i also noticed you said not a word about historical world events. this was why your argument lacks force. it has no context. as if you can do things or omit to do them, without consequences.
history provides useful examples of actions and consequences.
i also noticed that you avoided engaging with me on the consequences of your position. as if closing your eyes makes them go away.
the leader i called out was obama. he is the president of the country that likes to style itself as the leader of the free world, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
the us also has the largest military in the world, whose influence is extensive and unlike that of other countries.
when the leader of the free world and the sole superpower seems unwilling substantially to oppose the second largest military in the world when it is engaged in the seizure of territory, this projects weakness.
i think cheney is mostly right about this. he is telling americans something important about the way this country and its president are viewed. and the way the us is viewed affects its ability to influence things that matter a lot. to the us.
when russia is engaged in an illegal invasion, occupation and absorption of part of an independent nation whose territorial integrity the us guaranteed, it is unimpressive. the uk also offered guarantees, so it is in the same boat as the us but its influence is far smaller and it hasn't the scale to oppose russia alone.
when obama draws a red line and syria crosses it without much of a response, others notice. putin concluded that obama's red lines are a weak man's bluff; he assumed that obama will do little even if the lines crossed are drawn in international law and treaties rather than in some oval office statement. and so he invaded crimea and is threatening ukraine.
how is international law enforceable if the world's sole superpower responds using a diplomatic feather when putin is employing tanks?
your argument is apparently that the us and its president shouldn't lead the free world. that it should only act when you think its direct interest in engaged. that it should lead from behind as with libya. that what happens in ukraine doesn't affect what happens in iran or in korea.
and of course, you ignore the argument that draws the landscape of such a policy; that sites us interest in a broader historical and geographical context; that argues that mutuallism is a benefit to all parties and that you don't get its benefits by acting optionally; that treaties require us to honour our commitments if future treaties are to be drawn or others are to be honoured; that isolation doesn't yield imperviousness from attack; that inaction has consequences just as actions do.
all these things are the corollary of your position. if the us wishes to retain its leadership status and the benefits which accrue from it, then it kinda has to lead - from the front. if it wants to have no influence, no laws and no allies, then of course, disengage.
but if the west has lost its moral authority, which it has, then it must try to earn it back. by doing the right thing, not by exercising poor judgement and doing nothing. by supporting fledgling democracies rather than letting putin bully them into submission.
should the us engage WITH its allies against putin? is everyone stronger by acting together? or should the europeans act on their own, leading the argument with putin, as you argue?
well. together we are stronger. whereas individually, less so. and the other countries in the west generally accept us leadership because it is the most powerful country in the west.
what is germany was to lead?
in your assessment of germany, which has a small budget for defence and a constitution that requires it to avoid military adventures (because the allies wanted it that way after ww2), how much military force do you think they can bring to bear against putin's military? how many aircraft, tanks and ships can angela merkel deploy? and yet as an economic power, she can put substantial pressure on russia.
would you prefer a germany with a mighty military? i wouldn't. been there. done that. twice.
as regards your complaint of usa bashing, i am not sure you have noticed the distinction between statements about "western countries" and the usa: "western countries threw their moral authority away" is a statement about more countries than one.
and as a person who complains that the cheese-eating surrender monkeys aren't leading the us in ukraine, you should be concerned about the idea that the leader of the land of "the brave" appears not very courageous to the world. you can't demand leadership by france and not have folks notice the irony. perhaps you should call them french fries again.
i know the us news likes to promote the state department's view. but it ought to be helpful for folks to look at themselves in the mirror. the us damaged itself horribly in iraq for being aggressive without cause. bush-cheney and the neocons were wildly aggressive.
the us is also damaging itself under obama for swinging to the opposite extreme. of seeming to offer little support for its allies, of renouncing inconvenient commitments, of having no real over-arching plan. obama is reaping the consequences of seeming weak.
there are spaces in between these two poles that are far sweeter.
i'd rather see a robust west led by the us trying to encourage the rule of law and democracy. in my view, bush i was way better than bush ii and obama on foreign policy.
ps i'm not looking for your agreement. it's my experience that you can't make people change their minds except via time and experience.
| 