Respecting our allies
Senator Kerry and the Democrats (as well as his neo-socialist supporters like George Soros) have, on more than one occassion, criticized President Bush and his administration for treating our allies with disrespect. This has prompted me to ask the question: what is an ally? Is an ally simply a country with which we have signed a mutual-protection treaty "attack on one is an attack on all" or something to that effect, or is an ally a country that will support us in our endeavors, and whom we will support in their endavors?
Before the War in Iraq, before September 11, the French, and most Europeans -- most foreigners in general -- did not care much for America. If you recall after September 11, many in the third world celebrated, and Osama bin-Laden became a hero to many in the third world. I do not mean to imply that the French and Germans were celebrating as those in the Muslim world were over the terrorist attacks, but many Europeans, especially those in the larger nations, such as France, England, Germany and Russia, have been, throughout the nineties and still today, resentful of America. I propose that this resentment, which existed prior to 2003 is due to jealousy. The people in these countries have relatively recent memories of when their countries were either the most powerful in the world, such as England and France, or had a shot at being the most powerful -- a shot stolen by the Yanks -- such as Germany and Russia. Italy is not powerful and never has been, and Spain has been relatively weak since the 16th century. The Canadians, I propose feel about us the way the older brother might feel about a disrespectful younger sibling (we spat in the mother country's eye, and she likes us better). Many other countries in Europe, I propose remember how America liberated them, either after World War I or World War II. Nations like Bulgaria and Poland have never had a chance at being powerful in the modern era, so they do not feel as though America has ripped them off from their inheritance.
When Senator Kerry claims that President Bush has been disrespectful to our allies, while claiming that the US has no international support in Iraq, it makes me wonder if he considers that some of our allies who have committed troops and resources to Iraq, such as Japan, England, Italy, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Turkey, Uganda, the Ukraine, or Uzbekistan are taking offense. I realize that most of these countries are not particularly large or wealthy with the obvious exceptions, but they do deserve our respect and gratitude.
(The list comes from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-4.html).
Senator Kerry's criticism comes from the fact that the United Nations refused to commit troops to support its own resolutions (Yes, the UN along with every other reasonable country in the world believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs, violating the Gulf War Treaty -- the debate was over how to force him to comply with the resolution), but the UN did not go against the use of force for altruistic reasons. It was unlikely for the Chinese to support any US endavor, and Jacques Chirac of France (who, by the way, wanted to send commandos into Yugoslavia in 1998 rather than use air-based attacks as the US did) and Schroeder of Germany opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because they were involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal, receiving illicit money from Saddam Hussein. Russia, likewise, found Hussein's presidency to be beneficial. This has been largely ignored, but modern Russian-made military equipment (not just the AK-47 in every household) was found in Iraq, presumably purchased from the Putin government. Would you really expect any of these countries to favor the removal of a source of income, especially when they don't like us that much anyway?
We are now living in a new era, and new eras demand new tactics and new alliances -- as Dick Morris pointed out, Bob Dole's campaign issues in 1996 were dead, primarily because Ronald Reagan had defeated the USSR, prompting George W. Bush to adopt new issues and a new strategy in 2000. Likewise, when World War II ended, alliances shifted. The USSR and China (for a time) were allied against the western and western-supported democracies, which included West Germany, Italy, and Japan. NATO and the Warsaw Pact replaced the Alliance. Now, the Cold War (World War III) has ended and the War on Terror (World War IV) has begun. This new era has established a need for new alliances, because there are those who would rather appease the terrorists (Spain is an excellent example of this) rather than fight them. The United States should create a new Anti-Terror Alliance with the countries that have aided us in Iraq and Afghanistan and withdraw from alliances that tie us to nations that are, based upon their actions placing their own financial gain over the safety of the US, clearly not our allies, such as France and Germany.
Thus the United States can officially have the backing of an international organization in its fight on terror, and those who do not do so now, will be forced to give our true allies the respect and appreciation they deserve.
Before the War in Iraq, before September 11, the French, and most Europeans -- most foreigners in general -- did not care much for America. If you recall after September 11, many in the third world celebrated, and Osama bin-Laden became a hero to many in the third world. I do not mean to imply that the French and Germans were celebrating as those in the Muslim world were over the terrorist attacks, but many Europeans, especially those in the larger nations, such as France, England, Germany and Russia, have been, throughout the nineties and still today, resentful of America. I propose that this resentment, which existed prior to 2003 is due to jealousy. The people in these countries have relatively recent memories of when their countries were either the most powerful in the world, such as England and France, or had a shot at being the most powerful -- a shot stolen by the Yanks -- such as Germany and Russia. Italy is not powerful and never has been, and Spain has been relatively weak since the 16th century. The Canadians, I propose feel about us the way the older brother might feel about a disrespectful younger sibling (we spat in the mother country's eye, and she likes us better). Many other countries in Europe, I propose remember how America liberated them, either after World War I or World War II. Nations like Bulgaria and Poland have never had a chance at being powerful in the modern era, so they do not feel as though America has ripped them off from their inheritance.
When Senator Kerry claims that President Bush has been disrespectful to our allies, while claiming that the US has no international support in Iraq, it makes me wonder if he considers that some of our allies who have committed troops and resources to Iraq, such as Japan, England, Italy, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Turkey, Uganda, the Ukraine, or Uzbekistan are taking offense. I realize that most of these countries are not particularly large or wealthy with the obvious exceptions, but they do deserve our respect and gratitude.
(The list comes from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-4.html).
Senator Kerry's criticism comes from the fact that the United Nations refused to commit troops to support its own resolutions (Yes, the UN along with every other reasonable country in the world believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs, violating the Gulf War Treaty -- the debate was over how to force him to comply with the resolution), but the UN did not go against the use of force for altruistic reasons. It was unlikely for the Chinese to support any US endavor, and Jacques Chirac of France (who, by the way, wanted to send commandos into Yugoslavia in 1998 rather than use air-based attacks as the US did) and Schroeder of Germany opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because they were involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal, receiving illicit money from Saddam Hussein. Russia, likewise, found Hussein's presidency to be beneficial. This has been largely ignored, but modern Russian-made military equipment (not just the AK-47 in every household) was found in Iraq, presumably purchased from the Putin government. Would you really expect any of these countries to favor the removal of a source of income, especially when they don't like us that much anyway?
We are now living in a new era, and new eras demand new tactics and new alliances -- as Dick Morris pointed out, Bob Dole's campaign issues in 1996 were dead, primarily because Ronald Reagan had defeated the USSR, prompting George W. Bush to adopt new issues and a new strategy in 2000. Likewise, when World War II ended, alliances shifted. The USSR and China (for a time) were allied against the western and western-supported democracies, which included West Germany, Italy, and Japan. NATO and the Warsaw Pact replaced the Alliance. Now, the Cold War (World War III) has ended and the War on Terror (World War IV) has begun. This new era has established a need for new alliances, because there are those who would rather appease the terrorists (Spain is an excellent example of this) rather than fight them. The United States should create a new Anti-Terror Alliance with the countries that have aided us in Iraq and Afghanistan and withdraw from alliances that tie us to nations that are, based upon their actions placing their own financial gain over the safety of the US, clearly not our allies, such as France and Germany.
Thus the United States can officially have the backing of an international organization in its fight on terror, and those who do not do so now, will be forced to give our true allies the respect and appreciation they deserve.