Winning the Future: the world without US leadership
How’s that hope and change and post-American empire?
• Even as opposition leaders were asking for help, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the world on Thursday that Gadhafi is likely to win in the long-term. The Administration scrambled to say this was merely a factual judgment about the balance of military power, but the message couldn’t be clearer to any of Gadhafi’s generals who might consider defecting: Do so at your peril because you will join the losing side.
We could go on, but you get the idea. When the U.S. fails to lead, the world reverts to its default mode as a diplomatic Tower of Babel. Everyone discusses “options” and “contingencies” but no one has the will to act, while the predators march.
This was true in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s until the U.S. shamed Europe and NATO into using force with or without a U.N. resolution. And it has been true in every case in which the world finally resisted tyrants or terrorists, from the Gulf War to Afghanistan to Iraq. When the U.S. chooses to act like everyone else, the result is Rwanda, Darfur and now Libya.
That’s the Wall St. Journal.
I remember the 90’s with the war in Bosnia and Kosovo. We still have troops over there. Now I was against US involvement because: A) no oil, B) it’s Europe’s backyard and C) who cares? (see A)
The media cared. While they tugged on heartstrings and “sold the war” (before the 2003 Iraq invasion, the Balklands were the first war sold by the media). Then the media played up civilian casualties as America stood on the sidelines. Two massacres occurred while UN forces watched.
The US finally got involved and the war was over. Leadership in action.
Dictators will learn that the way to keep America from acting is to keep its diplomats and citizens around, while mowing down your opponents as the world debates contingencies.
btw: “American Professor Kidnapped in Mexican Border City” Fox News