Whats Next

Makes you wonder where the United States’ International Policy is going while hoping that it is finally maturing. In Liberia, demand was made that we get militarily involved; we told the locals to get involved before we would. They did, and we ended up providing minimal support as required.

When North Korea demanded that the US enter into bilateral discussions and guarantees, we said it was a regional matter, and we would get involved only if the locals were there in the beginning. They came forward, and we joined with them—not a bilateral discussion, but a multilateral one, a proper start to the discussions.

This new anti-grovel approach to American’s international policy is a long time in coming. This is a logical extension of the Bush policy of “you are either with us or against us.”

The time seems to have finally arrived when the locals will have to ask for US assistance, rather than demanding that the US get embroiled and then have us, as supplicants, calling on the international community to join in the fray. From now on, let it be the locals, the regionals, and the international communities who must first get involved in correcting or seeking to resolve conflicts in their areas, and then, if required, they can request the US to consider providing additional assistance. This, of course, should not impair America’s ability to undertake such other, unilateral, or a limited coalition action where US security interests are the subjects of concern.

The President made a vital speech calling for the introduction of democracy into the Middle East, running from Egypt to Israel to Iran, coast to coast. This created a disturbance among our “moderate” Arab friends who are dictators, have autocratic or theocratic kingdoms, or who maintain other controlling governments. It called for a neighborhood to provide the fertile ground to allow for a successful fight against terrorism.

The United States enunciated this concept of universality of a contributory purpose in the place of America carrying the police torch without question when it is demanded of us. We said that only those of the coalition who involved themselves in Iraq would be permitted to bid on and receive reconstruction contracts that involve the payment of American taxpayer monies. This policy came when the Quartet Nations [France, Germany and Russia] rejected contributions of police or peacekeeping personnel or monies toward the reconstruction of Iraq. It brought with it a deeply wounded Quartet condemning the United States for our affront and insult to cooperative internationalism by determining that only friends are entitled to participation in an economic benefit from US taxpayer-paid contracts. It should be noted, however, that, after we presented this action, a number of the Quartet Nations indicated that they might be willing to forgive portions of the pre-Saddam Iraqi debt owed to them. This confirms that our unfettered submission for the illusion of international support should no longer form the basis of America’s participation in future actions.

Another perfect example of the United States being taken is NATO. The European Union [EU] met without coming up with a constitution. They did, however, agree to reaffirm their intention to undertake the implementation of a European Rapid Deployment Force [RDF], which would be sort of parallel with NATO, but consist only of EU forces. It must be recognized that without the United States, its personnel, and military assets, there would have been no NATO defense force. We were on the Continent to defend our “Allies” against the Soviet Union. Right now there is no threat to the European Continent that requires us to be there. Also interesting to note is that the NATO second-in-command, a German Admiral, is in charge of helping to draw up the plans for a NATO RDF and is also designated by EU to put together the RDF for the EU. A true conflict of interest and the use of NATO resources [read US] to draw up and implement the EU RDF plan—pretty fancy footwork to maintain US assets and personnel on the Continent until they decide we are of no further value to them militarily or economically and throw us off the Continent.

The new anti-grovel approach should now be put into place to review all of the commitments imposed upon us or which were undertaken at some other nations’ request throughout the world and to re-evaluate and revise those commitments. If we continue our deployment, it must be with the equal commitment from that nation or regional forces with their assets put into play,          and after our determination that it would be in the best interest of the United States and of our security interests to be a willing participant. Neither our taxpayer money nor our military forces or assets should be gifted indiscriminately.

The concept of a two-war philosophy for American engagement is no longer feasible in a world of terrorist activity. We must look realistically to the world as it now exists and reconfigure our strategic approaches. The anti-grovel policy is a good beginning. After all, the old saying that there is a sucker born every minute should never be the basis for America’s entry into action.