| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Oh George, what will we do when youÂ’re gone? |
| 2007-03-03 |
| Gerard Baker Somewhere, deep down, tucked away underneath their loathing for George Bush, in a secret place where the lights of smart dinner-party conversation and clever debating-society repartee never shine, the growing hordes of America-bashers must dread the moment he leaves office. When President Bush goes into the Texas sunset, and especially if he is replaced by an enlightened, world-embracing Democrat, their one excuse, their sole explanation for all human suffering in the world will disappear too. And they may just find that the world is not as simple as they thought it was. It’s been a great ride for the past six years, hasn’t it? George Bush and Dick Cheney and all those pantomime villains that succour him — the gay-bashing foot soldiers of the religious Right, the forktailed neoconservatives with their devotion to Israel, the dark titans of American corporate boardrooms spewing their carbon emissions above the pristine European skies. Having those guys around for so long provided a comfortable substitute for thinking hard about global challenges, a kind of intellectual escapism. When one group of Muslims explodes bombs underneath the school buses of another group of Muslims in Baghdad or cuts the heads off humanitarian workers in Anbar, blame George Bush. When Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, denounces an imbalanced world and growls about the unpleasantness of democracy in eastern Europe, blame George Bush. When the Earth’s atmosphere gets a little more clogged with the output of power plants in China, India and elsewhere, blame George Bush. Some day soon, though, this escapism will run into the dead end of reality. In fact, the most compelling case for the American people to elect a Democrat as president next year is that, in the US, leadership in a time of war requires the inclusion of both political parties, and in the rest of the world, people will have to start thinking about what is really the cause of all our woes. Take a look at the miserable mess that is unfolding in what is supposed to be the “West’s” fight in Afghanistan against the Taleban and al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was, remember, unlike Iraq, “the good war”. Within days of September 11, 2001, all the European members of Nato readily signed up to assist America in righting the wrongs of international terrorism by defeating the Kabul regime and its allies. Even after the alliance fell out over the Iraq war, those who opposed that conflict reiterated their dedication to winning the one in Afghanistan. When the Spanish socialists pulled their nation’s troops out of Iraq in 2004, they insisted they were fully committed to the war against the Taleban. But what is the state of that struggle? These days, despite the notional presence of a Nato force involving more than 15 countries, only a handful — Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, and plucky Lithuania included — are putting anything like the effort required in terms of resources and willingness to take the fight to the enemy. Others — such as the Germans and the French — will commit troops and equipment but won’t let them fight, preferring noncombatant roles. Last week the Italian Government collapsed because some of its members actually want to make friends with the Taleban. European countries are not failing to fight the war in Afghanistan because they don’t like George Bush. They lack either the perception of the threat or the will to deal with it. Does anyone really think the election of President Hillary Clinton will be greeted with a sudden surge of German and French troops to Kabul and Helmand, routing al-Qaeda militants in the name of multilateralism? President Barack Obama will find that when he wants to make good on his promise to win the war in Afghanistan, EU leaders will be much happier explaining how their new constitution will enlighten the world. President John Edwards will discover, when he seeks a united front to tackle an enemy that would happily incinerate every European city and its inhabitants tomorrow, that the Europeans would much rather take urgent action to address the risk that global warming will produce a possible 18cm increase in sea levels by 2100. This escapism is not confined to President Bush’s critics in Europe, as the current battle over Iraq in Congress demonstrates. The Democrats have majorities in both houses. They could, if they wished, move to end the war in Iraq, which most of them — having once supported it — now oppose. They could vote to cut off funding for US troops and force the Pentagon to bring them home. But they won’t do that. That would involve taking responsibility for a dangerous war. They would much rather, carp and cavil and pass “nonbinding” resolutions that express dissatisfaction with the war but leave the actual job of ending it to the Bush Administration. This is why it may be a good thing if Americans were to elect a Democrat next year. Certainly, he or she could change the tone of US diplomacy by speaking more contritely about Iraq, by sounding more concerned about climate change, perhaps even by agreeing to hold talks talk with the Iranians to try to persuade them to drop their nuclear programme. But it’s likely that sooner or later a Democrat would have to have his or her “Nixon Goes to China” moment. Just as Bill Clinton discovered in the 1990s, when the Europeans were happy to sit back and let Serbs slaughter Bosnian and Kosovan Muslims, a Democrat will find a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the task. In the dread modern vernacular of management-speak, the Democrats need to take ownership of American leadership in a turbulent world. Though it can be fairly argued that President Bush’s incompetence has made things worse, the challenge of radical Islamism was not invented by the Bush Administration. Even as some future Democratic president proclaims his commitment to renewing alliances, he is sure to be greeted with all kinds of explanations as to why the Europeans are just not quite ready to make that a joint ownership. When that moment comes, everyone will be urgently wishing they still had George Bush to blame. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #7 USN, Otto Biusmarck who should know. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-03 22:49 |
| #6 Ptah: "Remember, God looks after fools, drunks, little children, and the United States of America." That's a new version to me: I heard it as God looks out for Sailors and Fools and I was pleased as punch that I got double coverage..... |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-03-03 22:38 |
| #5 so the only reason that we should vote against the Republicans next year is so we can shut up the ever-adolescent members who make up the democratic party? How sage. I half suspect they are so far removed from reality that they suspect that this is a winning slogan: We'll stop being stupid if you give us power. |
| Posted by: Thromoger Thrumble5163 2007-03-03 22:14 |
| #4 An America where, more and more, armed groups begin standing up against the tyranny of an ever more authoritarian government that crushes their dissent with guns, tanks, and bombs wherever they take a stand until the point where the US military starts to ask itself questions about whether or not their actions against their own people are legal. I fear that you are right. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2007-03-03 21:45 |
| #3 BRAVO FOTSGreg! However, I remember mourning for Reagan during the Clinton years, and Yet here comes Dubya. I believe that the american people will, at the critical time, elect a leader that will prove capable of winning the battle. Remember, God looks after fools, drunks, little children, and the United States of America. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-03-03 19:19 |
| #2 Hey, Gerard - Hadda' get your own little zinger in there against the Bushites in the end there didn;t you? You worthless sack of crap. You don;t even dare to address the real issues. Thus, you leave it to more informed individuals who will (forgive me RBers as I miss a huge number of items). What will we do when President Bush is gone and a Democrat inhabits the White House? Gosh, there are so many items to speculate about it boggles the mind, but here are a few of my own. Immediate retreat of American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Pullout probably within 90-180 days from the war zone despite the fact that we will still have troops in Bosnia/Kosovo 12 years later when we were promised they'd be home by Christmas, and in Germany for the last 70 years. Immediate reduction in funding of the US military such that it is eventually reduced to less than half its current size and unable to extend American power and foreign policy overseas. This will insure no future American foreign "adventurism". Either a nuclear-armed Iran or a nightmarish radioactive cauldron of smoking debris, ash, and human misery in the Middle East (after Iran develops the bomb and attacks Israel igniting a nuclear conflagration). A global economic meltdown the likes of which have never been seen before as oil supplies are suddenly rendered useless due to their being radioactively contaminated. Famine, panic, mass migrations, and death on a scale the world has never even conceived of. Global military crises as China seeks to secure its oil supplies to the east and south igniting conflict with Japan, Indonesia and an anemic US Navy and AF battered by lack of supply, money, equipment, and morale. An America battered by internal unrest as taxes soar spurred on by an administration dead set on providing universal abortion and health care to everyone including illegal aliens, amnesty to those same illegal aliens, and the right to vote for those illegal aliens versus those Americans who believe in the right to bear arms, the right of free speech, the right to freely practice one's religion openly, and the right of a free people not to bear unburdenable taxes. An America so distracted by its own internal dissent that it no longer has time to disseminate freedom or liberty around the world, but it does have time to slash its own economy to ribbons by signing on to Kyoto while its rivals gladly applaud its "wise decisions". An America where the moneyed "elite" more and more oppress the working majority in a "do as I say, not as I do" spray of environmental, social, and economic drivel. An America where, more and more, armed groups begin standing up against the tyranny of an ever more authoritarian government that crushes their dissent with guns, tanks, and bombs wherever they take a stand until the point where the US military starts to ask itself questions about whether or not their actions against their own people are legal. In short, world-wide chaos, war, and destruction because good men failed to stand when evil was prospering. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-03-03 17:42 |
| #1 Replacing Bush I and facing these problems didn't bother Bill Clinton one iota. He didn't know, he didn't care, and was otherwise indifferent to the world and the US going to hell in a hand basket. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-03 16:32 |