Liked or Respected?

Americans should be worried when their leader isn't reviled by the rest of the world. The rest of the world likes us only when we are doing what they want us to do. What the rest of the world wants to do is usually not in our best interest.

So, let us do what is in our best interest and ignore the world’s revulsion. Remember, most other countries are not democracies – their revulsion is a badge we should wear with honor. As for most of Western Europe, they are effeminate nations that have lost the will to defend themselves and intend instead to pay tribute to their Muslim assailants. We should not respect their craven views.

Reagan was reviled and he had the greatest foreign policy success in the post WWII period during (or as a result of) his presidency. Since Reagan’s presidency (and thanks mostly to Clinton – a man who pathologically could not bear being disliked) much of the American Public has been bamboozled into thinking that good foreign policy means doing whatever it takes to be liked by the rest of the world. This is nonsense. Good foreign policy is measured in interests secured, not friends made.

We should seek instead to be respected and, to some extent, feared. Respect (and fear) lasts; feelings of affinity don’t. For an example of how quickly “like” changes to “dislike” recall how quickly the world began to turn on the US when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, one action that no one can doubt was absolutely essential and justified.

So what did we get in return for all of Clinton’s efforts to make our country “liked”? We got sympathy cards for 9/11.

George Bush is doing his utmost to make sure that the rest of the world respect the US. In doing so he is also putting to rest this country’s recent preoccupation with being liked. We and the rest of the world will be better off for it. But don’t expect any thanks from the rest of the world.

The Real Goal

I believe that the Palestinians would have had a state of their own years ago had they chosen the path of nonviolent resistance.

The Palestinians are asking for land that the Israelis possess, the transfer of which will make the Israelis less secure. Moreover, the Palestinians are much weaker then the Israelis (so they cannot take the land by force).

A rational actor under these circumstances would look to history and take the path of Gandhi and the Solidarity movement. They would use nonviolent resistance to shame the rest of the world into pressuring the Israelis to give up the West Bank and Gaza. By resisting without violence they would also strengthen the hand of those Israelis who are prepared to give land to the Palestinians by showing the Israelis that they are a rational and peaceful people who can be trusted to be good neighbors.

But, the Palestinians have chosen violent confrontation instead. There are three possible reasons for this:

(1) I am wrong and violent struggle is the best way to get their state in the West Bank and Gaza. This can be debunked by looking at recent history. The Palestinians have been devastated as a result of their violent struggle and are further from a state then they were before the second intifada.

(2) They are not rational. This one is tempting. I have never seen a society as seemingly irrational as the Palestinians (or the societies of their Arab brethren). But, in the end, I think that the Palestinian’s can make rational decisions (they - even Hamas - are perfectly capable of making truces with the Israelis when they are particularly besieged).

So what is the other possible explanation?

(3) The Palestinians do not have the goal of peaceful coexistence with the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza. I think their choice of violent struggle can be explained by the fact that they have a goal of eliminating the state of Israel and removing the Jews from the Mideast. And, from their point of view, there is no time like the present to get started on that war.

To The Victor......

I am amused by the despondent MSM (main stream media) since the 2004 election. Immediately after the election was conceded the MSM began to chant that the close election would force Bush to govern from the center (apparently more that he already is!?). They are fools. The sting of the defeat pushed them further into denial. You could almost read their deluded thoughts: "it won't be that bad, he'll have to govern more like a Democrat, won't he?, won't he??!"

Wham! Immediately after the concession W and Rove delivered a bracing slap: W "has a mandate." W and Rove are correct. I can not recall any other presidential candidate who so clearly laid out for the public what he intended to do without apology or reservation. And, he was elected. That is a mandate.

In contrast, John Kerry could have garnered 60% of the vote and he still would not have had a mandate. He had never clearly said what he would do so the public could not give him permission to do "it."

Despite the slap, the media still does not get it. Now they are trying to convince themselves that W is making a big mistake in trying to appoint people to his cabinet who will do what he tells them to do. Their theory: W will harm his presidency surrounding himself with yes men and women (since when have they been concerned about his presidency being unsuccessful?). Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that any of these people are yes-men who would hide the information produced by their agencies or shirk from expressing their opinions, the MSM's theory misses the point. A majority of Americans elected George Bush to do what he said he would do. They want him to have cabinet members who carry out his orders.

There is another asinine undercurrent to the MSM's theory: they want us to believe that it is good to have cabinet members who are not loyal. I agree with the position that it is important to have cabinet members who provide their well founded information and opinions. However, once the president makes his decision on policy the cabinet member must follow it, regardless of whether it is in concert with the cabinet member's opinion. A partially-executed policy can be very dangerous.

Colin Powell forcefully gave his opinions to the President during his first term. I think that in many cases when the President made a policy decision inconsistent with Powell's opinion, Powell and the State Department only partially implemented the policy. Bush had to put up with this necessary evil during his first term because he needed Powell's (undeserved) foreign policy gravitas to get elected the first time and Powell knew it. With his reelection, Bush does not need Powell any longer. Bush has wisely chosen to turn to a loyal confidante with Mrs. Rice.

The Lie

W won. Thank god. However, he did not win by as much as he should have. After all, a vote for George Bush was a vote to defend yourself.

I think I know one thing that contributed to this being a close race, and it is a great lie that goes way back. I think the reason this country has so many people unwilling to defend themselves is the lie that has been pounded into every American youth for decades, that “war never solves anything” or its variant “fighting never solves anything.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Just ask the Jews whether the miltary defeat of the Nazi's in WWII solved anything.