There is the world as one might wish it to be, and the world as it is. A common and infuriating tactic that the left used during the cold war was to isolate US actions as deplorable while ignoring the actions of the Soviets that prompted those US actions in the first place. Context matters, and so some on the left do their best to ignore and obfuscate context so that an act can be seen in isolation, stripped of any rationale. Killing a man is a deplorable act. Killing a man who was about to kill others, not so much.
People here and around the world love to hate American influence and power. It was the great game of the last half of the 20th century and continues today. If only America wouldn't meddle here and there, the story goes, the world could regain its natural and peaceful state. Jimmy Carter seemed to subscribe to that belief and it appears that President Obama does as well. The results will probably not have much of an effect on the average American, at least in the short term, but they will be catastrophic to millions of people around the world who will be plunged into chaos and tyranny as the thugs of the world realize they have a free hand. Read the whole thing, but Spengler finishes a great essay with this:
I don't think that Obama intends to create the misery that is coming, it's just that he has failed both to learn the lessons of history, and to understand that leadership is sometimes not choosing between good and bad, but between bad and less bad. Jimmy Carter failed because he could not bring himself to choose less bad, and so the bigger badness came to be. President Obama, in his arrogance, seems to be following in his footsteps. The real world is watching.
We need to find door number 3. Not wild about Spengler's argument. I've heard it before. Replace the word "referee" with the word "cop" because that's the word most use for this notion. Most Americans, including this one, don't want us to be the world's policeman.
Posted by: Rob | July 02, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Rob-I generally agree with you that we can't serve as the world's policeman. That said though, there are trade-offs involved. We have many interests, direct and indirect, around the world. Disengage too much and we lose those interests. Get too engaged and we get sucked into things we don't want to be a part of. It's a balancing act and not an easy one for any president. There are too many factors and too many independent players manage and all without a crystal ball.
I think Spengler's point is that American engagement or intervention are not always the worst things when put in their proper context and given some of the alternatives. The fear is that Obama will shy away from less than perfect solutions and create a power vacuum, resulting in some really nasty people getting involved and far worse chaos and carnage for millions. I don't know if that will happen, but I think Spengler is right to at least raise the issue.
Posted by: Dave E. | July 02, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I'm not an isolationist and I don't think Spengler made the case that Obama is disengaging. You will never get me to dispute that Obama's approach is both different and worrisome. It most certainly is. However, a word for our enemies is in order about the carrot/stick foreign policy. These are very likely the biggest carrots they are ever going to see from America. The smart play for them is to engage this guy. In that regard, it might not hurt to know just how smart they are.
Posted by: Rob | July 02, 2009 at 01:05 PM
I think the problem is not the carrots, but that there is a growing suspicion that there is no stick with this guy, unless you are an ally. That's the disengagement I think.
Posted by: Dave E. | July 03, 2009 at 10:37 AM
That concerns me, too.
Posted by: Rob | July 03, 2009 at 11:12 AM