The gulliveration of the US
Tom Freidman discusses the rest of the worlds frustration at being unable to tie down the US and require their approval before the US uses it power. He ask for stable ways to manage this desire in the rest of the world.
One obvious way would be a reasoned and persuavive argument for an alternative to the use of force that would accomplish the objectives of removing tyrants like Saddam from power. In the run up to the war the anti war movement, to the extent it had a rational component wanted to keep Saddam in power while the WMD snipe hunt continued. Had the US been persuaded to follow this course Saddam would still be committing mass murder of Iraqis. The potential confrontation with Iran, may follow a similar pattern. The Russians will continue to persue their short term commercial interest by helpin ayatollahs build the capacity to make nuclear weapons. What argument does Russia have that their commercial interest are more important than US national security. If there is such an argument it has not been articulated to date.
Leftist governments will be arguing to keep a repressive theocracy in power because of what fear they have of the US. It seems to be reflexive anticapitalism. While there may be many countries with paranoia about the US use of force, they have yet to come up with a persuavive argument how this use of force threatens them. How is Canada or Chili threatened by Saddam's demise? Who are they to say that US concerns about national security are not legitimate when they have no dog in the fight?
Tom Freidman discusses the rest of the worlds frustration at being unable to tie down the US and require their approval before the US uses it power. He ask for stable ways to manage this desire in the rest of the world.
One obvious way would be a reasoned and persuavive argument for an alternative to the use of force that would accomplish the objectives of removing tyrants like Saddam from power. In the run up to the war the anti war movement, to the extent it had a rational component wanted to keep Saddam in power while the WMD snipe hunt continued. Had the US been persuaded to follow this course Saddam would still be committing mass murder of Iraqis. The potential confrontation with Iran, may follow a similar pattern. The Russians will continue to persue their short term commercial interest by helpin ayatollahs build the capacity to make nuclear weapons. What argument does Russia have that their commercial interest are more important than US national security. If there is such an argument it has not been articulated to date.
Leftist governments will be arguing to keep a repressive theocracy in power because of what fear they have of the US. It seems to be reflexive anticapitalism. While there may be many countries with paranoia about the US use of force, they have yet to come up with a persuavive argument how this use of force threatens them. How is Canada or Chili threatened by Saddam's demise? Who are they to say that US concerns about national security are not legitimate when they have no dog in the fight?
Comments
Post a Comment