For an employee of Newsweek and a contributor to the New York Review of Books–both publications that typically veer between conventional pabulum and “progressive” zaniness–Christian Caryl displays unexpected wisdom in this essay: “Long Live American Imperialism.”
He argues that, financial crisis or not, American leadership remains indispensable for the world, and that American taxpayers will continue to finance the military might that keeps us (and so many of our friends and allies) safe. After making the expected genuflections in the direction of those who harp on the limits of American power, he writes with bracing clarity:
Yet, on balance, the world would still be a much more dangerous place without America around. In a world of intensifying competition for natural resources, trust is still the rarest commodity of all. U.S. influence will undoubtedly wane as more and more countries build confidence in each other. But that’s going to take a long time.
No question about it, America is overstretched. As economic turbulence hits home, U.S. voters are already less inclined to pay for overseas adventures. Yet to an extent, they don’t have much choice. For the reasons I’ve described above, the world will probably need someone to play the role of arbiter, enforcer, hegemon-call it what you will-for a long while to come. (“Hegemony,” by the way, is a Greek word that means “leadership.”) Americans may not want to play that role, and the rest of the world doesn’t always like the United States when it does. Yet I don’t see anyone around who’s ready to take its place. The European Union? It can’t even forge a common foreign policy, much less a strategy for regional security and defense. China? Many of its neighbors are unlikely to be enthusiastic. Russia? Give me a break.
The upshot is that, whether we like it or not, the U.S. must continue to lead, no matter who is elected tomorrow. I only hope Barack Obama understands that, because, as Bob Kagan noted in the Washington Post, at times his supporters seem to give the impression that his job will be to manage our decline gracefully. That is not the role that the American people expect our president to play, and Obama, if he is elected, would go awry if he tried. With John McCain, there is no such danger: he is cognizant of the limits of American power but embraces it unapologetically as a force for good.
Abe….in a word….yes.
The economy is bad,but Andrew Sullivan is always fun to kick around.
I am not the Joe above…but I second his comment. Ditto.
It always seemed to me that Mr. Obama missed the point on participation and its secondary effects. That is, if the United States just attends an event (whether it’s the U.N., or visits a country) that act in itself adds legitimacy to the event. Thus, when the U.S. attends the preparatory sessions, the U.S. has, effectively, said that these sessions are fine with us. If the sessions were anything other than fine, well, the U.S. would say so. Or, what’s more, the U.S. would walk-out of the event altogether. We have done neither.
I also believe that Secretary of State Clinton clearly displayed her understanding of this when, during a debate in the campaign, she vehemently opposed meeting with the leaders of Iran. Obama said it was “ridiculous” (his word) not to talk to Iranian leaders. Clinton, for her part, stated emphatically that such a meeting if only to talk, lent legitimacy to their leaders.
Apparently, Mr. Obama is being consistent and finds participation no big deal. He does not see (or is blind to) the effects that just meeting a nation’s representatives has. And, his secretary of state is apparently fine with this, despite what she surely knows will be the after effect.
The administration, and it’s current actions, reminds me of people who say, “It doesn’t hurt to talk.” On a personal level, dealing with an individual, that may be true. But, when dealing with nations, a country’s presence speaks loud and clear. Words are not needed, just attendance.
Someone needs to tell Beagle Blogger that the US State Department isn’t leaving only Israel out to dry at Durban II.
Anne Bayefsky at The Corner:
“A proposal to condemn human-rights violations based on sexual orientation ran into immediate objections from South Africa, Syria, Algeria, Iran, Botswana, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Morocco, Holy See, Libya, Egypt, and China. ”
Then maybe he’ll start worrying.
Heck, take that $900 million, divide it amongst the population here in the US(~300 million) and everyone(legal & illegal alike) can pay off their mortgages/bills, buy a house, afford medical and will still have enough to spend to stimulate the economy. Hey…and Mexico’s also.
Problem(s) solved and welcome to the United Nuthouse of America(white restraints and straight-jackets optional but recommended).
Yea, I trust us to be a good, loyal ally with Obama in charge(giggle, giggle).
This Administration seems determined to take care of that problem. Won’t be long before having the US attending an event lends no legitimacy at all to it. It’ll be like Cliff Claven showing up at Cheers.
How is this aid to Gaza different from any other aid to Gaza? That is, what will trickle down to normal people and not go to offensive weapons or graft?
It’s nice in a way to see the inmates run the asylum. It serves to remind people why they were inmates in the first place. Sometimes we forget.
It is truly, TRULY going to be a long 4 years.
Stop seeing it as “aid;” start viewing it as tribute.
It’s not the first time America paid tribute to the forces of jihadist islam. Prior to the war against Barbary jihad, America paid out a full 15% of her GDP in tribute to islam.
15%
Now just think about that.
We’re effectively paying Hamas to confine their terror strikes against Israel and Jews, and not target Westerners. That’s what we’re doing. Which means we’re paying tribute.
I hope that the money going to Gaza comes with stringent caps on executive compensation. I’d hate to think that any one of the Hamas leadership gets more than $500,000 a year.
Sad, hilarious and so predictable at the same time. A billion dollars to Hamas to aid in the destruction of Israel; that’s what 70% of US Jews voted for. Suckers.