ANDREW SULLIVAN: Blair’s courage makes the anti-Americans look small

The Sunday Times ^ | January 19, 2003 | Andrew Sullivan

[MadIvan]

I can remember the last time I was anti-American. It was 18 years ago, wincing at the vulgarity of the Los Angeles Olympic Games. I threw in the towel when Lionel Richie was a key feature of the opening ceremonies. Or was it the choreographed Elvis impersonators? I can’t remember now.

The sheer crassness, commercialism and unabashed American nationalism turned this young Brit off. It was the combination of exuberance and sheer power that led me to affect disdain. But disdain for what? America? The very idea, I came to realise, is preposterous.

America is many things. It is rural Alabama and urban San Francisco. It is Michael Moore and Jerry Falwell. It’s MTV and the right to bear arms. It’s a country that still won’t accept a one-dollar coin but embraced the internet with the enthusiasm of a teenage crush. It’s Rambo and the Sopranos. It’s Little Vietnam in the exurbs of Virginia and mega-churches in suburban Houston.

Anyone who despises this despises not America but humanity. And humanity in one of the most daring multicultural, multiracial experiments in history.

Of course, most anti-Americanism doesn’t deal with this complex reality. It deals with American hyper-power and its impact on the broader world. In this sense it’s a new form of anti-Americanism. It’s anti-Americanism without the counterbalance of fearing the Soviet Union. And it’s anti-Americanism without the positive element of 20th century faith in socialism or Marxism.

This makes it in some ways a purer anti-Americanism, one that simply hates American power rather than one that posits any credible alternative. And it is made far worse by the growth of that power. The post-cold-war 1990s, after all, saw economic stagnation and rapid disarmament in much of Europe, combined with a boom and military investment in America.

What was once dominance has become hegemony. Anti-Americanism isn’t tempered by fear of a rival superpower; it isn’t fortified by a vital economic or political alternative. And when American power is deployed, this animosity mutates into hatred.

Do I exaggerate? Just look at the anti-war demonstrations in America and Europe. “Bomb Texas. I Like Iraq” was a recent slogan. “Bush is the Real Terrorist” announces another. The imputation of evil motives to this White House among intelligent people is routine. It is a given that the United States is not sincere in its attempt to rid the world of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. It has to be a cloak for an oil-grab; or a Zionist conspiracy; or a corporate coup. Bush’s cabinet, according to John le Carré, is a “junta” — no different in legitimacy from the junta raping Burma or the military dictator in Pyongyang.

This is not to say that there are no good reasons to criticise American foreign policy. Abandoning Kyoto was forgivable, given what the treaty would have done to the US economy. But proposing no credible alternative wasn’t. Ditto the Bush administration’s now collapsed policy towards North Korea, an incoherent mix of bluster and appeasement.

But the anti-Americanism I’m speaking of is not of this kind. It’s not designed to persuade the United States to alter its policies. It’s designed to demonise the United States, to portray it as almost morally equivalent to the Islamist terrorism it is trying to hold back.

In fact, this anti-Americanism, which embraces the far left and elements of the far right, rarely proposes anything positive. And as it recites its mantras of contempt, and summons every American failing of the past 50 years without ever crediting America’s successes, it marinates in its own resentment. It teeters on the edge of anti-semitism.

In its hatred of the United States it is close to finding excuses for the barbarity of Saddam Hussein, the cruelty of the Taliban or the malevolence of Al-Qaeda. There is something truly sickening in the sight of people who call themselves liberals finding more fault in America than in the brutal, misogynist and anti-semitic dictatorships now pitted against the West.

The facts don’t seem to matter. America is portrayed as an imperial force dedicated to what a Harvard professor recently described as “the crushing and total humiliation of the Palestinians”. Yet it was an American president, Bill Clinton, who brokered a deal that offered the Palestinians sovereignty over 98% of the West Bank and Gaza.

America is described as waging a war against Muslims. Yet in almost every recent American intervention — in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan — it was for the sake of the security of Muslims that American soldiers risked their lives.

America is described as relentlessly pro-Israel. But America gives almost as much foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan. America is described as imperialist. But in recently liberated Afghanistan the Americans have done all they can to set up an indigenous government and are pouring millions of dollars into reconstruction.

America is described as unilateralist. Yet, after the worst terrorist attack in modern history, it patiently assembled a coalition to rid the world of Al-Qaeda’s Afghan bases, and has waited 11 years while Saddam has violated almost every term of the 1991 truce.

Even now, America has gone painstakingly down a UN route to achieve its goals. These are the facts. But to the new cult of anti-Americanism, facts don’t matter.

I’m happy to wager that history will find Tony Blair’s resistance to this cant one of his great achievements as prime minister. Blair is a liberal realist. He knows America isn’t perfect, but that its power is a positive force in the world.

Without America, Europe would still be under the shadow of Al-Qaeda lurking undeterred in its Afghan lair. Without America, Saddam might be sitting pretty in Saudi Arabia today with an arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Without America, there would be no united Europe and no new democracies in eastern Europe ready to join.

If that’s the consequence of an American empire then Europe is its chief beneficiary. And Blair gets something else, too. It is simply not in Britain’s interest to give in to the crass delusions of anti-Americanism. The notion that Blair is somehow George Bush’s “poodle” is ludicrous.

By his instinctive support for America in the wake of September 11, by his steadfast support during the Afghan war and in the Iraq crisis, Blair has wielded more influence in Washington than any other world leader. Because of this, he now has more leverage over American power than any British prime minister in recent times, eclipsing even Thatcher’s sway over Reagan.

And that means an enormous increase in Britain’s relative global power. If you don’t believe this, contrast the results of Blair’s diplomacy with Gerhard Schröder’s. It’s the difference between being at the centre of world governance and utterly marginalised.

Blair has managed to vault Britain back to the status of a genuine world power. When he huddles with George Bush at Camp David later this month he will be the most powerful British prime minister since Churchill at Yalta. This wasn’t the reason for Blair’s foreign policy. Blair clearly backs the US on Al-Qaeda and Iraq because he sees the grave danger to Britain that only America, with Britain’s help, can prevent.

But unprecedented British leverage is a side-product. The man who came to power promising to make Britain a central power-broker in Europe has done something rather different. By resisting the empty rhetoric of the hate-America left, Blair has made Britain a power-broker on a far grander level. We have the beginnings of an Anglo-American entente — what some in Washington are calling an Anglosphere — that could wield enormous influence for the good.

Blair’s ability to see through the flim-flam to the real America, and to see Britain’s opportunity, has the makings of a historic diplomatic achievement. If only his party and country could see that.

[xm177e2]

Yet in almost every recent American intervention — in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan — it was for the sake of the security of Muslims that American soldiers risked their lives.

We the first three count, but we did not go into Afghanistan to better the lives of Muslims there. We went in shut down a terrorist network and destroy a regime at war with us. We did help Muslims along the way, but that's not why we were there.

[Pokey78]

Pinging the Sullivan list.

[GirlShortstop]

 
There is something truly sickening in the sight of people who call themselves liberals finding more fault in America than in the brutal, misogynist and anti-semitic dictatorships now pitted against the West.

Nice!   Good article and synopsis of the hate that burns in the hearts of Anti-Americans.

[Nick Danger]

what policy exactly would you pursue regarding Korea?

Pretty much what we're doing: avoid direct contact, run around to China, Japan, and South Korea and tell them they should do something about this... leaving it clear that this one's on them.

Kim wants to get a rise out of us, and that's the one thing I wouldn't give him. He's out to derail our plans in Iraq, and I don't have time for that. He can't do anything to us... all he can do is scare the Hell out of the South Koreans and the Japanese. Good -- the South Koreans need a good scarin' anyway; they were getting 'sunshine' in their eyes.

If three or four months from now, with Iraq behind us, Kim's regime hasn't collapsed, I'd take him out. There was a plan on how to do that posted here last week. It's ugly, and Kim's million-man army dies in the first ten minutes, but it would work. No way in Hell do I let that guy manufacture a hundred bombs. No way. Period.

[Torie]

Er, what is the plan to take Kimbo out in 10 minutes with a million casualties? I missed it. You don't really want to go there do you, just as soon as Saddam is l'histoire?

[lawgirl]

There is something truly sickening in the sight of people who call themselves liberals finding more fault in America than in the brutal, misogynist and anti-semitic dictatorships now pitted against the West.

This is fabulous.

[Nick Danger]

what is the plan to take Kimbo out in 10 minutes with a million casualties? I missed it. You don't really want to go there do you, just as soon as Saddam is l'histoire?

I cannot find that thread at the moment... it was something about "smart spears." Part of the plan did involve so-called "enhanced radiation weapons" to, umm, er, kill the million-man army amassed at the DMZ with the 120,000 artillery pieces. They could basically be made to die before they could get off a shot. At that point, Kim's worst is not that bad.

Do I want to go there? Of course not. But... do I want a nutcase who sells weapons on the open market to have a nuclear bomb factory and plutonium-extraction reactors? I want that less. The world will be one terrible place if Kim Jong Il gets an atom bomb factory. So, I do not let him have an atom bomb factory. Not at any cost. No way. No how. No matter what anybody says. Kim Jong Il does not get an atom bomb factory. Period.

You'll thank me someday.

[section9]

Actually, you don't want to go there, either.

"Smart Spears" are super-dense projectiles that would be fired at extremely high speeds at the core of the Pyogbyon Reactor from, say, a B-2 or an Aurora. The object of the exercise is to cause a core meltdown, thus making the plant unusable.

Problem is, we don't know how widespread the radiation would be. We do know that with Smart Spears, you don't get explosions with flying radiation. Rather, you get deep holes in the ground.

Using ERW's against masses of DPRK infantry before they've attacked would turn the South Koreans against us. Remember, deep down these people are family.

Agree that we hold the fundamentally stronger hand, btw. As I wrote in another thread-Kim is lots of loud, angry, aggressive intimidating talk. A guy who talks loud like that has one of two things in his hand: a busted flush or a small penis.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Nick Danger]

Using ERW's against masses of DPRK infantry before they've attacked would turn the South Koreans against us.

OK, we'll leave the million-man army there and the South Koreans can deal with them. I'm OK with that, too... I was just trying to save Seoul. But if they don't care about that, I don't either.

The main thing is stopping Kim from being able to make and sell atom bombs. If he does that, the atom bombs will be going off over here, and if I'm Bush, I'm not going to let that happen. So his reactor has to go, and frankly, his regime has to go because I don't know that he doesn't have other reactors.

We simply cannot allow that man to produce atom bombs for money. He already sells missiles to anything that walks, the nukes will be the same way. We just can't care what anybody thinks or says... we're talking about atom bombs going off in American cities. Nope. Not gonna have it. Wouldn't be prudent.

[ccmay]

I think Tony Blair gained the respect of many Americans when he declared his intention of standing by our side. Not via communique, but he came directly in person.

I agree. There was something very reassuring about his presence at the speech to Congress the week after Sept. 11th. I think it was good for the personal morale and resolve of Mr. Bush.

Nothing would have been easier for a Labourite baby boomer PM than to follow the lead of the Guardian and the loony Left, which is much more powerful there than here. He did not have to do this to keep himself in power; quite the contrary in fact, he may get the Churchill treatment at the end of the day.

I did not think much of Blair before, due to his cozying up to that pants-dropping hillbilly whose name escapes me at the moment, and I did not expect much of him after September 11-- but since Sept. 11 I have come to have a pleasantly surprised respect for him.

-ccm

[Kenny Bunk]

Nice post, Ivan.

But, don't let me catch you falling into an "I Love Tony" frame of mind. This ferret-faced lying weasel was given a whole new lease on life by Osama bin Ladin andf 9/11.

Previously joined at the hip to The Foul Arkansas Scumbag, he lept upon GWB after 9/11 with a most unnatural fervor when it looked like he could stay in power by claiming to be patriotic as hell, even though he is a left-wing whiner and loser with a horrible record.

Tony is merely taking the advice of Carville and other Clinton pimps to triangulate his own Conservatives and milk the war on terrorism forever. All of a sudden, left-wing pansy sympathizer, senstive Antony would now have us believe he is Tough-Talking Tony the Patriotic Brit.

In the meantime, Tough-Talking Tony the Patriotic Brit is flooding his country with more and more Muslims and other dangerous Turd Worlders, upon whom he will depend to deliver their votes to him and Labour forever.

A pox on Tony Blair.

[MHGinTN]

Appreciate the ping. [And Nick, I agree 90%. Now, where are those neutron weapons sinkEmperor allowed the Chinese to copy?]

[MHGinTN]

Your name is appropriate to a diminuitive intellect. It is the Brits who have added the vital intel to our equations on Iraqi sponsorship and use of terrorism, dude. When Mister Blair says he would be going after Saddam if we were not, he means it and has the diffinitive proof to back up the reasons for same. Pay attention for the next three weeks and you will awaken to a whole new paradigm.

[BunnySlippers]

Nice find, Ivan. I'm saving this one.

[Brimack34]

As far as North Korea goes: Why not make China, South Korea, Russia and Japan clean up there own mess? The middle east has nobody so we are there.

[MHGinTN]

If it's imminently dangerous to allow a goon the time and space to sell illicit guns, grenades, and ammo in your immediate neighborhood, isn't it just as dangerous to allow a goon to sell WMD to any totalitarian terrorist state on your planet?

[DB]

North Korea is China's baby.

I'd tell China that either they get his reactors under control or they get to deal with the radiation fallout when we take it out, their choice.

[MadIvan]

But, don't let me catch you falling into an "I Love Tony" frame of mind.

You know perfectly well that I will always vote Tory, no matter what. I am an old-fashioned, True Blue, Margaret Thatcher-loving Tory who would like nothing better than to see her back in office.

Blair has moments of insight. They are few and far between. However I am not going to deny that his response in the War on Terror has been one of them.

Regards, Ivan

[fightinJAG]

Yes, the Aussies are stepping up to the plate, too.

[KeyWest]

Most high tech "toys" have a startup of tens of years from concept to deployment. So most of what you see now actually started during Reagan/Bush. There was a slowing during Clinton as he siphoned off money from defense. All the cuts in government spending during Clinton was from Defense.