Posts
MARCH 19, 2011
President Obama: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...
MARCH 19, 2003
President Bush: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...
Remember during the 2008 campaign the alleged "fierce, moral urgency for change?" What, exactly, changed... besides the size of the budget deficit? I mean heck, they're even still arresting anti-war protestors near the White House.
Even our European friends have some 'splaining to do. In 2003, they were very reluctant to go to war with Saddam, who had repressed the Kurds and Shiites for many years, and was suspected (wrongly, it turned out) of having weapons of mass destruction. Eight years later, though, Europe is eager to have the U.S. join them in fighting Qadaffi, who's oppressed his people for 40 years but had made headlines by giving up his WMDs after Baghdad burned for the second time in a dozen years. Oh, and the pressure to 'intervene' didn't really get underway until almost a month after the Libyan uprising. I'm sure whoever replaces Qadaffi now will be EVER so grateful for the, um, timely assistance.
I'm also sure western negotiators will feign shock that perennial efforts to get Iran and North Korea to give up THEIR nuclear programs are now resisted even more strongly. Note to the State Department: the rest of the world wasn't born yesterday. The message of 2003 and 2011 is this: unless you have nukes, Uncle Sam considers you fair game at his discretion.
I hate hearing protestors refer to the U.S. as the world's #1 'rogue state.' But I'm starting to find some merit to the charge. It's hard to escape the conclusion we are a declining power that inconsistently throws its weight around. Neither our friends nor our enemies can predict what we're likely to do next, and this lays a foundation for major international instability. The rate we're going, it'll be Obama, not McCain, singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
Our economic weakness is already impacting our ability to sustain the current size of our military. Instead of picking new fights, we'd do well to wrap up the ones we're in. That way, when the inevitable retrenchment comes there's a chance we merely leave the world to its own devices, instead of having the whole world follow us home, eager to settle scores.
2 comments:
"Instead of picking new fights, we'd do well to wrap up the ones we're in."
Yeah, well...you and I can't possibly be the only two in the world that feel that way. Man. I didn't even know what to think when I heard the news on CNN this morning. I keep thinking they're going to stretch everyone too thin. I'm not too sure that, overall, things are going to be good for retention in the military. Recruiting must be suffering too.
The problem is, recruiting and retention aren't suffering as they might, because the economy is so bad. The services continue to have to "force shape" because people AREN'T leaving at their earliest opportunities.
Wars have ever been ways of distracting from problems at home. Considering the scope of the problems we HAVE at home, I guess nobody should be suprised at the scope of the fights we're trying to pick abroad.
Post a Comment