|
I regularly receive questions from people outside the military who feel that I should have initmate knowledge of international policy. Specifically, they want to know why, save Britain, we stand relatively alone in Iraq and Afghanistan (although the coalition in Afghanistan remains diverse, few forces save the U.S., Britain, and Eastern European countries, have actually pledged combatant commands to the campaign). I don't know why they feel that I would be closer to an answer than others, but the question flummoxed me for some time. I feel that I have something approaching an answer, as I have described below. I recognize that the basic premise does not address all existing counterarguments. In addition, I propose no statistics or detailed examples. However, I was hoping, with your help, I could sharpen the rough edges and see if the bsic idea holds.
A lot of people wonder why other ‘industrialized’ nations remain aloof to the threat of terrorism. Subway bombings in London, Madrid, and Tokyo illicit nary a response, and untouched nations that sit far closer to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism pouring forth from Asia, such as China, France, and Germany, hardly make a peep on the international scene regarding terrorism except to chide the United States for its 'imperialist' responses in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The question haunted me for years without ample solution until recently. One can always count on the French to contend with any policy objectives of the United States within the Eastern hemisphere. Likewise, one may just as easily count upon Germany to follow her lead, at least until France’s cooperation is no longer necessary to cement the European Union and solidify German hegemony over Europe. However, the response of the Asian industrialized nations and the general apathy of the remaining Europeans appears difficult to fathom. Here exists a very real threat, on their doorstep, perched to disrupt any nation that is not subservient to the Caliphate, and the best such nations can do is offer token forces and blatant criticism during any unilateral American action?
The answer, once grapsed, appears far simpler than I anticipated. Do you give charity to panhandlers? If so, how many lives have you positively affected? How many panhandlers are better off for your generosity? On the other hand, how many have simply avoided the consequences of their actions through the generosity of others, never seeking success because there is no punishment for failure? When viewed from such a perspective, generosity becomes almost criminal, a means hopelessly incapable of achieving its desired ends by sheltering the unsuccessful from the hardships and experiences that ultimately become necessary for them to learn what success entails.
Contradictory arguments justify the actions of panhandlers, just as they justify the idleness of the world during our endeavor to confront the terrorist threat at its source. Perhaps it is time to walk away, and let these nations suffer the consequences for their inaction. When the Eiffel Tower falls, will Parisians be so quick to criticize Americans? Similarly, will such hardships, once encountered on a systemic basis, help the world to develop a strategy for dealing with the terrorist threat? The prospect of a successful bilateral American-British solution seems hopeless, now.
Some contend that a retreat to the Western Hemisphere would signal the end of America’s ability to project its will across the globe. To them, I must ask, does America really enjoy that ability right now? Mired within an dubious struggle to build a simple government within a potentially wealthy nation less than fifty years after a similarly failed attempt in an impoverished nation, the myth of American world hegemony becomes wholly apparent. Being a world power, it seems, isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be. Maybe it’s time to let the other nations of the world face their challenges head on. Whether they succeed or fail, whatever remains should be stronger and more capable from the effort. And, maybe, the remainder will be able to actually help us address terrorism once and for all.
|
|