Mish, As with most of Friedman's stuff, I agree with very little of it. He always tries to look even-handed when he is actually patting Bush on the back, even if the pat is delivered in a backhanded manner. <G>
First, he misses the entire dynamic of The United Nations, as usual. In a world dominated by one aggressive super power, the existence of the UN as a place to express disagreement with that super power is vital. Bush has demeaned the UN, lied to its Security Council and General Assembly, and, then, basically told other coutries to play ball or suffer the consequences. He cut short the WMD inspectors' tours after pretending to allow them to do their jobs. He blamed Saddam for not revealing the WMD that did not exist. Other countries have figured out this is the way an imperialist nation excuses its aggression while Americans don't seem to have a clue.
The main place where Kerry differs is that, as a veteran who has seen combat, he knows it is not all glory and wearing fake medals, as Dubya believes. First, it is expensive in the lives of Americans and innocent foreigners and you don't bear that expense without a damned good reason. Since the cost in lives doesn't hit Bush's crowd, and he won't attend a soldier's funeral or read a newspaper, it isn't happening at all. Foreigners can see this lack of empathy and compassion in our leader and are secretly hoping we get someone with a bit more humanity at his core.
It is also expensive in monetary terms at the time the country is about to enter an economic crisis caused by Bush's tax cuts and unnecessary war. Bush's daddy went out of his way to prove the case against Saddam to Japan, Saudi Arabia and others and had them bear a lot of the monetary cost of the war. With Dubya, it is borrow and spend money we don't have. Many Europeans, especially, with their backgrounds in Austrian Economics, find this bizarre behavior. It is not old-fashioned to hold onto old alliances. It is cost effective. Bush, as a mental defective, doesn't get cost effectiveness.
The other point is the psychological one. When a true alliance as Kerry and Bush 41 envisioned, albeit led by US troops and technology, invade a country, it can be awesome, but not as scary to the rest of the world. A third world country can say, Saddam ticked off everyone and he's paying the price. We're not going to do what Saddam did and Russia, Japan and Germany can restrain America's military hawkishness to protect our sovereignty. When we effectively go it alone, which Bush has done for all intents and purposes, we are Hercules unchained and a perceived threat to everyone. And when the reasons we gave for invading Iraq turn out to be lies, the other countries can feel a big shadow looming over them.
So, the basic choice between Kerry and Bush is whether you have an effective, but logically derived response to terror or a bumbling, seat of the pants hitting out in all directions for no reason that scares the crap out of the rest of the world. East coast intellectuals are not the only ones who think that a super power that acts reasonably is a necessity to the rest of the world. I believe everyone thinks that except for foaming at the mouth neocons who want to fight small countries for fun. |
