In a world without a superpower
Mark Steyn gently explains the geopolitical consequences of the Democrats' approach to foreign policy, with special reference to Iraq.
Being a superpower carries responsibilities with it. Being the world's only superpower carries even greater responsibilities. Moonbats and isolationist paleoconservatives alike fail to understand that non-intervention is not an option. Neither is "multilateralism" much of an answer as long as the international community is unwilling to take decisive action to do much of anything.
In a world increasingly full of spiteful and largely irrational anti-Americanism, the impulse to pull back to our own shores and let the world stew in its own juices is overwhelming. The rhetoric of America-haters around the world (including in countries we've traditionally thought of as friendly) claims that it would welcome such a development.
But only the fanatics and the utter fools among them really would. Whether or not they agree specifically with our involvement in Iraq, they know very well that we are all that stands between the world and chaos.
However politically expedient it might be for some to grouse about it, and however heavy the responsibility may be at times, we have no ethical option but to bear the burden. And whether they'll admit it or not, the international community is glad that we're there to do it.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Being a superpower carries responsibilities with it. Being the world's only superpower carries even greater responsibilities. Moonbats and isolationist paleoconservatives alike fail to understand that non-intervention is not an option. Neither is "multilateralism" much of an answer as long as the international community is unwilling to take decisive action to do much of anything.
In a world increasingly full of spiteful and largely irrational anti-Americanism, the impulse to pull back to our own shores and let the world stew in its own juices is overwhelming. The rhetoric of America-haters around the world (including in countries we've traditionally thought of as friendly) claims that it would welcome such a development.
But only the fanatics and the utter fools among them really would. Whether or not they agree specifically with our involvement in Iraq, they know very well that we are all that stands between the world and chaos.
However politically expedient it might be for some to grouse about it, and however heavy the responsibility may be at times, we have no ethical option but to bear the burden. And whether they'll admit it or not, the international community is glad that we're there to do it.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments