President Bush does not argue that might is right. He argues that America has overwhelming might and that it is always right, because it is America. If the UN Security Council is to survive at all, it must survive in the post 9/11 world, as a kind of international supreme soviet, whose duty is to endorse the American view. Ditto Nato.
I think that is pretty simplistic, and inaccurate.
Bush argues that UN resolutions involving weapons of mass destruction ought to be enforced, particularly in light of the particular facts of what has occurred during these twelve years, and also in light of the demonstration on 9/11 of what a "weak" country can do to disrupt the civilization of ordinary working people.
Sure, his rhetoric is firm. IMO is should be firm, because it starts from a position where the Saddams of this world do not respect that we will enforce our agreements with them. Others may not like that; I personally think that is the best opportunity to achieve an important objective (removing Saddam from power so that he cannot further develop WMD that he agreed not to possess or develop) while not having a war (because Saddam at some point coming up may very well conclude that he can't stay and survive. Without Bush's leadership on this issue, we would be about to enter year 13 of Saddam flouting resolutions and developing whatever he pleases to project his power on civilians wherever he can reach them (as he has done in the past whenever the opportunity arose).
I know you don't agree with that, and that's fine. But I think it is unfair to label it as jingoistic.
The public in the UK was enthralled when Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich, BTW. Sometimes leadership is not about following the public, but by expressing different, reasoned ideas. The media and the opposition to Bush don't want to admit that is going on. But I think it is. |
