A New "New World Order"
Throughout the 1990's we as a nation largely ignored foreign affairs. Although it is tempting to blame this solely on President Clinton, the reality is that few of us were much interested. With the rise of the Internet and the "new economy" (which famously didn't exactly pan out), many of us were far more concerned with our stock options than with Bosnia.
And, to some extent, this is understandable. We had just been through more than forty years of Cold War. When we finally won, we were anxious to spend out "peace dividend." We had ignored pressing domestic matters far too long, we told ourselves, and it was time to address such matters as health care and welfare reform.
We conservatives rightly blame Clinton for neglecting the threat of terrorism. As Dick Morris tells it, Clinton's eyes would "glaze over" whenever the subject came up. When he did confront it, his actions were those of one more looking to avoid domestic trouble than one who was truely interested in killing al Qaeda terrorists. His much-derided modus operandi was to fire cruise missiles at suspected targets in the desert. In retrospect, all this achieved was to instill in the terrorists the belief that we were a paper tiger.
But to be fair, if he had mounted a serious attack on, say, Afghanistan, Clinton would have faced problems at home. His own party would have criticized him for taking attention off of "pressing domestic issues such as health care," conservatives would have accused him of "wagging the dog," (not without some justification), and the general public would have worried about the effect on the stock market. I'm not entirely letting him off the hook here, as he could have and should have done more. But he couldn't have convinced us to wage a War on Terror if he had wanted to.
An Awakened Nation
The 1990's were therefore an "interim" period. September 11 woke us up. Perhaps the 1990's were necessary, in the sense of halftime at a football game. It allowed us to "rest up" for the current war. To illustrate, imagine that the 1993 attack had destroyed the World Trade Center towers. The president tells us that we must resolve to fight a war against terror, one that might last a long time. The reaction of the country might well have been "oh no, not again."
As it was, we awoke from out slumber with a start, looked about, and immediately set outselves to the task at hand. Yes, there are naysayers. Yes, many do not think that we should treat the situation as a war. But the results of the last election put to rest the notion that the country as a whole is not willing to fight a long and hard battle.
The Fall of the "Old World Order"
President George H W Bush famously proclaimed the emergence of a "New World Order" during his presidency. His successful diplomacy during the run-up to the Gulf War seemed to validate this. Appearances, however, were deceiving.
As the 1990's wore on, it became more and more clear that the institutions that were developed during the Cold War were at best inadequate for the new challenges we faced, and at worst were positively harmful. NATO was developed to "hold the fort" against the Soviet Union, and this it did quite well. But it is wholely unsuitable to address challenges outside of Europe. Likewise, the UN floundered under the "leadership of Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali. For a more complete discussion of these failures and some possible solutions to them see my article here.
And End to Mindless Multilateralism
New ideas and new institutions are needed if we are to successfully confront the challenges of this century. While the left endlessly intones the mantra of "multilateralism," President Bush indicated yesterday that he will have none of it:
And, to some extent, this is understandable. We had just been through more than forty years of Cold War. When we finally won, we were anxious to spend out "peace dividend." We had ignored pressing domestic matters far too long, we told ourselves, and it was time to address such matters as health care and welfare reform.
We conservatives rightly blame Clinton for neglecting the threat of terrorism. As Dick Morris tells it, Clinton's eyes would "glaze over" whenever the subject came up. When he did confront it, his actions were those of one more looking to avoid domestic trouble than one who was truely interested in killing al Qaeda terrorists. His much-derided modus operandi was to fire cruise missiles at suspected targets in the desert. In retrospect, all this achieved was to instill in the terrorists the belief that we were a paper tiger.
But to be fair, if he had mounted a serious attack on, say, Afghanistan, Clinton would have faced problems at home. His own party would have criticized him for taking attention off of "pressing domestic issues such as health care," conservatives would have accused him of "wagging the dog," (not without some justification), and the general public would have worried about the effect on the stock market. I'm not entirely letting him off the hook here, as he could have and should have done more. But he couldn't have convinced us to wage a War on Terror if he had wanted to.
An Awakened Nation
The 1990's were therefore an "interim" period. September 11 woke us up. Perhaps the 1990's were necessary, in the sense of halftime at a football game. It allowed us to "rest up" for the current war. To illustrate, imagine that the 1993 attack had destroyed the World Trade Center towers. The president tells us that we must resolve to fight a war against terror, one that might last a long time. The reaction of the country might well have been "oh no, not again."
As it was, we awoke from out slumber with a start, looked about, and immediately set outselves to the task at hand. Yes, there are naysayers. Yes, many do not think that we should treat the situation as a war. But the results of the last election put to rest the notion that the country as a whole is not willing to fight a long and hard battle.
The Fall of the "Old World Order"
President George H W Bush famously proclaimed the emergence of a "New World Order" during his presidency. His successful diplomacy during the run-up to the Gulf War seemed to validate this. Appearances, however, were deceiving.
As the 1990's wore on, it became more and more clear that the institutions that were developed during the Cold War were at best inadequate for the new challenges we faced, and at worst were positively harmful. NATO was developed to "hold the fort" against the Soviet Union, and this it did quite well. But it is wholely unsuitable to address challenges outside of Europe. Likewise, the UN floundered under the "leadership of Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali. For a more complete discussion of these failures and some possible solutions to them see my article here.
And End to Mindless Multilateralism
New ideas and new institutions are needed if we are to successfully confront the challenges of this century. While the left endlessly intones the mantra of "multilateralism," President Bush indicated yesterday that he will have none of it:
"The success of multilateralism is measured not merely by following a process, but by achieving results," Mr. Bush said. "The objective of the U.N. and other institutions must be collective security, not endless debate."While the President did not discuss specifics, he did outline principles that should serve as a basis for further discussion:
"Defense alone is not a sufficient strategy," he said. "There is only one way to deal with enemies who plot in secret and set out to murder the innocent and the unsuspecting: We must take the fight to them."This is exactly what a president should be doing. We do not want or need a detail-oriented intellectual as our national leader. Liberals have developed a "cult of intelligence," as if IQ alone made for great greatness. Yet for all his smarts, Senator Kerry was unable to articulate a coherent policy even on as important a matter as Iraq. Speeches on values and ideas are what we need to hear from our leaders. President Bush has done us well by defining some important ones.
The president declared that multilateralism has, of late, resulted in little action. Although he vowed to make an effort to build coalitions with foreign powers, he said those efforts must be geared toward results.
posted by Tom the Redhunter at 12/02/2004 08:32:00 AM
<< Home