Tweet
INTERVENTIONS WITHOUT END? AMERICA MUST NOW CHOOSE
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Post Chronicle
March 29 2007
"Whatever happens in Iraq, retreat from the world is not an option,"
wrote Financial Times columnist Philip Stephens last weekend.
Why not? Because a world map highlighting those regions where the
West's vital resources are located would exactly overlap a map
highlighting those regions where state power is crumbling, disease
and poverty are pandemic and violence rules.
"The implication of this is obvious," says Stephens.
"We can proudly declare ourselves isolationists, resolve to eschew
'imperialist adventures,' decry liberal interventionists such
as Britain's Tony Blair, and damn the neoconservatives around
U.S. President George W. Bush. But, one way or another, the West
cannot avoid getting involved. On this, moral impulse and hard-headed
interests are as one."
We are fated to intervene forever. "The reality of interdependence
of a world shrunk by globalization cannot be wished away."
Put me down as not so sure. For if America is defeated in Iraq,
as we were in Southeast Asia, who will ever again intervene in the
Middle East?
As Stephens writes, Europe's "eternal role" seems to be that of the
"concerned bystander" to disasters anywhere. And, revisiting the
20th century, the United States did not declare war on the Kaiser's
ally Turkey in 1917, despite the Armenian massacres. Nor did we did
confront Stalin over genocide in the Ukraine. FDR recognized Stalin's
regime as it perpetrated that holocaust. Nor did we intervene to halt
Mao's slaughter and starvation of millions of Chinese.
America looked on during Pol Pot's genocide. Clinton stood aside
in Rwanda. No one is calling for the 82nd Airborne to be dropped
into Darfur.
No matter, says Stephens, the West cannot abide the emerging new
world disorder. But, again, that begs the question: Who is going
to intervene?
If Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the U.S. investment in blood and
treasure, end in defeats, who does Stephens think is going to send
troops to rescue imperiled "liberal democratic values"?
In his second inaugural, President Bush declared that America's
national goal is now to "support the growth of democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal
of ending tyranny on earth."
Are Americans still willing to support that utopian mission with
blood and billions of dollars?
In a Gallup poll this year that posed the question, "Should the United
States try to change a dictatorship to a democracy when it can, or
should the United States stay out of other countries' affairs?" --
by near five to one Americans said, "Stay out." Fifteen percent said
"yes" to the Bush commitment. Sixty-nine percent said to stay out of
the internal affairs of other countries.
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentar y/article_21271768.shtml
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Post Chronicle
March 29 2007
"Whatever happens in Iraq, retreat from the world is not an option,"
wrote Financial Times columnist Philip Stephens last weekend.
Why not? Because a world map highlighting those regions where the
West's vital resources are located would exactly overlap a map
highlighting those regions where state power is crumbling, disease
and poverty are pandemic and violence rules.
"The implication of this is obvious," says Stephens.
"We can proudly declare ourselves isolationists, resolve to eschew
'imperialist adventures,' decry liberal interventionists such
as Britain's Tony Blair, and damn the neoconservatives around
U.S. President George W. Bush. But, one way or another, the West
cannot avoid getting involved. On this, moral impulse and hard-headed
interests are as one."
We are fated to intervene forever. "The reality of interdependence
of a world shrunk by globalization cannot be wished away."
Put me down as not so sure. For if America is defeated in Iraq,
as we were in Southeast Asia, who will ever again intervene in the
Middle East?
As Stephens writes, Europe's "eternal role" seems to be that of the
"concerned bystander" to disasters anywhere. And, revisiting the
20th century, the United States did not declare war on the Kaiser's
ally Turkey in 1917, despite the Armenian massacres. Nor did we did
confront Stalin over genocide in the Ukraine. FDR recognized Stalin's
regime as it perpetrated that holocaust. Nor did we intervene to halt
Mao's slaughter and starvation of millions of Chinese.
America looked on during Pol Pot's genocide. Clinton stood aside
in Rwanda. No one is calling for the 82nd Airborne to be dropped
into Darfur.
No matter, says Stephens, the West cannot abide the emerging new
world disorder. But, again, that begs the question: Who is going
to intervene?
If Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the U.S. investment in blood and
treasure, end in defeats, who does Stephens think is going to send
troops to rescue imperiled "liberal democratic values"?
In his second inaugural, President Bush declared that America's
national goal is now to "support the growth of democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal
of ending tyranny on earth."
Are Americans still willing to support that utopian mission with
blood and billions of dollars?
In a Gallup poll this year that posed the question, "Should the United
States try to change a dictatorship to a democracy when it can, or
should the United States stay out of other countries' affairs?" --
by near five to one Americans said, "Stay out." Fifteen percent said
"yes" to the Bush commitment. Sixty-nine percent said to stay out of
the internal affairs of other countries.
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentar y/article_21271768.shtml