Posted on 09/15/2002 2:49:17 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
When George W. Bush acts independently in the best interests of the United States of America, without bothering to consult with and genuflect to our supposed allies, he is condemned as arrogant and unilateralist, a cowboy threatening to upset the carefully balanced workings of the international community.
On the other hand, let him appear before the United Nations General Assembly, to carefully and soberly outline the urgent need for action against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the genuine peril to the United States and all the world if we do nothing, and the next sound heard is the mass scraping of chairs and the scampering of our ersatz friends for the exits.
France, naturally, led the way, its foreign minister Dominique de Villepin fretting that even "recognizing the legitimacy'' of the need to get rid of Saddam "would be creating instability on the international scene that would be endless.'' German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, in the midst of a re-election campaign, flatly rejected the possibility of German support for any kind of military action in Iraq for any reason whatsoever. "We need more peace, not more war,'' he said, as if reading from a Christmas card. "That's why, under my leadership, Germany will not participate.'' The situation was no better closer to home. Before Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien met with Bush personally in Detroit earlier this week, he had been openly skeptical of the need to attack Iraq, saying that he hadn't seen sufficient proof. Now he isn't saying anything (other than to suggest America somehow provoked the 9/11 attack), which, to us, says everything.
Such is the unique dilemma of this American moment. And how else could it be? Europe will love us when they need us; otherwise, we hear resentment and criticism from all, except for a few like Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, going out on a limb--could it be?--simply because it's the right thing to do.
So once again, the United States will have to lead the way. Other nations will do nothing because they can--because they know they can have the best of both worlds. They can enjoy the security that comes from a strong, dynamic United States. Meanwhile, they can placate what they believe to be their timid, defeatist populations--by distancing themselves from what has to be done. So be it. We can expect our allies to show up after the victory to claim credit, and to criticize whatever went wrong. America is a mighty nation--the mightiest nation. Nobody ever said there wasn't a downside.
Or to quote the Mouth of the South before he was Hollywoodized, "lead, follow or get out of the way".
Direct hit.
This is precisely why the ICC is and must be at dead letter. Above and beyond matters of sovereignty, which come first, there is also the simple practical consideration that our soldiers must never be judged by countries that will not place their own soldiers into the fire.
"…some governments will be timid in the face of terror.... Make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will."
Paris, 2002: "Play it again, Sam."......."Ah, yes. Paris. I remember. You wore blue. The Germans wore grey...."
According to polls, the Prime Minister of Canada's feelings that angered most people in the US suggest his views are shared by most up there. It's a bit sad really. I'd always looked at the Canadians as brothers. I suppose we are a bit arrogant and ethnocentric but what nation in the planet's entire history has done more good? God have mercy on this planet if America were to ever close up shop and replace the hand holding the flame on Lady Liberty with a hand with an extended middle finger. Can you imagine the chaos and horror of it all?
So very, very true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.