Victor Davis Hanson has a great article at National Review Online discussing our progress (and set backs) in the GWOT. Please go have a read. Here’s just a taste:
The worst attitude toward the Europeans and the U.N. is publicly to deprecate their impotent machinations while enlisting their aid in extremis. After being slurred by both, we then asked for their military help, peace-keepers, and political intervention — winning no aid of consequence except contempt in addition to inaction.
Praise the U.N. and Europe to the skies. Yet under no circumstances pressure them to do what they really don’t want to, which only leads to their gratuitous embarrassment and the logical need to get even in the most petty and superficial ways. The U.N. efforts to retard the American removal of Saddam interrupted the timetable of invasion. Its immediate flight after having its headquarters bombed emboldened the terrorists. And a viable U.S. coalition was caricatured by its failed obsequious efforts to lure in France and Germany. We should look to the U.N. and Old Europe only in times of post-bellum calm when it is in the national interest of the United States to give credit for the favorable results of our own daring to opportunistic others — occasions that are not as rare as we might think.
Geez, I don’t know. How can you help but bash Europe and the UN? They are such easy patsies. Well, I will try and go easy on the Euroweenies, but the incompetence and thievery at the UN is criminal, and we should never cut that bunch one inch of slack. Oh yeah, I won’t shut up about the French either. F*** the French.
Anyway, Hanson sums up this way (how come you haven’t hit that link are read the whole thing yet?):
The events that followed September 11 are the most complex in our history since the end of World War II, and require far more skill and intuition than even what American diplomats needed in the Cold War, when they contained a nuclear but far more predictable enemy. Since 9/11 we have endured a baffling array of shifting and expedient pronouncements and political alliances, both at home and abroad. So we now expect that most who profess support for democratization abroad do so only to the degree that — and as long as — the latest hourly news from Iraq is not too bad.
One of the most disheartening things about this war is the realization that on any given day, a number of once-stalwart supporters will suddenly hedge, demand someone’s resignation, or bail, citing all sorts of legitimate grievances without explaining that none of their complaints compares to past disappointments in prior successful wars — and without worry that the only war in which America was defeated was lost more at home than abroad.
Yet if we get through all this with the extinction of Islamic-fascist terrorism and an end to the Middle East autocracy that spawned and nurtured it — and I think we are making very good progress in doing just that and in less than four years — it will only be because of the superb quality of the American military and the skilful diplomacy of those who have so temperately unleashed it.
Yeah, what he said.
Via Instapundit
Hanson actaully grasps the concept of diplomacy and how to make it work for you. The difference between your approaches is about 180 degrees. However, where he comes off as reasoned and intelligent, you come off as reactive and unable to control expressing the first thing that flys into your head or worse, unwilling (as if that were a virtue. Hanson’s approach is far more likely to persuade, exert more influence and is ultimately a bigger power play.
Huh? F*** the French! 🙂
Pingback: buy valium