The specifics of any exact military policy (strategy and tactics) are beyond my capacity to recommend. I am not in the military, have never been in the military (wish I had been, however) and make no claims of being an armchair general. Overall, I think our military is performing splendidly: however, I would pursue a less unilateral course under what I would call "muscular multilateralism."
One of the things that struck me about Bob Woodward's new book was how adamant Rumsfeld was to keep all of our allies from helping us in Afghanistan. I think this kind of behavior is foolish and shortsighted. Of course any allies that directly participated in the war effort had to know that it would be under American command. Needlessly alienating them served no useful purpose. If we are to win this war, as I have stated before, the final victory will come about as the result of a political settlement, preceded by a military one. Binding our allies to us now in the early stages of the conflict, involving them in a war of shared interests, is the best way to insure that the final settlement will be one that much more in our favor.
The European countries that make up NATO face a difficult choice. They must choose between a.) the maintenance of their welfare states, small militaries, an American security umbrella, and little hope in framing the “security debate” or b.) reform their welfare states, improve their military capacities, create a coherent international voice and sit at the table with the United States as an equal partner.
While Europe slumbers in the deceiving embrace of Kant’s “perpetual peace," mistaking the incessant ticking in the background for a clock, a nuclear terrorist plot quite possibly is unfolding. Europe must choose or our vital interests will choose for them.
Post-War Architecture
During the late stages of WWII Allied leaders realized that “Uncle Joe” Stalin was ravenously gobbling up much of Eastern Europe and they were alarmed; however, nothing could be done about it. Soviet troops were on the ground enforcing their own, wretched peace settlement. Allied leaders, especially American leaders, wisely recognized that to avoid another general conflict the post-war architecture could be nothing like it was before. America had to engage the world. But how to do this in a way that served our interests as the world's leading capitalist country? The answer was a strategy that sought to create an architecture of shared burdens and interests. The founding of the UN, the Bretton Woods Accords, the GATT, and many, many other multilateral institutions, was nothing less than an attempt to remake the world in our own image that shrewdly gave everyone else a vested interest in maintaining that order. It was the ultimate "liberal" experiment and it worked. Our leaders must be no less bold now, than they were then.
If a lasting, just settlement, where the interests of all the parties are acknowledged and respected (excepting those of the Radical Islamists and their vanguard, al-Qaeda) is to be had, our first task is to reform the architecture of the prevailing global order. To achieve this task the United States must embark upon as difficult a political war as the military one we are now fighting. Many of the institutions which were created after WWII are now very, very sick. They serve the interests, not of our common humanity, but of a narrow global elite. This must change. To often the U.N. is a giant anti-American propaganda-machine of parochial interests. The U.N. must be reformed.
Some countries should be removed from the permanent security council and be replaced by others. The security council should be expanded, perhaps including India and Japan. The various other organs of the U.N. should be reformed as well. The bureaucracy should be reduced. The military council must also be reformed, answerable only to Permanent Security Council members, not to the U.N. Secretary General, that debacles such as Rwanda never occur again.
Economics
But we cannot stop with just the U.N., the WTO should be reformed and the markets of the advanced economies should be opened to the farmers of the world. The recently passed farm bill is a farce and should be repealed. The common agricultural policy of the EU is also a farce. The EU countries love to talk about how they are committed to helping out the lesser developed countries, yet they are just as disingenuous as we are. They must be called to account for this. But we can do little until our own side of the street has been swept clean.
The United States must reform its foreign aid. Currently the three largest recipients of our aid are Israel (more on this later), Egypt and Colombia. We spend a measly two tenths of one percent of our GDP on foreign aid. We should commit to increasing it by one tenth of a percent every year for the next ten years. In reforming our foreign aid system we must take into account the needs of the country receiving the money and allow them to create the programs the aid will fund, with perhaps Peace Corp oversight. Some of you might balk at this as an unwanted intrusion of their sovereignty, but donors here in America do it all the time. Wealthy benefactors earmark funds for certain pet projects at universities and hospitals on a regular basis, and after all, it is our money.
The United States should engage the rest of the world and renegotiate the Kyoto Accords, in a manner more conducive to our short-term economic concerns, yet create a new accord that commits us and lesser developed countries to “sustainable development.”
The United States alienates the rest of the world and diminishes our perishable (but renewable) supply of “soft-power” by carelessly brushing aside the concerns of 4/5ths of the globe simply because “we can.” That is not the America I know. That is not the America I was raised in. And if we are a Christian country, like so many Conservatives claim, well, it's not very Christian, either.
“Love thy neighbor, as thyself,” said the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ.
O’ Holy Land
Finally we come to Israel. My comments here will probably provoke some nasty emails, and I might actually be accused of anti-Semitism. My response, "put a sock in it." Just because I criticize Israel, does not mean I am a “Jew hater” or that I persecute Jews in any way. It is called criticism, not hate. I am as anti-Radical Zionism as I am anti-Radical Islam, as I am anti-Jerry Falwell and his ilk.
Israel’s deed of ownership to the Holy Land is its valid historical claim. But the Palestinians (or should I say Arabs) have a deed of ownership that is equally valid: their existence, for centuries, on the same land. There will be no lasting peace in the Holy Land until Israel gets out of the settlements. Period. Let me repeat: Israel must pull out of the settlements. All the spin in the world, no amount of “they did this so we must do that” or "the Jews did this so we must take up a hateful ideology and kill innocents" can alter this singular fact.
Get out of the settlements for your own sake. And the Democrats must say this. They must say it loudly.
In Conclusion
The purpose of this program is to mark a stark contrast between the hyper-unilateralism of the Bush Administration that is sure to alienate our allies more as time passes, and a "muscular multilateralism" that advances our most vital interests, yet retains the good faith of our allies.
I make no claim to knowing all of the answers. Nor is this a comprehensive list of what needs to be done. It is, I believe, a good start.
Much of it will anger many liberals--some will see it as "too realistic, too much about power and interests" and not enough about the poor and suffering of the world. My response: deal with it. Until we get serious about foreign policy we won't win any elections. 9/11 was a reality and the American people clearly do not trust the Democrat's foreign policy acumen. The world is not a perfect place. Nor will it ever be. But we can make a difference--and this is a start.
Many conservatives will say it isn't tough enough. A pox on that idea. The great English Conservative Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill said it best himself: In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill.
Posted by Sean-Paul @ 12/06/2002 07:09 PM
| TrackBack
Comments:
"....their existence, for centuries, on the same land..."
That's a lie. Palestinians are in fact Egyptians, Syrians, etc., who came seeking work in early 20th century when Jews began to develop the land. Read Mark Twain's account of 19th century "Palestine". Tell me.. Is there such a thing as a Palestinian language? Palestinian ethnic customs? Foods? Palestinian money? Can you name a single Palestinian ruler in history? Do you realize that "Palestine" is a roman term given to the land? What kind of people would refer to themselves by a roman term?
Do you realize that Arafat himself is an Egyptian, born in Cairo? This is not about the so called territories. PLO was established in 1964 - 3 full years before the "occupation" with a sole purpose of destroying Israel. What about OSLO? In 1993 they had a deal. Israel will give autonomy, Arafat will give peace. Israel gave Palestinians autonomy (That's right. They are living under HIS rule, not Israel's since 1993). Arafat refused to provide security. His own group FATAH is responsible for most of the terrorist acts. What the hell is that? Finally... West Bank is a name given to Judea (perhaps to confuse the issue?), Gaza is actually "Samaria". There won't be peace there until arafat is gone, and Israel has a *real* peace partner. Read the arab media. They tell their people on daily basis that Jews all kinds of things, they promote the Elder of Zion as if its true, tell stories of Jews using arab blood to make matzah, etc... Are they really preparing their people for peace?
“Love thy neighbor, as thyself,” said the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Indeed. However, as much as I have read the Word of God, I have yet to see Jesus say. Force other people to "love" their neighbor through the government.
If you want to help a neighbor, do it your dam self. You have no right to force money out of another pockets.
Posted by: Texaggie79 on December 6, 2002 10:22 PM
If Bush was as unilaterialist as you suggest we would be in Bagdad already.
Your UN suggestions will never happen, the other members will not give up what they have and if we impose it, even if we could ,we would be as bad as some already think us to be.
Europe and Canada are irrelevant from a military standpoint. They only think that will change this is if they are themselves the target of a terror attack on the scale of 9/11.
TexAggie79: Jesus also said, "render unto Ceasar what is Caesar's and to God which is God's."
Posted by: daytripper on December 6, 2002 11:27 PM
I agree with StarHawk about Bush not being a unilaterist. That's right we would already be in Bagdad if he was.
But here's the real point. Are democrats telling americans that their security should be compromised because Iraq owes Russia billions of dollars and Putin doesn't want us to attack till he gets his $$$? Or because Saudi Arabia/Syria/etc., dont' want us to attack because they don't want an arab democracy on their borders? Or becase EU does a lot of business with arabs and they don't want their trade to suffer because of it? Is that why our and the world's security should be compromised? What gives those people legitimacy and power to tell us not to do what is right?
To the agonist, I've been posting since yesterday. I haven't gotten any replies to my posts, even though one of your latest monologues reflected exactly what I was saying about Iraq, so in a way you did answer. But you seem to be staying away from dirct exchanges.
Stan, we can quibble about origins all day, but the fact remains that there are a few million people knocking about the planet today who feel that they are "Palestinians." That's a national identity by any other name, and denying it with historical obfuscation helps nothing.
Tacitus: Yes. The fact that several people are calling for a state is a reality. However, the fact I brought up show the real intentions. The fact that Arafat started the PLO _3_ years prior to occupation in order destroy Israel displays their real intentions. The fact that they are not preparing their people for peace only supports that fact (how can you make peace with people who supposedly drink the blood of your children and use it to bake matzah). Any argument you give me - I can deflect to OSLO. All of those arguments were made by proponents of OSLO - and it failed.
Ok. What's the Palestinian identity, then? By the way, are you familiar with the Balfour Declaration and the creation of Transjordan? By appeasing arabs (via palestinians) and by giving the whole thing legitimacy I think we are creating a *very* dangerous precedent.
