By Stuart Taylor Jr., National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Monday, March 3, 2003
Imagine President Bush responding as follows to the latest rebuffs from
France, Germany, South Korea and others and to the stunning surge of
anti-Americanism around the world:
Some of our allies act like spoiled teenagers who badmouth their parents
while they're living off of them.
"Enough. The American people are weary of holding the world's rogue regimes
and barbarians at bay in the face of sneers and obstructionism from
faithless 'allies' such as France, Germany and South Korea, who owe their
freedom to America. So I have decided, with a heavy heart, to acquiesce in
the profoundly misguided but implacable demands of world opinion and to end
our efforts to disarm Iraq and liberate its oppressed people. From this
point forward, my policy will be to defend the United States and our true
friends. We will pull our troops out of Germany, the Persian Gulf, and South
Korea. We will disengage from NATO and the United Nations. I will urge
Congress to invest the savings in airtight border controls and missile
defense. And I will begin a crash program to end U.S. reliance on Persian
Gulf oil.
"We will leave our critics to deal as best they can with nuclear-armed North
Korea; with soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iraq, Iran, and maybe Libya, Syria, and
Indonesia; and with the nascent black market in doomsday weapons for
terrorists. It has become clear that the United States and our friends
cannot long prevent the spread of such weapons while nations such as France
and Germany undermine our efforts and trade with our enemies."
How would the French, Germans, Arabs, South Koreans, Chinese and other
America-bashers like that? It would be only a matter of time until Iraq or
Iran, or both, took over the entire Persian Gulf region. That would send oil
prices to unprecedented levels and drag European, Arab, African and Asian
economies into recession or depression -- and it would mean the bloody
subjugation of the region's Arab peoples. Islamist terrorists, bent on
destroying Western civilization, would find it far easier to attack targets
in Europe than in the newly fortified United States. With North Korea's
million-man army poised to sweep through Seoul and beyond, South Korea would
face blackmail to unite on terms dictated by the North's Stalinist regime.
China would soon find itself facing two nearby nuclear threats, as Japan
would rapidly go nuclear to defend itself against North Korea.
The point of this exercise is not to suggest that the time for such a lurch
into isolationism has arrived. Not yet, at least. Pique is not a policy. And
an unpoliced, anarchic world would be an economic and national security
disaster for the United States as well as others. The point is to underscore
how the Europeans, South Koreans and others who have become so anti-American
depend on American power -- unthinkingly, ungratefully, and completely --
for their well-being. Abdicating their own responsibilities to help maintain
world order, they are free riding, as my colleague Clive Crook noted last
week, on the same U.S. polices that they publicly denounce. Like a spoiled
teenager who expects her parents to support her even though she refuses to
do any work around the house and constantly mouths off to them, these
nations enjoy the benefits of U.S. global policing while refusing to share
in the costs and trashing the policeman.
Take the views of many anti-war Europeans that Iraq should not be invaded
but "contained." By whom? France? Germany? Belgium? They could not contain
the two-bit Serbian tyrant, Slobodan Milosevic. And they have been no
help -- indeed, they have been a great hindrance -- in containing Iraq. They
want the U.S. to do it, through a costly, draining, long-term commitment of
American forces. At the same time, they bash the U.S. for the military
pressure and economic sanctions -- "starving Iraqi babies" -- that undergird
containment.
The ignorance and hypocrisy of the European free-riders is perhaps best
illustrated by their clamoring that Bush is bent on a greed-driven "war for
oil." But Bush could get a lot more cheap oil, a lot sooner, by joining the
long-standing French-Russian push to lift the sanctions on Iraqi exports
than by spending vast sums and betting his presidency on an invasion and
occupation of Iraq. No American leader would dream of invading but for
Saddam's persistence in seeking weapons of mass destruction. If Bush's goal
were to grab an oil-rich colony for his corporate buddies, Venezuela would
be a much easier target.
It's true that the vast oil reserves in and near Iraq help drive U.S.
policy -- but not in a way that justifies European or Arab sneers. It is oil
that brings Saddam enough money to buy and build weapons of mass
destruction. And the regional hegemony he seeks would enable him to raise
prices to extortionate levels. Every other nation in the world has at least
as strong an interest as the United States does in denying Saddam such a
stranglehold on the global economy.
The tidal wave of anti-Americanism has multiple wellsprings, of course.
Critics are understandably resentful of the Bush administration's arrogant
demeanor; its disdain for international institutions, agreements, and
diplomatic niceties; and its unqualified support of Israel's Ariel Sharon
and his expansionist settlement polices. And they're understandably attached
to a U.N.-centered vision of international law that has worked well enough
in Western Europe -- ever since America liberated and rebuilt the place --
but is useless against terrorists and rogue regimes with weapons of mass
destruction. Mix in German pacifism; Russian insecurity; French ego and
cynicism; Arab self-pity, paranoia, and envy; and near-universal resentment
of the world's only superpower.
But underlying them all is the implicit calculation that the safest course
for European nations (and others) is to obstruct American policies while
free riding on American power. This calculation rests on two assumptions
that may prove to be catastrophically wrong. The first is that as long as
Paris and Berlin appease the Arab world and Europe's own militant Muslims,
it will be New York and Washington -- not Paris or Berlin -- that are
targeted for destruction by any weapons of mass destruction that jihadists
obtain from Iraq or other rogue regimes. The second is that Europe need not
share in the costs and risks of keeping rogue regimes in check, because
Uncle Sam will do it for them.
Similarly, most South Koreans have lulled themselves into assuming that the
North will not attack them and that its nuclear buildup is America's
problem. They seem to have forgotten that the main reason they are not under
the boot of the Stalinist North already is that the United States rescued
them 50 years ago and still protects them with 37,000 troops and the nuclear
umbrella. Or perhaps they assume the U.S. will protect them no matter how
much they spit on us.
This assumption may be correct in the short run. Viscerally satisfying as it
might be for the United States to offer North Korea a trade -- you abandon
nukes, we abandon South Korea -- the North would no doubt sign the deal, do
its best to take over South Korea and then resume its nuclear buildup.
All of this is somewhat analogous to the American public's isolationism
while Hitler's armies were marching through Europe. Not our problem,
Americans thought. Let England and the Soviet Union fight Germany. That
seemed the best way to stay out of the war. But only in the short term. As
President Franklin Roosevelt understood long before Pearl Harbor, German
(and Japanese) aggression would eventually threaten America too. So FDR did
all he could to change public opinion and help Britain fight the war.
European or South Korean leaders with a long view would likewise see their
own nations' interest in standing with America against the rogue states and
barbarians. The reason is that even the American "hyperpower" probably lacks
the will or the strength to carry the burden of world security for much
longer, with little help from anyone but Britain, and in the face of
increasingly widespread anti-Americanism. And unless someone stops the
spread of doomsday weapons, anti-Western jihadists are probably within five
to 15 years of obtaining enough of them -- from Iraq, North Korea, or
elsewhere -- to endanger civilization as we know it. Jacques Chirac and
Gerhard Schroeder should ask themselves: After New York and Washington and
London have been destroyed or depopulated, how long before Paris and Berlin
meet similar fates?
It may be too much to expect the European and Arab publics, who are fed
grotesque caricatures of Bush and America by their media and intelligentsia,
to grasp their own interests in helping the United States defang Iraq. But
wise leadership is about seeing one's national interest in the long term,
and educating public opinion instead of pandering to it. The superficially
clever Chirac and Schroeder are not wise leaders. They are fools. And they
are helping to bring the world closer to a dark era of nuclear anarchy.
Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer for National Journal magazine, where
"Opening Argument" appears.
© National Journal Group Inc.
Monday, March 3, 2003
Imagine President Bush responding as follows to the latest rebuffs from
France, Germany, South Korea and others and to the stunning surge of
anti-Americanism around the world:
Some of our allies act like spoiled teenagers who badmouth their parents
while they're living off of them.
"Enough. The American people are weary of holding the world's rogue regimes
and barbarians at bay in the face of sneers and obstructionism from
faithless 'allies' such as France, Germany and South Korea, who owe their
freedom to America. So I have decided, with a heavy heart, to acquiesce in
the profoundly misguided but implacable demands of world opinion and to end
our efforts to disarm Iraq and liberate its oppressed people. From this
point forward, my policy will be to defend the United States and our true
friends. We will pull our troops out of Germany, the Persian Gulf, and South
Korea. We will disengage from NATO and the United Nations. I will urge
Congress to invest the savings in airtight border controls and missile
defense. And I will begin a crash program to end U.S. reliance on Persian
Gulf oil.
"We will leave our critics to deal as best they can with nuclear-armed North
Korea; with soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iraq, Iran, and maybe Libya, Syria, and
Indonesia; and with the nascent black market in doomsday weapons for
terrorists. It has become clear that the United States and our friends
cannot long prevent the spread of such weapons while nations such as France
and Germany undermine our efforts and trade with our enemies."
How would the French, Germans, Arabs, South Koreans, Chinese and other
America-bashers like that? It would be only a matter of time until Iraq or
Iran, or both, took over the entire Persian Gulf region. That would send oil
prices to unprecedented levels and drag European, Arab, African and Asian
economies into recession or depression -- and it would mean the bloody
subjugation of the region's Arab peoples. Islamist terrorists, bent on
destroying Western civilization, would find it far easier to attack targets
in Europe than in the newly fortified United States. With North Korea's
million-man army poised to sweep through Seoul and beyond, South Korea would
face blackmail to unite on terms dictated by the North's Stalinist regime.
China would soon find itself facing two nearby nuclear threats, as Japan
would rapidly go nuclear to defend itself against North Korea.
The point of this exercise is not to suggest that the time for such a lurch
into isolationism has arrived. Not yet, at least. Pique is not a policy. And
an unpoliced, anarchic world would be an economic and national security
disaster for the United States as well as others. The point is to underscore
how the Europeans, South Koreans and others who have become so anti-American
depend on American power -- unthinkingly, ungratefully, and completely --
for their well-being. Abdicating their own responsibilities to help maintain
world order, they are free riding, as my colleague Clive Crook noted last
week, on the same U.S. polices that they publicly denounce. Like a spoiled
teenager who expects her parents to support her even though she refuses to
do any work around the house and constantly mouths off to them, these
nations enjoy the benefits of U.S. global policing while refusing to share
in the costs and trashing the policeman.
Take the views of many anti-war Europeans that Iraq should not be invaded
but "contained." By whom? France? Germany? Belgium? They could not contain
the two-bit Serbian tyrant, Slobodan Milosevic. And they have been no
help -- indeed, they have been a great hindrance -- in containing Iraq. They
want the U.S. to do it, through a costly, draining, long-term commitment of
American forces. At the same time, they bash the U.S. for the military
pressure and economic sanctions -- "starving Iraqi babies" -- that undergird
containment.
The ignorance and hypocrisy of the European free-riders is perhaps best
illustrated by their clamoring that Bush is bent on a greed-driven "war for
oil." But Bush could get a lot more cheap oil, a lot sooner, by joining the
long-standing French-Russian push to lift the sanctions on Iraqi exports
than by spending vast sums and betting his presidency on an invasion and
occupation of Iraq. No American leader would dream of invading but for
Saddam's persistence in seeking weapons of mass destruction. If Bush's goal
were to grab an oil-rich colony for his corporate buddies, Venezuela would
be a much easier target.
It's true that the vast oil reserves in and near Iraq help drive U.S.
policy -- but not in a way that justifies European or Arab sneers. It is oil
that brings Saddam enough money to buy and build weapons of mass
destruction. And the regional hegemony he seeks would enable him to raise
prices to extortionate levels. Every other nation in the world has at least
as strong an interest as the United States does in denying Saddam such a
stranglehold on the global economy.
The tidal wave of anti-Americanism has multiple wellsprings, of course.
Critics are understandably resentful of the Bush administration's arrogant
demeanor; its disdain for international institutions, agreements, and
diplomatic niceties; and its unqualified support of Israel's Ariel Sharon
and his expansionist settlement polices. And they're understandably attached
to a U.N.-centered vision of international law that has worked well enough
in Western Europe -- ever since America liberated and rebuilt the place --
but is useless against terrorists and rogue regimes with weapons of mass
destruction. Mix in German pacifism; Russian insecurity; French ego and
cynicism; Arab self-pity, paranoia, and envy; and near-universal resentment
of the world's only superpower.
But underlying them all is the implicit calculation that the safest course
for European nations (and others) is to obstruct American policies while
free riding on American power. This calculation rests on two assumptions
that may prove to be catastrophically wrong. The first is that as long as
Paris and Berlin appease the Arab world and Europe's own militant Muslims,
it will be New York and Washington -- not Paris or Berlin -- that are
targeted for destruction by any weapons of mass destruction that jihadists
obtain from Iraq or other rogue regimes. The second is that Europe need not
share in the costs and risks of keeping rogue regimes in check, because
Uncle Sam will do it for them.
Similarly, most South Koreans have lulled themselves into assuming that the
North will not attack them and that its nuclear buildup is America's
problem. They seem to have forgotten that the main reason they are not under
the boot of the Stalinist North already is that the United States rescued
them 50 years ago and still protects them with 37,000 troops and the nuclear
umbrella. Or perhaps they assume the U.S. will protect them no matter how
much they spit on us.
This assumption may be correct in the short run. Viscerally satisfying as it
might be for the United States to offer North Korea a trade -- you abandon
nukes, we abandon South Korea -- the North would no doubt sign the deal, do
its best to take over South Korea and then resume its nuclear buildup.
All of this is somewhat analogous to the American public's isolationism
while Hitler's armies were marching through Europe. Not our problem,
Americans thought. Let England and the Soviet Union fight Germany. That
seemed the best way to stay out of the war. But only in the short term. As
President Franklin Roosevelt understood long before Pearl Harbor, German
(and Japanese) aggression would eventually threaten America too. So FDR did
all he could to change public opinion and help Britain fight the war.
European or South Korean leaders with a long view would likewise see their
own nations' interest in standing with America against the rogue states and
barbarians. The reason is that even the American "hyperpower" probably lacks
the will or the strength to carry the burden of world security for much
longer, with little help from anyone but Britain, and in the face of
increasingly widespread anti-Americanism. And unless someone stops the
spread of doomsday weapons, anti-Western jihadists are probably within five
to 15 years of obtaining enough of them -- from Iraq, North Korea, or
elsewhere -- to endanger civilization as we know it. Jacques Chirac and
Gerhard Schroeder should ask themselves: After New York and Washington and
London have been destroyed or depopulated, how long before Paris and Berlin
meet similar fates?
It may be too much to expect the European and Arab publics, who are fed
grotesque caricatures of Bush and America by their media and intelligentsia,
to grasp their own interests in helping the United States defang Iraq. But
wise leadership is about seeing one's national interest in the long term,
and educating public opinion instead of pandering to it. The superficially
clever Chirac and Schroeder are not wise leaders. They are fools. And they
are helping to bring the world closer to a dark era of nuclear anarchy.
Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer for National Journal magazine, where
"Opening Argument" appears.