-Caveat Lector-
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peace at any cost is a prelude to war!
The Phony Battle Against 'Isolationism'
by Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post | October 29, 1999
get a printer-friendly version of this article
AFTER SEVEN YEARS, the big foreign-policy thinkers in the Clinton
Administration are convinced they have come up with a big idea. Having spent
the better part of a decade meandering through the world without a hint of
strategy—wading compassless in and out of swamps from Somalia to Haiti to
Yugoslavia—they have finally found their theme.
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger unveiled it in a speech to the Council
on Foreign Relations last week. In true Clintonian fashion, Berger turned
personal pique over the rejection of the test-ban treaty into a grand idea:
The Democrats are internationalists, their opponents are isolationists.
First of all, it ill behooves Democrats to call anybody isolationists. This
is the party that in 1972 committed itself to "Come home, America." That cut
off funds to South Vietnam. That fought bitterly to cut off aid to the
Nicaraguan Contras and the pro-America government of El Salvador. That
mindlessly called for a nuclear freeze. That voted against the Gulf War.
They prevailed in Vietnam but thankfully were defeated on everything else.
The Contras were kept alive, forcing the Sandinistas to agree to free
elections. Nicaragua is now a democracy.
El Salvador was supported against Communist guerrillas. It, too, is now a
democracy.
President Reagan faced down the freeze and succeeded in getting Soviet
withdrawal of their SS-20 nukes from Europe, the abolition of multiwarhead
missiles, and the first nuclear-arms reduction in history.
And the Gulf War was fought, preventing Saddam from becoming the
nuclear-armed hegemon of the Persian Gulf.
"The internationalist consensus that prevailed in this country for more than
50 years," claimed Berger, "increasingly is being challenged by a new
isolationism, heard and felt particularly in the Congress."
Internationalist consensus? For the last 20 years of the Cold War, after the
Democrats lost their nerve over Vietnam, there was no internationalist
consensus. Internationalism was the property of the Republican Party and of a
few brave Democratic dissidents led by Sen. Henry Jackson—who were utterly
shut out of power when the Democrats won the White House.
Berger's revisionism is not restricted to the Reagan and Bush years. He can't
seem to remember the Clinton years either. He says of the Republicans, that
"since the Cold War ended, the proponents of this [isolationist] vision have
been nostalgic for the good old days when friends were friends and enemies
were enemies."
Cold War nostalgia? It was Bill Clinton who early in his presidency said
laughingly, "Gosh, I miss the Cold War." Then seriously, "We had an
intellectually coherent thing. The American people knew what the rules were."
What exactly is the vision that Berger has to offer? What does the Clinton
foreign policy stand for?
Engagement. Hence the speech's title, "American Power—Hegemony, Isolation, or
Engagement." Or as he spelled it out: "To keep America engaged in a way that
will benefit our people and all people."
Has there ever been a more mushy, meaningless choice of strategy? Engagement
can mean anything. It can mean engagement as a supplicant, as a competitor,
as an ally, as an adversary, as a neutral arbiter. Wake up on a Wednesday and
pick your meaning.
The very emptiness of the term captures perfectly the essence of Clinton
foreign policy. It is glorified ad hocism.
It lurches from one civil war to another with no coherent logic and with
little regard for American national interests—finally proclaiming, while
doing a victory jig over Kosovo, a Clinton Doctrine pledging America to stop
ethnic cleansing anywhere.
It lurches from one multilateral treaty to another—from the Chemical Weapons
Convention that even its proponents admit is unverifiable to a test ban
treaty that is not just unverifiable but disarming—in the belief that
American security can be founded on promises and paper.
If there is a thread connecting these meanderings, it is a woolly utopianism
that turns a genuinely felt humanitarianism and a near-mystical belief in the
power of parchment into the foreign policy of a superpower.
The choice of engagement as the motif of Clinton foreign policy is a
self-confession of confusion. Of course we are engaged in the world. The
question is: What kind of engagement?
Engagement that relies on the fictional "international community," the
powerless United Nations, or the recalcitrant Security Council (where
governments hostile to our interests can veto us at will) to legitimize
American action? Or engagement guided by American national interests and
security needs?
Engagement that squanders American power and treasure on peacekeeping? Or
engagement that concentrates our finite resources on potential warfighting in
vital areas such as the Persian Gulf, the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan
Strait?
Berger cannot seem to tell the difference between isolationism and realism.
Which is the fundamental reason for the rudderless mess that is Clinton
foreign policy.
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
