World Opinion Be Damned

[John Ashcroft]

It is a testament to the perverse priorities of our politicians and journalists that the biggest American outcry over Abu Ghraib has been not about the gruesome decapitation of American Nicholas Berg by terrorists, but about the fact that many Arabs and Europeans are mad at us.
"We are the most hated nation in the world," laments Ted Kennedy, "as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons."
The alleged solution to this alleged crisis of "world opinion" is to show more deference toward the rest of the world. Otherwise, we are told, the world's anger will bring more terrorist attacks and less "international cooperation" against terrorism.
All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America over Abu Ghraib is undeserved. Throughout the Middle East, torture—real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid—is official policy and daily practice. Yet there are no worldwide condemnations of the dictatorships that practice such atrocities—let alone the Arab-Islamic culture that produces so many torturers. But when, during a war, a handful of American prison guards subject a handful of Iraqi POWs to comparatively mild humiliation—which the U.S. government denounces and promptly investigates—"world opinion" proclaims itself offended and condemns America.
Abu Ghraib is just the latest example of the injustice of "world opinion." Since September 11, the United States—the freest nation on Earth—has been ceaselessly denounced for any step in the direction of self-defense against terrorism, while terrorist regimes Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority get a moral free pass.
So-called "world opinion" is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. (Observe that the phrase never includes the many pro-American foreigners, such as freedom-fighters in Iran.) It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst people: the Islamists who seek to subjugate the world to Islamic rule, the socialists and pacifists who seek to subjugate U.S. sovereignty to U.N. rule, and the legions of "moderate" followers who support or sympathize with these goals. And Ford, naturally... These people oppose us not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because they are steeped in irrational doctrines like Islamic fundamentalism, collectivism, and pacifism—which lead them to oppose and resent American freedom and individualism, and our resulting wealth and power.
The proper response to the anti-American voicers of "world opinion" is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies—and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill and demoralize them—especially the Arab and Islamic regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would make us safe, expose anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the world's best elements to support our ideals and emulate our ways.
President Bush, like most politicians and intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to "world opinion": he has tried to appease it. Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands—e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques, and striving to make the Iraqi occupation not look "too American." Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for—such as Islamic world domination and the destruction of Israel—he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion" and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead of destroying the terrorist regimes that wage war against the West—including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority—he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some as "coalition partners."
Such measures have taught the enemies they appease a deadly lesson: anti-Americanism pays. "Denounce and oppose America," they have learned, "no matter how irrationally and hypocritically, and American leaders will praise your ideals and meet your demands." "Attack America via terrorist proxy," terrorist states and movements have been taught, "and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but redouble its efforts to buy your love." Is it any wonder that anti-Americanism is gaining prominence, and that the "War on Terrorism" has no end in sight?
Every attempt to appease "world opinion" preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every concession to angry Muslim mobs, every denunciation of Israel, every consultation with Prince Bandar or dictator Assad gives hope to the Islamist cause. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next September 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies—world opinion be damned.

Link: here (http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/worldopinion.shtml)

[Mr Grimsdale]

Very true about the torture carried out in many Arab states, it is nonsense to equate the treatment in Abu Gharib with the use of power tools and acid baths. However face the fact, the US government supports the Saudi and Egyptian governments and even has contact with the Libyans and none of those are exactly innocent.

If the US, or any country, really took the issue seriously they'd be liberating those countries too.

The difference is they're not PERCEIVED as hindering foreign policy so the government shrugs its shoulders.

[John Ashcroft]

I agree, but "should've, would've, could've" doesn't do anything for the current operations going on in Iraq.

I also don't remember any outcry over Clinton's war in Kosovo (except for Greece that is). Rwanda was going hot and heavy, yet none of the so-called allies of the U.S. (or liberals in the U.S.) were pointing out that this genocide should be given equal weight as the supposed genocide happening in Kosovo.

Where was the outrage?

[Jesus Christ]

The road to Hell is paved with Ayn Rand books, my son. The hateful spew of such people is in direct opposition to My teachings.

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ
The road to Hell is paved with Ayn Rand books, my son. The hateful spew of such people is in direct opposition to My teachings.

Atlas Shrugged is a door prop for the ages.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
If the US, or any country, really took the issue seriously they'd be liberating those countries too.



Liberating?

Stop propping them up would be a start.

I'm not surprised that a lot of Americans are upset that their good name built up over decades has been turned to shit in one presidency.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
I agree, but "should've, would've, could've" doesn't do anything for the current operations going on in Iraq.

I also don't remember any outcry over Clinton's war in Kosovo (except for Greece that is). Rwanda was going hot and heavy, yet none of the so-called allies of the U.S. (or liberals in the U.S.) were pointing out that this genocide should be given equal weight as the supposed genocide happening in Kosovo.

Where was the outrage?

The fact is, and this is slightly unpalatable, African nations have never given a rats arse about their populations. It's a corrupt continent from top to toe, human life isn't worth a bean to a lot of people out there. Most of the governments cream off any aid given to them to fund their own private jet-set lifestyles, the security forces in most of the countries do the bidding of whoever pays them the most. If you think current operations in Iraq are a pain in the arse sorting out Africa would be a hundred times worse. I'd have thought the experience of Somalia would have opened your eyes to the difficulties of sorting out African nations - and that isn't a criticism of the intentions of the US. Whatever government gets elected after a peace keeping/liberation operation gets ousted in a coup within a few years... tis the way of the world. Personally I wouldn't have got involved with Kosovo, like most of the worlds trouble spots it was just sorting itself out after a hundreds of years of mixed up history. The only reason for involvement seemed to be it was in NATOs backyard and the "civilised" West doesn't like that sort of thing.

[John Ashcroft]

Grims, don't mistake my questioning for a call to pacify Africa. I'm simply pointing out the double standard many people have for Conservatives. Most of Europe (and liberals in America) take a "head in the sand" approach to security (and human rights), then cover it up by attempting to redefine this cowardice (or indifference if you prefer) as "nuance".

Now, don't take the above mentioned statement as a blanket categorization of British (or other European) citizens as cowards (the French hold that title). I've got to tell you, I've served with British airmen and they are some of the finest I've seen. They take the defense of your country very, very seriously (at least the people I've met). In fact, probably more seriously than the average American militaryman. But it's mainly the European press corps (BBC included) that are applying different standards for America when there is a Conservative President. You get a drumbeat of gloom and doom, with a healthy dose of well-placed pessimism regarding the operations in Iraq. It's really no wonder that public opinion in Europe is waning for America. And it's also no surprise that you'll have politicians willing to capitalize on it. All I'm asking is that people recognize it for what it is.

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft

I've got to tell you, I've served with British airmen and they are some of the finest I've seen.

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/acerimmr.jpg
God Bless Ace Rimmer!!

Smoke me a Kipper, lads. I'll be back for breakfast!

[DaveIsKing]

I think people should get down on their hands and knees and thank Western Europeans & Americans for all the inventions, luxuries, technology and scientific/medical breakthroughs we have created or discovered. It's time for the Third Worlders to acknowledge who keeps them up.

It's funny how people (liberals especially) bitch all the time, but fail to see that those CARS they drive, that ELECTRICITY they use, the CLOTHES they wear, the HOUSE they live in, the MEDICINE they take, and the FREEDOM they have are due to those they damn the most-- THAT'S RIGHT...Stuffy old white Europeans and Americans.

Acknowledge the facts.

[Mr Grimsdale]

It's worth noting that Western medicine learnt a hell of a lot from the Arabs during and after the Crusades.

For some bizarre reason they decided to look inwards and fail to take advantage of the lead they had over Europe in the 11-13th centuries.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
But it's mainly the European press corps (BBC included) that are applying different standards for America when there is a Conservative President.

I recall the UK press being pretty critical of Clinton over his bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan in 98. The difference was that it was a fairly measured response to a problem.

Likewise Reagans bombing of Libya in 86. The UK press went bananas, both for and against at the time. In retrospect though I think most people can see it was a measured response.

Bush bombing Afghanistan and the US leading the invasion in 2001 also has fairly widespread support, because again it was a measured response with clearly defined aims and objectives.

The problem with the Iraqi operations is that the aims of the war seem to be fluid. It started off as all about WMD, now that is hardly ever mentioned. Then it was freeing the Iraqi people. What's it to be this week?


Originally posted by John Ashcroft
You get a drumbeat of gloom and doom, with a healthy dose of well-placed pessimism regarding the operations in Iraq. It's really no wonder that public opinion in Europe is waning for America. And it's also no surprise that you'll have politicians willing to capitalize on it. All I'm asking is that people recognize it for what it is.

I doubt you'll get to see it but there was a very interesting documentary on UK TV over the weekend a 2 hour programme about American "Imperialism". Calm down matey, it's not as bad as it sounds.

The presenter was of Irish/British descent and currently lectures as a professor of history in New York. He actually said quite categorically that he sees nothing wrong with America policing the world and enforcing law and order, it's what the dominant powers have done throughout history and people need to remember that. The problem is that right now there is no rival so all the hatred and aggression people feel for authority gets aimed at you guys. Go back 20 years and the USSR would police its turf and you'd police your area and any criticism would be shared. The other main point raised was that the American view of freedom just happens to be different to some others view, there's a massive cultural difference between the US and Iraq and what seems normal and right to you just isn't to the average Iraqi. You either have to go in all guns blazing and impose "freedom" on them by force or you have to accept they're going to do things differently.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Here's the link to that documentary and the text below...
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/heads/library/american.html

American Colossus
Is the United States an empire? George W Bush maintains that it has never been one. 'We don't seek empires,' insists US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. 'We're not imperialistic.'

Nonsense, says Niall Ferguson. In his book Colossus: The rise and fall of the American empire (which accompanies the Channel 4 documentary American Colossus), he argues that the US is nothing less than the most powerful empire the world has ever seen.

In this edited extract, Professor Ferguson demonstrates that, in terms of economic resources as well as of military capability, the United States not only resembles but in some respects exceeds the British empire at its height.

– – –

All told, there have been no more than 70 empires in history. If the Times Atlas of World History is to be believed, the American is, by my count, the 68th. (Communist China is the 69th; some would claim that the European Union is the 70th.)

From the Egyptians to Rome

How different is the American empire from previous empires? Like the ancient Egyptian, it erects towering edifices in its heartland, though these house the living rather than the dead. Like the Athenian empire, it has proved itself adept at leading alliances against a rival power. Like the empire of Alexander, it has a staggering geographical range. Like the Chinese empire that arose in the Ch'in era and reached its zenith under the Ming dynasty, it has united the lands and peoples of a vast territory and forged them into a true nation-state.

Like the Roman empire, it has a system of citizenship that is remarkably open: Purple Hearts and US citizenship were conferred simultaneously on a number of the soldiers serving in Iraq last year, just as service in the legions was once a route to becoming a civis romanus. Indeed, with the classical architecture of its capital and the republican structure of its Constitution, the United States is perhaps more like a 'new Rome' than any previous empire – albeit a Rome in which the Senate has thus far retained its grip on would-be emperors. In its relationship with western Europe, too, the United States can sometimes seem like a second Rome, though it seems premature to hail Brussels as the new Byzantium.

Great land empires

The Roman parallel is in danger of becoming something of a cliché. Yet in its capacity for spreading its own language and culture – at once monotheistic and mathematical – the United States also shares features of the Abbasid caliphate erected by the heirs of Muhammad. Though it is often portrayed as the heir – as well as the rebellious product – of the western European empires that arose in the 16th century and persisted until the 20th, in truth the United States has as much, if not more, in common with the great land empires of central and eastern Europe. In the 19th century, the westward sweep of American settlers across the prairies had its mirror image in the eastward sweep of Russian settlers across the steppe.

In practice, its political structures are sometimes more reminiscent of Vienna or Berlin than they are of The Hague, capital of the last great imperial republic, or London, hub of the first Anglophone empire. To those who would still insist on American 'exceptionalism', the historian of empires can only retort: as exceptional as all the other 69 empires.

Rebellious son, despised father

Let us consider more precisely the similarities and differences between this American empire and the British empire, against which the United States at first defined itself, but which it increasingly resembles, as rebellious sons grow to resemble the fathers they once despised.

The relationship between the two Anglophone empires is one of the leitmotifs of Colossus for the simple reason that no other empire in history has come so close to achieving the things that the United States wishes to achieve today. Britain's era of 'liberal empire' – from around the 1850s until the 1930s – stands out as a time when the leading imperial power successfully underwrote economic globalisation by exporting not just its goods, its people and its capital, but also its social and political institutions. The two Anglophone empires have much in common. But they are also profoundly different.

Territory and people

The United States is considered by some historians to be a more effective 'hegemon' than Great Britain. Yet in strictly territorial terms, the latter was far the more impressive empire. At its maximum extent between the world wars, the British empire covered more than 13 million square miles, approximately 23% of the world's land surface. Only a tiny fraction of that was accounted for by the United Kingdom itself: a mere 0.2%.

Today, by contrast, the United States itself accounts for around 6.5% of the world's surface, whereas its 14 formal dependencies – mostly Pacific islands, acquired before the Second World War – amount to a mere 4,140 square miles of territory. Even if the United States had never relinquished the countries it at one time or another occupied in the Caribbean and Latin America between the Spanish–American War and the Second World War, the American empire today would amount to barely one-half of 1% of the world's land surface.

In demographic terms, the formal American empire is even more minuscule. Today the United States and its dependencies together account for barely 5% of the world's population, whereas the British ruled between a fifth and a quarter of humanity at the zenith of their empire.

'Occupying armies'

On the other hand, the United States possesses a great many small areas of territory within notionally sovereign states that serve as bases for its armed services. Before the deployment of troops for the invasion of Iraq, the US military had around 752 military installations in more than 130 countries. Significant numbers of American troops were stationed in 65 of these.

Their locations significantly qualify President Bush's assertion in his speech of 26 February 2003, that 'after defeating enemies [in 1945], we did not leave behind occupying armies.' In the first year of his presidency, around 70,000 US troops were stationed in Germany, and 40,000 in Japan. American troops have been in those countries continuously since 1945. Almost as many (36,500) were in South Korea, where the American presence has been uninterrupted since 1950.

Moreover, new wars have meant new bases, such as Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, acquired during the 1999 war against Yugoslavia, or the Bishkek air base in Kyrgyzstan, an 'asset' picked up during the war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. At the time of writing, about 10,000 American troop are still based in Afghanistan, and it seems certain that a substantial force of 100,000 will have to remain in Iraq for at least the next few years.

Military superiority

Nor should it be forgotten what formidable military technology can be unleashed from these bases. Commentators like to point out that 'the Pentagon's budget is equal to the combined military budgets of the next 12 or 15 nations' and that 'the US accounts for 40-45% of all the defence spending of the world's 189 states.' Such fiscal measures, impressive though they sound, nevertheless understate the lead currently enjoyed by American armed forces.

On land, the United States has 9,000 M1 Abrams tanks. The rest of the world has nothing that can compete. At sea, the United States possesses nine 'supercarrier' battle groups. The rest of the world has none. And in the air, the United States has three different kinds of undetectable stealth aircraft. The rest of the world has none. The United States is also far ahead in the production of 'smart' missiles and pilotless high-altitude 'drones'.

Credible threats

The British empire never enjoyed this kind of military lead over the competition. Granted, there was a time when its network of naval and military bases bore a superficial resemblance to America's today. The number of troops stationed abroad was also roughly the same. The British, too, relished their technological superiority, whether it took the form of the Maxim gun or the Dreadnought.

But their empire never dominated the full spectrum of military capabilities the way the United States does today. Though the Royal Navy ruled the waves, the French and later the Germans – to say nothing of the Americans – were able to build fleets that posed credible threats to that maritime dominance, while the British army was generally much smaller and more widely dispersed than the armies of the continental empires.

Sphere of military influence

If military power is the sine qua non of an empire, then it is hard to imagine how anyone could deny the imperial character of the United States today. Conventional maps of US military deployments understate the extent of America's military reach. A US Defense Department map of the world, which shows the areas of responsibility of the five major regional commands, suggests that America's sphere of military influence is now literally global.

The regional combatant commanders – the 'pro-consuls' of this imperium – have responsibility for swaths of territory beyond the wildest imaginings of their Roman predecessors. USEUCOM extends from the westernmost shore of Greenland to the Bering Strait, from the Arctic Ocean to the Cape of Good Hope, from Iceland to Israel.

Rich enough?

It is, of course, a truth universally acknowledged that large overseas military commitments cannot be sustained without even larger economic resources. Is America rich enough to play the part of Atlas, bearing the weight of the whole world on its shoulders? This was a question posed so frequently in the 1970s and 1980s that it became possible to speak of 'declinism' as a school of thought. According to Paul Kennedy, author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1989), military and fiscal 'overstretch' doomed the United States – like all 'great powers' before it – to lose its position of economic dominance.

For a brief time after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was possible to rejoice that the Soviet Union had succumbed to the overstretch first. The economic travails of Japan, once touted as a future geopolitical contender, added to the sense of national recuperation. While America savoured a period of 'relative ascent' unlike any since the 1920s, when an earlier peace dividend had fuelled an earlier stock market bubble, declinism itself declined.

New rivals

By the end of the 1990s, however, commentators had found new rivals about which to worry. Some feared the European Union. Others looked with apprehension towards China. In his article 'The Lonely Superpower' in the journal Foreign Affairs (March–April 1999), Samuel Huntington, too, saw 'unipolarity' as only a transient phenomenon: as Europe united and China grew richer, so the world would revert to a 'multipolarity' not seen since before the Second World War. In Emmanuel Todd's eyes (as seen in his book of 2002, Après l'Empire: Essai sur la décomposition du système américain), French fears about American 'hyperpower' ignored the reality of an impending decline and fall.

If recent rates of growth of population and output were to continue for another 20 years, America could conceivably be overtaken as the largest economy in the world by China as early as 2018. Yet it is highly unlikely that growth rates in either country will be the same in the next two decades as in the previous two. All we can say with certainty is that, in 2002, American gross domestic product, calculated in international dollars and adjusted on the basis of purchasing power parity, was nearly twice that of China and accounted for just over a fifth (21.4%) of total world output – more than Japanese, German and British shares put together.

That exceeds the highest share of global output ever achieved by Great Britain by a factor of more than two. Indeed, calculated in current US dollars, the American share of the world's gross output was closer to a third (32.3%), double the size of the Chinese and Japanese economies combined. In terms of both production and consumption, the United States is already a vastly wealthier empire than Britain ever was.

The spread of McDonald's

Nor are these the only measures of American dominance. In Britain's imperial heyday, only a handful of corporations could really be described as 'multinational', in the sense of having substantial proportions of their assets and workforce in overseas markets. Today the world economy is dominated by such firms, a substantial number of which – ranging from Exxon Mobil to General Motors, from McDonald's to Coca-Cola, from Microsoft to Time Warner – are American in origin and continue to have their headquarters in the United States.

The recent history of McDonald's provides a vivid example of the way American corporations have expanded overseas in search of new markets, much as the old Hobson–Lenin theory of imperialism would have led one to expect. In 1967, McDonald's opened its first foreign outlets in Canada and Puerto Rico. Twenty years later, it had nearly 10,000 restaurants in 47 countries and territories, and by 1997, no fewer than 23,000 restaurants in over 100 countries. In 1999, for the first time, the company's foreign sales exceeded its American sales. Today there are more than 30,000 McDonald's restaurants in over 120 countries; fewer than half – 12,800 – are in the United States.

Geographical range

Like Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald McDonald needs his map of the world, and it presents a striking alternative geography of American empire. In the words of the company's chief operating officer, 'There are 6.5 billion people on the Earth and only 270 million live in the US … Who else is positioned around the globe to deal with that opportunity?'

Coca-colonisation is a hackneyed catchphrase of the antiglobalisation 'movement', but it conveys a certain truth when one considers the geographical range of the soft drink company's sales: 30% to North America, 24% to Latin America, 22% to Europe and the Middle East, 18% to Asia and 6% to Africa. Significantly, the Real Thing's fastest-growing market is the People's Republic of China.

Unique revolution

The relatively rapid growth of the American economy in the 1980s and 1990s – at a time when the economy of its principal Cold War rival was imploding – explains how the United States has managed to achieve a unique revolution in military affairs while at the same time substantially reducing the share of defence expenditures as a proportion of gross domestic product.

The US Defense Department Green Paper published in March 2003 forecast total expenditure on national defence to remain constant at 3.5% of GDP for at least three years. That should be compared with an average figure during the Cold War of 7%. Given Paul Kennedy's 'formula' that 'if a particular nation is allocating over the long term more than 10% … of GNP to armaments, that is likely to limit its growth rates,' there seems little danger of imminent imperial overstretch.

In short, in terms of economic resources as well as of military capability, the United States not only resembles but in some respects exceeds the last great Anglophone empire.

Niall Ferguson is Herzog Professor of Financial History at the Stern School of Business, New York University. He is also a senior research fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His other books include The Pity of War, The Cash Nexus and Empire: How Britain made the modern world.

[Viking]

I sent this to my mother and sisters over the weekend. Beautifully written. :killer: :killer: :killer: :killer:

[MERRYKISSMASS2U]

i dont care what other ppl have to think.... world opinion be damned!