining that "dialog has replaced war," and that we Americans are all cowboys and knuckle-draggers for thinking otherwise. This haughty fiction can maintain itself so long as it never encounters an outsider who won't play by its rules. The entire strategy falls on its face, however, when "he who is to be subdued" refuses to engage in "dialog." Too many in Europe seem to have forgotten that there are still such people in the world. Hans Blix was so impressed by Saddam Hussein's willingness to engage him in "dialog" that it never occurred to Blix that he was being played like a fiddle. His entire effort became one of expanding the "dialog," for its own sake. The process had become an end unto itself; results almost did not matter. So long as European leaders believe this pleasant fiction, they will never take steps to adequately defend themselves militarily. 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. |
I think there is more to it than that. Everything the author says makes sense, but so does this: