Thursday, November 18 2004
WHAT MOTIVATES FRIENDS AND ENEMIES: A couple of months ago a good friend of mine explained to me why he was going to vote for John Kerry. He talked about a number of issues that motivated his decision (one of which was an intense dislike of George W. Bush, by the way) but one of the main reasons for his vote is that he thought John Kerry could lead a more effective War on Terror by restoring our alliances around the globe.

"Bush has pissed off everybody in the world" he said. "We can't do it alone. We need our friends and allies in the international community to come together out of a shared sense of responsibility and goodwill to fight terror around the world."

This was (and still remains) a very popular view among liberals in the United States. The problem is that more and more we're seeing this is an unlikely, if not utterly unrealistic assumption.

The truth is that if you sat down to compose a list of countries of significant influence who are responsible, motivated by "goodwill," and committed to leading a fight against terrorism that list would be depressingly short. A corresponding list of influential countries who are either against, indifferent, or not committed to fighting terrorism would be much longer.

The unfortunate reality is that the only feelings shared among many countries in the "international community" these days seem to be greed, envy, corruption, and self interest. I forgot anti-Semitism.

The United Nations, the epicenter of the "world community" and self-proclaimed arbiter of international justice, is mired in a mushrooming scandal so big and so thoroughly rotten that it threatens (or at least should threaten) the organization's very existence.

Two of our biggest "allies", France and Russia, are up to their eyeballs in the scam that kept Hussein in power and helped spread terror throughout the Middle East, all the while fattening their coffers. Lord only knows what other shenanigans have been going on behind closed doors and behind our backs on the east side of Manhattan.

And just last week much of the "international community" fell silent in honor of Yasir Arafat, unrepentant terrorist turned Nobel Peace Prize winner. Even though the UN, Europe, and the Arab world continue to bemoan the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the principal grievance of Muslims everywhere, history has already certified Arafat as an egomaniac who brushed aside every opportunity to lead the Palestinian people to peace and self-determination, leaving them to live in squalor and despair while taking a good bit off the top for the comfort of him and his wife.

Democrats criticize President Bush's policy of spreading democracy in the Middle East as too idealistic and not based in reality. Perhaps. But at the very least it is a forward-looking, optimistic vision designed to recognize and deal with short-term threats and to establish a framework for long-term peace and stability.

What the Democrats offer as a policy is even more idealistic (not to mention more dangerous): relying on the responsible action and the "goodwill" of the United Nations and European allies like France to help battle terrorists around the globe.

One might go so far as to characterize this policy as "reality-free" given that the United Nations and certain European countries continue to demonstrate they don't even understand the nature of the conflict we're in.

Two weeks ago Kofi Annan lectured President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and interim Iraqi leader Ayad Allawi to "break the cycle of violence and open a new chapter of inclusiveness and national reconciliation" in Iraq and to "address, through political dialogue, the grievances of certain Iraqi constituencies."

Days later a few of the aggrieved constituents Mr. Annan would like to sit down with and bring into the political process fired a bullet into the back of an innocent 59 year-old woman's head and possibly dismembered her body. These individuals routinely kidnap, torture, kill, and maim innocent civilians and fellow citizens. Somehow I don't think an extra seat or two in the government is what they're after.

POP QUIZ: Here's a somewhat related follow up quiz for you trivia buffs. Who said the following?

1) "To a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing. But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous."

2) "We've gotten rid of him [Saddam Hussein], and I suppose that's a good thing." "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

Click Here for Answer #1 and Answer #2. Yet more evidence the Dems have problems that need fixing. - T. Bevan 11:00 am Link | Email | Send to a Friend