http://www.stormpages.com/fafa/bab/385187/index.html http://www.stormpages.com/fafa/private/029242208/samples.html http://www.stormpages.com/fafa/inco/sabguvs/insest.html appearcrossedhalls

Just wanted to point out that I already commented on Bush's "leadership" in my comments on this entry. Note specifically that MLK,Jr says that part of being a leader is being able to persuade others that yes, you are doing the right thing.

No, you won't be able to persuade everyone, but I think we could have had much better results if the Administration hadn't continually acted as though the war were fait accompli (I know, I know -- those derned French words) from the beginning, and that they were expecting the world to fall into line like good little children.

Arrogance breeds resentment. And yes, if you need to temper your speech in order to get the job done, then yes, you should temper your speech. That is, if getting the job done is more important to you than looking good or making a point.

We had much broader support for both Kosovo and Afghanistan than we do for this war. (I supported both, by the way. I think the military operation had some flaws, and I’m severely disappointed — though not surprised — by the way we’ve allowed Afghanistan to slide back into warlordism; but I was broadly in favor of both operations.)

As for whether what we’re doing is “right” —

First, when three people tell you you’re drunk, fall down. I’m not so arrogant as to assume that when everyone around me disagrees with me, they’re wrong and I’m right.

Second, even if, after due reflection (which I haven’t seen any evidence of), I conclude that I am right in this particular case, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I should act. Because discarding consensus sets a precedent that, I believe, is far more damaging in the long run than making the wrong decision in one instance. (This is why we have laws and courts, instead of superheroes.)

Third, even if I can talk everyone around to my point of view, there’s still the question of whether at this moment this really ought to be my highest priority and really is the most productive way I can spend my time.

David...despite the debate over the definitions of "isolated" with regard to the support of the people or their governments, isn't the more basic question (as Philip points out) whether or not this is the right thing to do?

If it is, should we do it even though we are isolated? Or should that matter?

One could say we were "isolated" with respect to intervention in Kosovo. You could say the same thing about Afghanistan. We did not have broad support or authority for either of those actions. Granted, neither of these instances were opposed by most of the world. But consider for a moment if they had been.

Would that have meant that we shouldn't have acted in both cases?

(Then again, perhaps you think both of those military actions were grave mistakes...)

>And we're going it "virtually alone"? Huh? I could
>have bought "without broad support from the
>international community" or "with less support than
>we'd like", but "virtually alone"? What's Britain,
>chopped liver? The U.S. government today released a
>list of 30 countries that plan to openly support the
>war effort against Saddam, including Japan, who have
>now signed on provisionally.

Many of their commitments are marginal at best. I believe only 3 are committing troops, and we don't have near the financial backing we had in 1991. I agree, though, "virtually alone" is a bit harsh.

>He then goes on to praise Clinton's slickness.
>Perhaps he's right, but would you rather have a
>leader with style or substance? Both would be nice,
>but if you had to pick?

There's the rub. And it's what has me most frustrated about this whole thing. If one takes the stance (which appears to be Zakaria's stance) that we're doing the right thing but selling it poorly, does that mean we should not hold the rest of the world accountable for not doing the right thing? Can France, Russia, Germany, etc. not figure out for themselves what to do without the U.S. saying "pretty please with sugar on it"?

blah, I won't get my copy of Newsweek until tomorrow night at the earliest and I really like Zacaria's pieces, so I usually avoid reading them ahead of time.

But I wanted to point out - he's no dove. He's only pointing out how any potential for goodwill toward America has been squandered recently. A few weeks ago he wrote a piece that I disagreed with very much because it essentially stated that if the U.S. pulled out of the Gulf after so much build up a lot of political capital would be lost. You might like to read it. Personally, I still found the arguement morally-weak since it advocates violence over losing face.

But anyway...Zacarias is a very good writer.

I would say that if the people don’t support us, but their governments do, then yes, we are isolated, and in the only way that counts, as far as I’m personally concerned. It’s not of any great importance to me whether we can count on Bulgaria’s support in agricultural trade negotiations with the EU; it’s much more important to me to be able to look my English and Japanese and Malaysian and Korean and Canadian and French friends in the eye.

If what you’re concerned with is Kissingerian realpolitik, then it’s not the people that count; it’s the governments. When dealing with a democracy you perhaps have a higher risk that the friendly government will be “overthrown” as a result of supporting you, but by and large, democracies are no different from dictatorships in your calculations.

Your point about expecting leaders to lead is a good one. But I’m not sure we (or most of our allies) have leaders who can do that; I think we haven’t for decades. What we have now is leaders adept at spin control. That’s great as long as the fickle public opinion you’re dealing with is about superficial issues. It’s worse than useless when it’s about deep-seated resentments and prejudices. Over the long term, what a dominant America needs is for these leaders to sell their people not just on the invasion of Iraq, but on American hegemony — and if we try to rule by fear, instead of establishing mutual respect, we’re not even giving them a plausible sales pitch.

Hell, no one’s convinced me that American hegemony is a good thing, and I’m supposed to benefit from it. Why should I expect Aznar to convince the Spaniards?

"would you rather have a leader with style or substance? Both would be nice, but if you had to pick?"

Well, subtance would obviously be the choice here, but what about those of us who believe Bush has neither style nor substance? Personally, I am ashamed of my country every time I listen to that moron speak in public. I don't think any person can agree with every choice a President makes, but at least Clinton could speak intelligently. Bush doesn't make decisions I agree with and he has less charisma than the can of Coke sitting on my desk.

Well, look on the "bright" side (using the term loosely, of course): if Saddam uses chemical weapons on US troops, then that'll change everything for France.