Charles Krauthammer is a brilliant strategic thinker who came of age during the defeat and implosion of the Soviet empire. He, along with fellow so-called neo-conservatives, recognized the obsolescence of the shared intellectual framework upon which U.S. foreign policy rested since WWII, Realpolitik. They also recognized the dangers of disengagement that became so abundantly evident in the 1920-1930s interregnum. As a result, they looked to two overwhelming but often disregarded, pieces of evidence as the touchstones for forging a new intellectual framework, 1. engagement of peoples in democratic political processes is a net benefit to those people and those around them, and 2. the wildly successful Marshall Plan/NATO development of Europe into the modern day European Economic and Political Community. Thus was born an intellectual framework upon which foreign policy sought to avoid major wars that kill tens of millions, which had repeatedly grown out of fratricidal strife.
The neocons recognize that communications and transportation technology, modern weaponry and global economic interdependence have rendered the flashpoints to major war as being increasingly short. As such, they recognize that defusing such situations, while being politically costly, is a strategic and moral imperative.
Engagement in Iraq is the first major test of that thinking. Saddam Hussein, a creation of Realpolitik, was the poster boy for its obsolescence. His shaky regime, sitting on vast oil wealth and having clearly demonstrated expansionist tendencies, was an obvious flashpoint to major world war. Although less obvious, the implosion of his regime, was even more dangerous, and more readily probable, than his expansionism. The Iranians, long coveting Iraq’s southern oilfields, would eventually make their move to take them. (Saddam maintained the WMD ruse to counter just that eventuality.) Upon the collapse of Saddam’s regime, the Kurds would have bid for independence. This would have unleashed the fury of the Turks, who will never allow an independent Kurdistan. The Turks would have crushed the Kurds and (re)taken Iraq’s northern oilfields (which once had been theirs) in the process. The overwhelming probability is that a far wider war would have developed, disrupting daily oil flow from the Middle East and grinding the world economy to a resource-starved halt.
I’ll leave the likely ensuing cascade of events, and the probable cost in human life, to your imagination. Prevention of major war, and reduction in the probability of major war, is of such overwhelming importance as to render whether Europeans like me when I travel to Europe petty and schoolgirlish to the point of utter nonsense. Charles Krauthammer understands that. Much of the current popular attitude, both here and abroad, does not. Unfortunately, Barack Obama and the Democrat party are more attuned to the petty and schoolgirlish aspects of foreign policy decisions than they are to the dangers.
|
Leslie Gargan
Los Angeles, CA | Posted at 8:44pm on Saturday, December 15th, 2007 |
Charles is a paradox ... a brilliant essayist and spokeperson for neo-conservatism (this week), what political persuasion will he embrace next? Charles is a work in progress; considering the damage that the current crop of neocons have wrought internationally in forging our foreign policy (Iraq & Iran, anyone?), let's hope he returns to genuine conservatism ... the Teddy Roosevelt variety, in which true conservatism was synonymous with conservationism. (Teddy is rolling in his grave as he observes the huge forest reserves he set aside -- our national park system -- with the proviso they were not to be exploited and sold to the highest biddersin a new corporate culture.
Welcome to the Gilded Age, Part II, Charles.
Leslie Gargan
P.S. I recently returned from an extended trip to Europe. If you decide to cross the pond soon, pass yourself off as Canadian. Trust me on this.
|
