By Daniel Greefield, FPM
The international community looked into Putin’s eyes and blinked. Multilateralism has failed as badly as it did in the days of the League of Nations, but then again it never actually worked.
The international order that everyone pretends is a real force in world affairs is really the United States and a few partners doing all the work and letting the diplomats and bureaucrats of the world pretend that they matter. Without America, the United Nations would be just as useless as the League of Nations. With America, the United Nations is only a deterrent when the United States puts its foot down and the rest of the world doesn’t get in the way.
It has become fashionable to denounce the United States as a rogue state. A military intervention, even with the backing of its Western allies, but outside the framework of the organizations of the international order, was deemed unilateralism and cowboy diplomacy.
And then Obama rode in on a three-speed bike and won a Nobel Peace Prize for his commitment to doing nothing.
The multilateral system is helpless in the face of aggression. That is as true today as it was eighty years ago. International agreements are worthless without steel and lead behind them. The United Nations is incapable of acting when one of its more powerful members is the aggressor or the aggressor’s patron, the foreign policy experts of the left crank out editorials explaining why we can’t do anything about Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria or Ukraine and the Secretary of State explains that strength is weakness and weakness is strength.
International law couldn’t stop Hitler. It couldn’t stop Japan. It took the United States to do all that. The foreign policy experts will deny it, the editorials will decry it and the Common Core textbooks will refuse to print it; but it takes a rogue nation to stop a rogue state.
England and France’s diplomatic outreach to Nazi Germany led to the seizure of the Rhineland, the annexations of Austria and a portion of Czechoslovakia, followed by the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland. American diplomacy and sanctions on Japan led to Pearl Harbor. The only time that the United Nations proved to be of any use was during the Korean War and that was before its doors were thrown open to an army of Third World dictatorships for sale to the highest bidder.
The issue isn’t whether the United States should intervene in Ukraine, but whether it should have the option to do something more meaningful than draw faint red lines and threaten worthless sanctions. Every mob throwing things at soldiers and police isn’t necessarily composed of the good guys just because they have photogenic protesters and colorful flags.
Our instinct to automatically support the underdog is just another dangerous figment of the multilateral mindset.
The United States has unselectively adopted the human rights agenda of the internationalists and allowed our foreign affairs priorities to be curated by the diplomats of the left who know exactly whom to denounce and what not to do about it. UN Ambassador Samantha Power, wearing a bitter frown, agonizing over the woes of the world, is the face of our senseless and useless diplomacy that forces us to play the moral scold without being able to back it up.
American foreign policy has become indistinguishable from the United Nations agenda and just as impotent, fixated on the recommendations of human rights committees instead of national interests, incapable of addressing historical alliances, and unable to build its responses around anything except the same Powerian empty shriek of self-righteous human rights outrage.
Obama’s America has turned a cold impartial face to its allies, aspiring instead to become the vessel of international organizations while assigning its morality to an international committee. American foreign policy is under international management and that transfers its decision process from D.C. to an international network of committees incapable of doing anything except generating worthless reports and denouncing Israel
The United States was the ghost in the machine of the United Nations, but now that the United States is the United Nations, the United States has become the puppet of a puppet.
The weakness of multilateral diplomacy is that it strives to negotiate accommodations to the clashes of the moment without reference to past history or the trajectory of future conquests. This was a weakness that Hitler understood and exploited, reducing the issue to the current status of the Sudetenland or the Rhineland, rather than to past and future war aims. It was only when the Allies broke out of the diplomatic mindset of considering every Hitlerian conquest individually and debating the merits of defending Czechoslovakia, rather than anticipating the conquest of Poland, that real resistance to the Nazi war machine finally began.
Unfortunately the Allies failed to learn from history and accepted Stalin’s piecemeal takeovers at face value only waking up after much of the world had fallen under the Red Flag. It was President Eisenhower’s “Domino Theory” that assigned a value to each conquest not based on its own status, but its place in a chain of conquests in a struggle for regional dominance.
Sarah Palin understood in 2008 what the school of foreign policy “realists” did not, that Georgia was not significant in isolation but as a prerequisite to the invasion of Ukraine and likewise Ukraine should be understood in the context of an imperial territorial ambition that stretches far beyond its borders.
Whether or not we choose to oppose that ambition we should understand it on its own terms, rather than the media’s obsession with photogenic revolutions, the agenda of foreign policy experts seeking to turn America into a powerless multilateral shell and a liberal establishment that treats every international event as an opportunity to plump the praises of the inexperienced and incompetent leader that they foisted on the country with the equivalent of an American Idol audition.
The media gets behind anyone throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails in front of a camera lens as long as his target isn’t an authoritarian government of the left. Foreign policy experts who insisted that Putin wouldn’t go this far, now insist that he won’t go any farther. And the liberal establishment would cheer Obama’s leadership while an asteroid was colliding with the planet.
The United States should have a strong military, not so that it can use it, but so that it won’t need to use it. Military budget cuts send the message that we won’t intervene in international conflicts which makes it more likely that our enemies will start international conflicts and that some of those conflicts will drag us in anyway no matter how much of the fleet we mothball and how many transsexual dance troupes and gay weddings we host on what used to be the army bases of a world power.
Military weakness invites war, whether it was the British trying to face down Hitler with no bullets or Obama announcing another round of drastic defense cuts just before Putin rolled into Ukraine.
Diplomacy is only the art of saying “Nice doggie” until you find the stick if you were stupid enough to throw away the big stick in the first place. And then you had better hope that you are dealing with a very stupid dog that won’t gnaw your arm off before you can get at that stick.
The multilateralists believe that cutting the military will keep America from acting unilaterally and then their spokesmen are left with nothing to do except issue condemnations and draw red lines in the name of what used to be a world power. Human rights committee nuts like Samantha Power and anti-war boomers who never grew up like John Kerry end up causing more wars by combining empty rhetoric and inaction than they would if they either shut up or actually did something about it.
The United States should have clear commitments and agreements that it keeps, rather than randomly butting into every single conflict and human rights violation on the planet. Its leaders should decide whether they really are serious about Syria or Ukraine or any other place on earth that they issue press releases about and keep quiet about them if they are not.
And if they are serious, they should be ready to act with the same decisiveness that Vladimir Putin showed.
Despite all the accumulated multilateral rubbish in the corner, history isn’t made by nations defending international law, but acting on their own imperatives. Only a rogue nation that isn’t bound by the chains of multilateralism can take the unilateral action necessary to stop a rogue state.
The world isn’t a single state, there is no law that applies to every country, no independent government and no world police. There is only a wild frontier and a cowboy who rides into town now and then with a gun at his side and a law made up of his own moral codes in his heart. The entire structure of international law looks neat when written on a page, but isn’t worth a single bullet in his gun.
We’ve seen how it works when the cowboy puts on a three piece suit, locks up his gun in a safe controlled by a committee and spends all his time attending committee meetings. The committee gives him awards, but outside the committee hall there are the screams of men and women being killed and when a man with a gun comes for him, throwing the award at his head doesn’t help.
American cowboy diplomacy is the only defense that the civilized world has against commissar diplomacy, cossack diplomacy and caliphate diplomacy and that is something that more of the three piece suit diplomats who claim to care about human rights and weak nations ought to understand and respect that.
The United States can’t protect anyone when it’s functioning as a cog in the multilateral system. To do something meaningful, it has to go rogue.
the phoenix Said:
The answer is here in the Clip below. Answer begins from the 18 min mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf8AKSnyljY
the phoenix Said:
Of course.
the phoenix Said:
Yamit seems to have lots of problems with his root, a problem with which you are probably familiar.
@ yamit82:
(Agreed)
…. so would it be “realistic” or “pessimistic” to say that the situation is pretty f***d up?….
the phoenix Said:
I am not a fan of Palin and never was.
If she followed through on her rhetoric it would sink the American and world economies for good.
A- Reducing spending?
OK what will she reduce to have any impact on the debt? Entitlements? Military? Since ideologically she is opposed to military cuts only entitlements remain. What can she then cut Social Security? Medicare? are the two largest payouts. The people will rise up in collective rebellion over either.
Reduce Taxes? Then there will be budgetary deficits and she would have to either print dollars or borrow them. First inflationary and second deflationary.
Reducing Federal expenditures will also reduce the governments domestic expenditures like major purchases of autos insurance computers software essentially everything. Less consumer cash in circulation, less business activity,thousands of vacant rented real estate the government rents etc. Finally reduction of government spending will include reduction of the federal workforce adding to unemployment increasing those on by now reduced government entitlements which increase the fiscal obligations of the Federal government. Crime will increase and demand for more security requiring more police adding to State and local expenditures. A lot of the fallout will be dumped on the cash strapped states and local governments meaning reduced services higher state and local taxes and even bankruptcies.
Depression level global demand will reduce oil prices to where they were before 9/11 around $22, that will end the Fraking exploitation we see today in Canada and America. It will bust the Saudis, Iranians and Russians so probaly they will do what Bush did, take us to war, that’s always a game changer and keeps the money junkies from taking a hair cut. Palin seems naive (I am being generous and kind here) enough to follow in the Bush mold.
Americas economy based today on consumerism and consumer demand is the problem. You can’t have an economy that consumes and doesn’t produce. I don’t see how it can be reversed and even if it could the whole thing will collapse before. The American economy is a super mega Ponzi Scheme kept alive by new cheap money going into circulation with nothing to back it up. Fractual banking system
With such an economy and predictable Public push back I don’t think she would be able to implement her Gung Ho Rah Rah American foreign policy of extending American strength and power anywhere.
Military The size and strength of the military is a consequence of mission and having the wherewithal to carry it out. If you economy is in shambles what kind of mission and military can be the result. There is an axiom that when people have nothing left to lose they lose it.
Anyone who advocates policies in line with the same policies and interests of elites who make up the infamous 1% who own and control almost 60% of all the wealth in America should be suspect. Palin is one of those. I could write a long Essay on my critique and criticism of Libertarianism. The only thing separating Palin from a classical libertarian like Ron and Rand Paul is their views on application of American power through the military in foreign affairs.
The Fed will have to at some point raise interest rates to recoup as much of the 18-20 trillion dollars is digital money in circulation which will sink the economies around the word especially in the third world and emerging markets causing Defaults on Derivatives. Following tradition you will have currency wars, trade wars and finally hot wars.
Money Creation and Fractional Reserve Banking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ayg3hbhoM
@ honeybee:
Seems like BOTH yamit and I, are serving time in the penalty box… 🙁
Could we have some hamentashen?
Please?
@ yamit82:
Couldn’t agree more with this statement.
Obviously, this is purely hypothetical, but, were Sarah Palin the potus, what do you think would be overall situation specifically, re:
1. Economy (it seems quite moribund to me)
2. Foreign policy
3. Military
I guess it’s a bit of a roundabout way of wondering if there is still hope for the u. S. of a?
My comment to HB is in moderation. So much for Hexes 😛
honeybee Said:
Still on meds at least for the next few days.
Not my words, hit the links to the full Essay Prof Narrett Z’L is one of my favorites He was killed a few months ago in a hit and run in Vermont.
This is pure neo conservative bablum. The United States spends more on it’s military than all other nations combined. even downsizing and budget cutting as proposed by Obama won’t change that truism. What is cut and downsized is more relevant than the cuts themselves. Even if America has a Nuke arsenal half of that of Russia it can blow up the world several times over with what it has. The cost of maintaining such a large Nuke arsenal is the military budget of all of Europes budgets on their military combined. Should America spend tens of billions on aircraft carriers that can be sunk by cheap missiles fired from a distance with pin point accuracy of over 150 miles away? Should America develop aircraft too expensive to use and lose even in accidents no less during combat? F-35 costs over $200,000,000 per plane and even the UAF didn’t want them but was forced on them by congress bowing to pressures from military contractors and congressmen whose states benefit. There is so much waste and lack of strategic planning and management in the US Defense system that even if you take politics out of the equation some economic common sense should be a high priority. I could expand but I think my point is made.
What makes Russia and Putin so distressful to the conservatives in America is that he is believed ruthless enough to act on what he perceives is his and Russia’s interest using his limited but still hefty military. Putin may be at heart a Thug but one who thinks with some realism and knows what he wants. The west is afraid of Putin but not Iran? That’s curious.
America is far from weak with or without defense budget cuts and downsizing. It’s the leadership that counts re: deterrence and extending influence around the world, not if Americas has 20% less manpower and fewer ships. If you are not going to use them what does it matter? Only the ruthless are feared and respected by adversaries and enemies.
Modern warfare has become virtually too expensive to wage and certainly Russia ain’t got an economy that would allow them to wage a full scale modern war; at best they will take advantage of power vacuums and opportunities where they can be found to advance their perceived national interests. My question to all neo-cons is since Korea to Afghanistan counting all the wasted national treasure and lives of servicemen, what has America gained to justify such expenditures? How much of the expensive toys (hi-tec weapons) are worthless and have never been tested in real combat conditions to evaluate their effectiveness?
Comment to hb in moderation.
@ honeybee:
Honeybee dear, this seems to be a recurring episode, and it will continue to recur unless you get to the root of the problem… 🙁
(Pun intended)
yamit82 Said:
This sounds a bit? over wrought. Are taking tooth ache meds again.
AbbaGuutuu Said:
The True Clash of Civilizations
The UN, a creature of the Western powers facilitates world government and management of generic human inventory in the name of peace. The ‘Peace Process’ is an extension of “Trusteeship,” the “Morrison Plan” and other British-initiated world plans to manage the Jews and preempt the reemergence of their heritage and powerful tradition. This is necessary because the mania of the West, of “Esau, he is Edom” (Genesis 36) is CONTROL. He is the master of GAMES (“game was — and is — in his mouth”) and the West’s genius is the elaboration of games and fictions to secure control. His ultimate game, and the FICTION that formed Western Civilization is his obsession to appropriate the identity, prestige and place of his brother. Thus, the Church, all the churches from the beginning have laid claim to be the new and ‘real’ (virtual) Israel, to seize, under ‘color of law,’ its history, prestige, scriptures, teaching and law.
The beginning of the Post Modern project, the primal DECONSTRUCTION was Rome’s laying waste to Israel and then, as Greco-Roman culture totally collapsed, to appropriate and re-shape its derekh to suit its ideological imperialism under the name “Palestina” a Latinized corruption of the ancient Hebrew word pilishtim meaning “trespasser” or “invader.” This remains the obsession of the West and the reason it is disintegrating: the West is a long-running identity conflict, a foot of iron and clay (see Daniel), an unstable mixture that maintains hegemony by its games and fictions. In the postmodern era this is handled by the media that sells the lie and reaches the pinnacle of ephemera and unreality. Thus, uncomfortable with itself and haunted by guilt at its fictions that history steadily is unraveling, the West is essentially a culture of TERROR. The horror story and the apocalyptic books and films of our era testify to its strain and impending collapse when “the lie that [became] truth” is exposed as a lie.
Read more
This is just a wishful thinking under the current leftist (internationalist) US Government.