SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (77432)2/25/2003 12:11:51 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
Derbyshire points out that "Frog Bashing" is fed to us with our Shakespeare. NRO.

All-Vapouring France
Swan bashes frogs.

All this anti-French commentary these past few weeks has stirred warm feelings of nostalgia in my breast. This is my home territory; this is stuff I know. Frog-bashing is only an occasional and desultory pleasure for Americans, but growing up in England, I took in Francophobia with my mother's milk.

"With my father's cigarette smoke" would be more accurate. My mother actually held no strong opinions on the matter. "They let us down in the War," she would say when the subject of the French came up, but in a tone more of sorrow than anger. A gentle and kindly person, my mother bore no large resentments. The great fount of anti-French feeling in the Derbyshire family was my father. In his youth Dad had had some intimate encounters of the military type with both France, as ally, and Germany, as enemy. Those encounters had left him with an abiding admiration for the Germans and a deep loathing of the French. My earliest mental map of the world included the facts, which I took to be as indisputable as the Laws of Thermodynamics, that the Germans, though they might sometimes get above themselves and need keeping in check, were basically sound, while the French, though we had to go to their aid every so often in order to prevent the Germans overrunning everything, were scum. Dad spent his declining years writing furious letters to the newspapers denouncing the European Common Market (fore-runner of the EU), which he saw as a cunning plot on the part of the French to strip Englishmen of their birthright and their money ? to obtain by guile what Louis XIV and Napoleon had been unable to get by force.

My father was drawing on a deep reservoir of anti-French feeling among his countrymen. Readers of Patrick O'Brian's novels will recall that English sailors of the early 19th century were summoned to meals by a drummer beating out the rhythm of "The Roast Beef of Old England." This song long pre-dated Napoleon. Written by Richard Leveridge in 1735, it is a critical commentary of the England of that time. It begins:

When Mighty Roast Beef was the Englishman's food
It ennobl'd our veins and enrichéd our Blood.
Our Soldiers were Brave & our Courtiers were Good:
Chorus: Oh! the Roast Beef of old England,
And old English Roast Beef.

The second verse gets down to business:

But since we have learned from all-vapouring France,
To eat their Ragouts, as well as to Dance,
We are fed up with nothing but vain Complaisance.
Chorus: Oh! the Roast Beef... Etc.**

Thus we see that 200 years ago the basic image of the French as a nation of effeminate dancing-masters who eat mush was already well established in the Anglo-Saxon world-view.

This was by no means the beginning of it, though. A couple of lifetimes earlier, William Shakespeare had his first commercial success with the play we know as Henry VI Part I, one of the most anti-French works in all of English literature. This play is not often staged. I myself have never seen it. The version done for the BBC Complete Shakespeare is said to be very good, and I have it on my to-buy list, but at present I know the play only from reading it, and from reading about it in Peter Saccio's wonderful little classic Shakespeare's English Kings.

The main point of the play is to show the origins of the Wars of the Roses. This sorry business was a distant consequence of the fact that Edward III, who ruled England through the middle years of the 14th century, had too many sons. The trick of medieval kingship was to leave behind you precisely one healthy and strong-willed male heir to carry on the dynasty. Less than one, or more than one, spelled trouble. Edward Plantagenet over-egged the pudding, producing five healthy sons, two of whom ? the Duke of Lancaster ("John of Gaunt" in Shakespeare) and the Duke of York ? engendered mini-dynasties of their own. The subsequent tensions were kept fairly well under control so long as there was a strong king in charge; but when Henry VI ascended to the throne in 1422 at the age of nine months, things began to go awry. Henry grew up to be bookish and weak-willed, and in the third quarter of the 15th-century England descended into civil war between the House of York and the House of Lancaster, whose emblems were a white rose and a red rose, respectively.

The good news about all this discord is that it provided Shakespeare, writing at the end of the 16th century, with material for eight fine plays. Henry VI Part I is usually reckoned as the first of the eight to have been written, though there are the inevitable scholarly wrangles about this. We actually have a review from August 1592 of what is almost certainly this play.

Though the lead-up to the Wars of the Roses forms the principal theme of the play, the tail-end of the Hundred Years' War between England and France is also acted out onstage. The horror of political disorder that runs through all of Shakespeare's work is clearly visible here in his picture of squabbling, scheming English aristocrats bringing the nation to ruin. The particular ruin they bring England to in Henry VI Part I is the loss of the "first British Empire" ? the possessions in France that English kings had laid claim to, with various degrees of plausibility, for three centuries, that had actually been fought over pretty continuously since the early years of Edward III, and that the glorious campaigns of Henry V in 1415-22 had made into firm stepping-stones towards the conquest of all France.

Showing these losses, however, presented Shakespeare with difficulties of presentation. His countrymen were flushed with national pride following the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. How could he display the disasters in France 160 years earlier to an audience full of a sense of their nation's invincibility? The dissensions of the English nobles gave him one hook to hang his story on. See what happens when we quarrel among ourselves. For the other, he drew a scathing picture of the French as wily cowards, who basically won by cheating and witchcraft. See what happens when you deal with the French as people of honor.

There are no good French people in this play at all. Every one of them is arrogant, or crafty, or duplicitous, or in league with "fiends." One of the French principals bears the name "Bastard of Orleans." All their victories are won by tricks, or by the use of unfair, un-gentlemanly weapons like cannon. Most scandalous of all to French sensibilities is Shakespeare's portrayal of the French national heroine and saint, Joan of Arc. In Henry VI Part I Joan is a scheming slut who dabbles in the black arts. "Search out thy wit for secret policies, And we will make thee famous through the world," hisses the Bastard to Joan after the loss of Rouen. She goes off to consult her "fiends."

The play is full of sentiments to gladden the heart of any Francophobe. Just 25 lines into the first act, here is the Duke of Exeter at the funeral of Henry V:

...Shall we curse the planets of mishap
That plotted thus our glory's overthrow?
Or shall we think the subtile-witted French
Conjurers and sorcerers, that, afraid of him,
By magic verses have contrived his end?

Later the French take Rouen by a sly ruse of Joan's, then lose it by cowardice. Scoffs the English hero, Lord Talbot, in between the gain and the loss:

...Base muleteers of France!
Like peasant footboys do they keep the walls
And dare not take up arms like gentlemen.

When the Duke of Burgundy, up to this point an ally of England's, is seduced away to the French side by Joan of Arc, she thanks him with a line that would get as good a laugh from Jonah Goldberg as it must have got from the Elizabethan audience:

Done like a Frenchman ? [aside] turn and turn again.

Henry VI himself, in Paris for his coronation, warns his nobles to:

...remember where we are,
In France, among a fickle wavering nation.

After the decisive English loss at Bordeaux, the French Dauphin greets an English emissary with: "On what submissive message art thou sent?" The Englishman replies haughtily:

Submission, Dauphin? 'Tis a mere French word.
We English warriors wot not what it means.

There is even a gratuitous swipe at the Belgians. A messenger, reporting on an attempt to assassinate Talbot, tells us the dirty deed was done by "a base Walloon" who, "to win the Dauphin's grace, Thrust Talbot with a spear into the back."

That the Bard could make free with all this Frog-bashing was the more remarkable in that at the time he was writing, England and France were allies, with Spain their common enemy. France had given no trouble to the English for decades, having been consumed by her own wars of religion and a bloody change of dynasty. In 1592, when Henry VI Part I appeared, the jovial and capable Henri IV, first of the Bourbons, had title to the French crown. He was a Protestant, which made him popular with the English, and English soldiers were actually in the field with him, fighting to help him take Paris, which was in the hands of a Catholic faction. Henri's victory over Catholic forces at the Battle of Ivry in 1590 had been cheered in England; the British Museum has a copy of a printed song-sheet sold in the streets of London to celebrate the occasion. Elizabeth I sent Henri gifts ? a scarf she had made herself, and an emerald ? and addressed him in letters (written in her own hand, in her own excellent French) as "dearest brother." She signed herself off as "your very assured good sister and cousin."

The Queen regarded Henri as an insurance policy against England's worst nightmare: a grand Catholic alliance between France and Spain. When he cynically turned Catholic in 1593 with the famous remark that "Paris is worth a mass," neither Elizabeth nor her countrymen held it against him, and the two nations remained on cordial terms until the Franco-Spanish alliance of the late 1620s, ten years after Shakespeare's death. (It was Henri IV, by the way, who is supposed to have planned the "Grand Design" for a Franco-German Christian republic, with a council of Europe to discuss affairs of common interest ? a first draft, if you like, of the European Union.)

All of which goes to prove that frog-bashing requires no actual excuse, and can be enjoyed at any time, with the support of no less an authority than the Swan of Avon. When the French actually do go out of their way to vex the Anglosphere, as they did recently in the U.N. Security Council, there is no reason to restrain ourselves at all. All those jokes you have been hearing this past few weeks about French treachery and pusillanimity ? "French rifle for sale; almost new; only thrown down in surrender twice..." ? have a long and respectable pedigree. Go ahead, enjoy yourself. Did you hear that the French government has banned fireworks at Euro Disney? They are afraid that the sounds of the explosions might cause soldiers at a nearby French army garrison to surrender.

nationalreview.com



To: JohnM who wrote (77432)2/25/2003 12:26:18 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 281500
 
Meanwhile, back in Cuba. The Anti-Castro Miamians say Castro isn't a Commie. NRO

February 25, 2003, 9:10 a.m.
Straight Talk from Miami

As recipients of the print magazine know, I have a piece in the current issue on the Diaz-Balart brothers of Miami. I?m speaking of Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart. They are Cuban-Americans ? ?100 percent Cuban and 100 percent American,? as their father describes them. Lincoln was elected in 1992; Mario was elected only last November. I recommend that you read the piece in NR, not because I?m so great, mind you, but because the Diaz-Balart brothers are so interesting.

But I have some additional material I?d like to share with you here in Impromptus.

The Diaz-Balarts, like all Cuban-Americans, are dismayed at the persistent pro-Castroism among American elites, particularly in academia, the media, and Hollywood. It would be one thing if these elites merely ignored Cuba; but they weigh in actively for the regime, providing it endless cover. Castro plays the American press like a violin, the brothers note, giving the ?eight-hour treatment? to Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell, and the like. ?He doesn?t give this treatment to just anyone,? says Lincoln. ?He has to suspect that you?ll fall for it.?

And yet, the brothers insist, Americans in general still recognize Castro for what he is. ?They know he?s a tyrant,? says Lincoln, ?even though they?ve heard nothing but positive things about him for 40 years.?

Of particular sadness is Castro?s success at playing the race card. He?s got much of this country believing that he has been good for black Cubans. (I once did a piece on this subject: ?In Castro?s Corner: A story of black and red.?) ?Castro learned very early on the power of the race issue,? Lincoln Diaz-Balart explains. ?His sociological base was always elite, anti-Republic, and racist.? The dictator Batista was actually a mulatto, and Castro was the Spaniards? ?Great White Hope.? As dictator, Castro has instituted a system of apartheid, whereby only foreigners and certain carefully vetted Cubans can enter particular hotels, hospitals, and beaches. Furthermore, many of the leading political prisoners and oppositionists are black. Castro?s reputation as a racial liberal and redeemer seems a cruel, ghastly joke to the Diaz-Balarts.

On the subject of racial politics: When Lincoln first arrived in Washington, he joined the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Then, however, the chairman of the caucus made a visit to Cuba. As Lincoln tells it, he and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ? another Cuban-American congressman ? asked the chairman to make a statement in favor of free elections and democracy. They didn?t ask him to agree with the Miami Cubans or to support U.S. policy ? merely to favor freedom. The chairman (Xavier Becerra of California) refused. He did the usual buttering up to Castro.

Afterward, Diaz-Balart and Ros-Lehtinen asked the caucus to issue a statement saying, simply, that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus favored democracy and freedom for all peoples ? no mention of Cuba, no mention of Castro. Just freedom anywhere and everywhere. The caucus refused. ?So Ileana and I said, ?We have to leave.?? They will not return until the caucus finds itself capable of acting like democrats. Lincoln isn?t optimistic. Mario Diaz-Balart isn?t joining.

At this point, let me give you a little Q&A, with Lincoln. I interviewed both Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart in Lincoln?s congressional office. Mario had to cut out, however, and I chewed it over, at length, with Lincoln. Here are some excerpts, varied and in no conscious order.

JN: Castro was once married to your aunt, and they had one child, Fidelito [who was sent to the Soviet Union to be communized]. How old would he be now?

LD-B: Let?s see: He?d be 53.

JN: Have you ever met him?

LD-B: As a little kid ? but I left [Cuba] when I was four years old. I?ve never spoken to him; I?ve never attempted to reach him. He was out of favor for a while, but now, apparently, he?s back in. He?s part of that whole oppressive system.

JN: You?re quite exercised that Castro?s relation to international terrorism is not widely known.

LD-B: Nothing about Castro is widely enough known! Sure: Castro has had relationships with ETA, FARC, the IRA, the Arab extremists. The IRA trained the Colombians in Cuba. Hezbollah trained in Cuba to blow up that Jewish center in Argentina.

JN: Are you happy with President Bush?s Latin America policy?

LD-B: Well, I?ll tell you this: With regard to Latin America, I don?t think Secretary Powell has been sufficiently in tune with what?s going on. The general strike in Venezuela has just been broken by Chavez. His government has a legitimacy of origin ? it was elected ? but Chavez lost that democratic legitimacy long ago. You lose it through your daily conduct. Plenty of other people have been elected and turned out not to be democratic. Colombia needs more help, more attention, more emphasis. So it?s not just Cuba. There?s an inertia in the United States that ignores this hemisphere.

I like the instincts of President Bush. Whenever a problem reaches his desk, he decides it in the correct manner. I?m concerned about the fact that information about Cuba is not reaching him. It?s not reaching the highest echelons of policymaking. There?s a serious problem in the intelligence community. We should have seen this when [Ana] Montes [the Cuban spy] was discovered. This is not merely an issue of the Cubans [the Cuban-Americans and Cuban democrats] crying wolf. When we see that the Cuban regime continues to harbor terrorists, as very few governments in the world do, and the information does not get to senior policymakers, we realize that the problem is very serious.

I?ve had an opportunity to speak to senior policymakers. And I have confirmed that they do not receive information with regard to the nature and conduct of the Cuban regime.

JN: Is it that the information is not being obtained or that it is being suppressed?

LD-B: Suppressed. One of the best things about this job is that it?s a constant education. So what I?ve told you now ? which I have not told any other interviewer ? is not something I would have been able to tell you a few years ago. A few years ago, I was convinced that the problem was Clinton. But this administration ? the present administration ? is very security-conscious. And even now, information is not making its way up. I can?t tell you that there are other spies about. I can tell you, however, that information is not reaching the top.

JN: The CIA is always thought of as a nest of right-wingers and hard-liners. Of course, that?s a laugh.

LD-B: Yes, and not just the CIA. Would you like to know something? Even the Pentagon has this problem.

JN: The Pentagon? But that?s always thought of as a redoubt of hard-liners and right-wingers.

LD-B: Yeah, I know. But when you talk to certain people in the Pentagon, you might think you were on a typical liberal college campus. I?m talking about the professional students ? the ones who haven?t seen much combat but who have a lot of Ph.D.s. When you talk to them, you can?t tell any difference between them and the standard left-wingers on campus. Very strange. I wouldn?t have been able to tell you that a few years ago.

JN: Why are you so supportive of Israel?

LD-B: I almost feel Zionist, in many ways. First of all, I have a special admiration for Maimonides. He was born in Spain in the 12th century. An incredible guy. I?ve read a lot of him. He simply gets it. And, as far as Israel is concerned, I just admire the Jews for surviving as a people. After 1,800 years in exile, they founded a modern nation in their ancestral land. They fought back from the Holocaust. They are a democracy. I find that admirable, that?s all.

JN: How?s assimilation going in Miami? Are people speaking English there?

LD-B: It?s interesting. What you see in Miami is a couple of things. It?s a gateway to, and the capital of, Latin America. You find businessmen speaking Spanish in the boardrooms; you don?t just hear it in the mailrooms. It?s a place where, by virtue of the fact that Latin Americans feel comfortable there, they are present in ever-growing numbers, from the entire hemisphere. Miami is constantly evolving, changing. Thus you?re going to hear a lot of Spanish. People are in touch with their homelands, and they watch television in Spanish.

But the kids of people who have been here for a while? The same thing is happening with them that has happened with kids from all over the world. Cuban-American kids feel reverence for the land of their fathers. They know about the horror, they feel the pain, they feel the passion, on the issue ? but they?re American.

JN: Is the Miami Herald the 800-pound gorilla?

LD-B: Look: We have the ability to get 75 percent of the vote. That?s what I got the last time I had an opponent, and I?ve only had one in six elections. I?ve ignored the Herald, and the Herald has ignored me. That?s okay. It?s a strongly Democratic paper.

JN: My impression, though, is that it?s better than the New York Times or the Boston Globe.

LD-B: You get that impression because they cover Cuba, and no one else does. They sort of have to. But they?re really, really slanted. Biased. We can get around them, however, because we have Spanish television and Spanish radio. They?re more balanced. I really feel sorry for people like Clay Shaw and other Republican Anglos. I don?t know how they survive.

JN: A Cuban-American friend of mine once told me, ?You know, it takes a martyr-level courage even to function as a decent human being in Cuban society? ? not to steal, not to inform, not to sell sexual favors, not to buy them, not to lie.

LD-B: Oh, yes: ?the internal policeman inside every Cuban.? It?s a horrendous thing.

Do you know Vickie Ruiz?

JN: No.

LD-B: She?s in Miami now, with her kids. Her story made a great impact on me. Just to think what she did . . . She had the courage to do something decent in a society where decency isn?t respected by the totalitarian system. I don?t know that I could have done it. I live here, in a free society. Vickie Ruiz is a heroine. She said, where she worked, ?This is wrong. This society is wrong. We have to do something about it.?

The next day, her kids were in school ? nine and seven. The teacher said, ?I?m sorry to inform the class that we have two children here whose mother?s a whore and a CIA agent. So, I ask all of you to express yourselves to them, to show them how despicable they are.?

So they get home, and they say, ?Mom, why?d you do that to us? Don?t you love us??

And that night, they start hearing things, in the neighborhood. Vickie Ruiz was a woman alone, with two kids. They start hearing things. And a truck comes up, carrying manure. The manure is dumped onto the house. They start smelling it. They?re scared. Excrement. It?s covering the house.

They wake up the next morning, and the pets ? dogs ? they?re decapitated. And you know what else? All the pets in the neighborhood are decapitated.

JN: Oh, yes: make it even worse for them by involving the entire neighborhood!

LD-B: Exactly. The whole block was punished. That sent the message, ?You?d better not have any dissidents in this neighborhood.?

But Vickie Ruiz is now in Miami with her two kids, and they?re wonderful.

JN: The media won?t cover Cuba, will they?

LD-B: No. Not even Fox. You ever see anything on Fox? We could certainly use some journalists who can tell the American people what?s going on 90 miles away.

JN: Some of the Cuban dissidents I know say CNN is the worst. Who is that woman in charge of the Havana bureau? Lucia Newman?

LD-B (shaking his head): She?s almost in a category by herself.

JN: It would be better to have Castro deposed than to allow him to die in office, wouldn?t it?

LD-B: Of course. No one wants a monster like that to die in power. That?s his only goal: to die in power. It?s kind of a sickening goal, but he has no goal with regard to family, with regard to personal relationships, with regard to love. Even Franco ? I don?t defend Franco, who was a dictator and murderer ? but I?ll give you one big difference between Franco and Castro: Franco loved his country. He loved Spain.

This fellow Castro is incapable of love. He hates the Cuban people. Despises the Cuban people. And it all comes from his earliest years. My father told me about this. [Castro and the Diaz-Balarts? father were best friends, in university days ? this is explained in the magazine piece.] He used to go to Castro?s place, in the summer, during vacation. Castro hated his father and mother. And he learned hatred from them. He saw that his father would bring over indentured servants, and before he had to pay them, he would kill them. Bam, bam. He controlled the rural guard in the area, so nothing would happen. The mother packed a pistol. They had a lot of money. Not only did he despise his parents, he learned Al Capone-ism from them.

JN: The Castro parents sound terrible.

LD-B: Disgusting. Disgusting.

It was a fascinating thing for my father, who would go out to the family?s house. It took a long, long time to get there. It was the ?wild, wild East,? as we called it. You get there, and there?s this big house, a lot of money, and the animals occupied the bottom floor, and the house was on top of the animals. You go to the kitchen, and Castro says, ?You can eat all you want.? There are a couple of cows strung up. You take a machete. ?Wanna get yourself a steak? Cut yourself a steak ? whatever you want.? There?s no furniture in the kitchen. Just a table. You eat standing up. Yet they had tons of cash. They were living like animals, but they were very wealthy.

Anyway, the thing is, the difference with Castro is that, unlike other dictators who have done horrible things, he doesn?t love his country. At least the others don?t hate their country. He hates his country. He?s a hater. Just a hater.

JN: But he must love communism, right? The international struggle?

LD-B: No, no! He?s never been a communist! Never! He?s an opportunist. The ultimate opportunist. He has no love for communism ? he loves only himself.

JN: That?s almost worse than being a dedicated communist. At least the communists believe in something.

LD-B: That?s what my parents say. Raul, now [Raul Castro, the dictator?s brother, who is his defense minister and alleged successor] ? Raul is a dedicated communist. He believes all the stuff about the proletariat, class warfare, and so on. He has an ideology, a system. But not Castro. His only ideology is to die in power ? to ?die with my boots on.? And after him, who cares?

JN: Castro must have some talents, yes? Some evil talents?

LD-B: He was able to organize the totalitarian state, but you have to remember that he had the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union gave him a franchise. It?s sort of like McDonald?s ? Castro was the recipient of a communist franchise. And a lot of what he has is franchised East German stuff.

JN: Are you optimistic at all about Cuba?

LD-B: [Congressman] Chris Cox was telling me, we have to take advantage of the post-Soviet, post-Clinton era. Right after the Soviet Union imploded, we had Clinton. For eight years. So only now do we have a real opportunity. That?s why it has been frustrating, getting the right information to our top policymakers. The good news is, whenever you talk to the president of the United States about this issue, his instincts are right. Right-on.
nationalreview.com



To: JohnM who wrote (77432)2/26/2003 4:58:07 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
A war that lacks a financial strategy

By Laura D'Andrea Tyson
Editorial
The Financial Times
Published: February 24 2003 20:07

The Bush administration is poised to unleash war in Iraq as the first demonstration of its muscular new foreign policy. According to the "Bush doctrine", military force can be used pre- emptively to attack nations judged to pose significant future threats; and to replace despots with freedom-loving democrats who espouse those moral values George W. Bush assures us are "the same in every culture, in every time and in every place". His bold agenda is made possible by America's overwhelming military power. But it also reflects a moral certitude where none should exist and lacks a financial strategy where one is essential.

Predictably, Mr Bush's most recent budget calls for another huge increase in military expenditure. But initially it did not include money to honour his commitment to help rebuild Afghanistan. Only when this omission was exposed was $300m added for this purpose. Nor does the budget cover the costs of war in Iraq or of occupation, humanitarian aid and reconstruction. According to William Nordhaus of Yale University such postwar costs could reach $100bn-$600bn over the next decade. No wonder some officials are already claiming Iraq must pay for its own reconstruction. And no wonder Turkey is sceptical that Washington will honour its offer of a $26bn aid package in exchange for its support for the war. After all, that package is also missing from the Bush budget.

What is in the budget is another round of massive tax cuts worth $1,500bn over the next decade. Even excluding long-term Social Security and Medicare liabilities, the budget projects a large deficit that will persist long after a war in Iraq is over and the economy has recovered. Based on the administration's own questionable assumptions about economic growth and lower real per capital spending on almost everything other than defence and homeland security, this budgetary imbalance is likely to reach $2,000bn over 10 years. This is exactly when the federal government should be building surpluses to cover its promises to future pensioners. A more responsible set of assumptions would make the shortfall substantially larger.

How does the administration plan to finance these mammoth deficits? Notwithstanding its unilateralist claims that America's destiny should not depend on decisions made by an "illusory international community", the White House is implicitly assuming that the rest of the world will foot a sizeable share of the bill. The US already absorbs about 5 per cent of the world's savings. It borrows about $200m from the rest of the world each day to cover its savings gap. The Bush budget will increase that gap to as much as 9 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade. Will the rest of the world be willing to cover a gap of this size and, if so, on what terms? There is no reason to think the US will find itself in a buyer's market.

Indeed, there are already worrying signs that foreigners are beginning to reduce their massive holdings of dollars and dollar-denominated assets. As this adjustment takes hold, the dollar is beginning to weaken. It declined briefly during the last Gulf war and rallied when the war was over. But at that time, the US current account deficit was less than 2 per cent of GDP. President George Bush Snr had already been forced to break his promise not to raise taxes so as to reassure global capital markets that the US was acting to reduce its structural budget deficit.

Now, with the US much more reliant on foreign savings, his son clearly intends to increase these deficits. Meanwhile, the president's economic advisers are trying to convince the markets that deficits do not really matter. However, this time the costs of war, together with the Bush budget and foreign policy agenda, may well trigger a sustained decline in the dollar and a reduction in America's ability to borrow from the rest of the world.

Americans face painful choices. Structural deficits will mean more expensive imports and higher interest rates. These will depress private sector spending to make room for financing Mr Bush's budgetary priorities. The result will be lower national investment and living standards. Or, confronted with the deleterious effects of structural deficits on the dollar's value, on interest rates and on growth, the US might face deep cuts in education, healthcare and retirement benefits.

Such cuts may be the only way to fund Mr Bush's imperial ambitions and his munificent tax relief for the wealthy. Indeed, many in Mr Bush's inner circle are ideologically committed to reducing the government's involvement in such social programmes. But because the programmes are popular with voters, it is politically advantageous to undermine them in an indirect manner. The administration has already signalled its desire to privatise Social Security and, more recently, Medicare. The prospect of looming structural budget deficits can be adduced as a justification for doing so, even though those deficits are self-inflicted and avoidable.

The US is the world's only military superpower. It may indeed have the might to pursue a pre-emptive foreign policy that is breathtaking in its audacity and arrogance. But the US is also the world's largest debtor nation. It will need a sound financial plan to convince the rest of the world that helping to finance its global ambitions is a good idea. Right now, none exists.
_________________________________________

The writer is dean of London Business School

news.ft.com