| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| What Would America Fight For? |
| 2014-05-04 |
| This is from The Economist, which is written by some very, very smart people across the pond. It has begun to dawn on them that all they've really got by way of security is Champ's word. Champ has still made a difficult situation worse in two ways. First, he has broken the cardinal rule of superpower deterrence: you must keep your word. In Syria he drew “a red line”: he would punish Bashar Assad if he used chemical weapons. The Syrian dictator did, and Champ did nothing. In response to Russia’s aggression, he threatened fierce sanctions, only to unveil underwhelming ones. The cumulative message is weakness. The article's title, "What Would America Fight For?" reminds me of the saying "The Marines are at war. America is at the mall." What we're talking about is when Champ would order our soldiers, Marines. sailors and zoomies -- not one of whom he knows, understands, or cares for -- into battle. And I think the answer is fairly clear: he would do so as and when giving the order provides Champ with some personal or political advantage not outweighed by the flak he would get from his base. If a combat assault on Pago-Pago means one more Democratic senator, it's going to happen. Second, Champ has been an inattentive friend. You're complaining? Trying being a Republican, or worse yet, an Israeli. He has put his faith in diplomatic coalitions of willing, like-minded democracies to police the international system. That makes sense, but he has failed to build the coalitions. And using diplomacy to deal with the awkward squad, such as Iran and Russia, leads to concessions that worry America’s allies. Credibility is about reassurance as well as the use of force. I'm too stupid to understand that sentence. If I were European, another teleprompted speech would not reassure me. The airborne would. Europeans think they can enjoy American security without paying for it. Duh. Ya think? At the rate things are going the British army will consist of some very brave people equipped with rocks and harsh language. America is preoccupied with avoiding foreign entanglements. Champ began his presidency with the world wondering how to tame America. Answer: get Champ elected. Both he and his country need to realise that the question has changed. Some of us are working on that, but in the meantime mind the Fulda Gap, there's a good fellow. |
| Posted by:Matt |
| #11 See also WORLD NEWS > [Business Insider] WORLD OF PAIN: US IS NO LONGER ALARMING TO ITS FOES OR REASSURING TO ITS ALLIES. * DRUDGEREPORT > [FT.com] UNCERTAINTY, NOT CHINA, REPLACING US POWER. AMERICA IS BEHAVING LIKE A DECLING HEGEMON UNWILLING TO SHARE POWER YET UNABLE TO IMPOSE. ARTIC > America = Amerika is prob still safe from ambitious China's clutches for another ten years, i.e. until Year 2024. * TOPIX > [Forbes] US ASIAN ALLIES WONDER: IS US READY TO FIGHT CHINA OVER ISLETS? * SAME > [Freerepublic = Town Hall] TAIWAN: BEWARE!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-05-04 22:54 |
| #10 HT Mike! They asked for something different. They got it. STFU |
| Posted by: Frank G 2014-05-04 20:38 |
| #9 Most excellent Matt ! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-05-04 19:28 |
| #8 America's next fight might be with itself. Won't be the first time (Civil War, Selma Civil Rights March, Vietnam War protests, etc.). |
| Posted by: Bubba Graiting8281 2014-05-04 19:27 |
| #7 Agreed, Mike. They kept demanding it; they got it. Deal with it - we're busy. And broke. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2014-05-04 19:22 |
| #6 1. Our 'Allies' spend years b!tching about the 'cowboy' we elect to office and demand that we elect someone else and change our ways. 2. We elect someone else who is 180 degrees the opposite of the cowboy, who proceeds to change our ways. 3. Our 'Allies' are now getting worried, and b!tching about the fact that we did exactly what they wanted. The hell with them. Pull back all but one air wing and one ground unit (and put BOTH of them in the UK) and let THEM worry. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2014-05-04 18:14 |
| #5 What Would America Fight For? OPM |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2014-05-04 17:58 |
| #4 America's next fight might be with itself. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2014-05-04 16:47 |
| #3 Obama will fight for socialist and Marxist domestic policy and against freedom loving Americans. All else comes in last place behind tee times. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2014-05-04 16:29 |
| #2 "First, he has broken the cardinal rule of superpower deterrence: you must keep your word." "These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." George W. Bush, Statement To Joint Session Of Congress September 20th 2001 "SOS Powell endorses political role for 'moderate' Taliban." 10.17. 2001 Obama deserves much blame but the erosion of US & Western deterrence is the fault of the Westen political classes' consensus policy since 9/11. |
| Posted by: Elmerert Hupens2660 2014-05-04 15:48 |
| #1 Are you willing to die to keep these oligarchs in power? Let those with influence, money, and power, do the bleeding. [I don't recall people willing to die to defend GE, Rutgers, NAACP, Soros, Moveon, et al] |
| Posted by: P2kontheroad 2014-05-04 15:35 |