Volume CXXXI, Number 21 April 12, 2002 f

America must act in its best interests
PATRICK ROCKEFELLER

From the French to the international community to the op-ed page of The New York Times, the Bush administration has been maligned for being too militarily "unilateral"-as if that were a bad thing.

This is hardly new. From the time of George Washington, America has been wary of entangling alliances.

There is no doubt that calling Bush a "unilateralist cowboy" or other such epithets is intended to make Americans feel shame for ignoring the wishes of European elites, but the rest of the world did not elect Bush; he was elected by Americans to serve American interests.

This is usually the point where Alec Baldwin, a mediocre actor and intellectual featherweight, stands up and shouts that Bush wasn't elected at all. But just as surely as Baldwin moves his lips and follows the words with his finger when he reads, most rational people have gotten over this argument long ago.

Much European criticism comes from the need to feel included. In ages past, Europe was the military center of the world, warring within its borders and in colonies abroad. However, since the end of WWII, America has grown in power and Europe has shrunk in relative strength and influence. Today, America acts unilaterally because the French and British militaries would be of very little help fighting alongside American troops. In fact, they would be more of a hindrance.

America spends more on her military than the next 19 biggest-spending countries combined. The U.S. diverts about 3 percent of its approximately $10 trillion GDP to defense, while the European average is about 1.5 percent of significantly smaller GDPs.

This creates a discrepancy in military strength that prevents other countries from being effective additions to American forces. When Bill Kristol spoke at the College, he compared the inclusion of other nations in the war in Afghanistan to letting a couple of high school basketball players suit up with Maryland in the championship game.

The Gulf War was viewed as an achievement for multilateralism and the international community. Dozens of nations committed troops and aid, but ultimately, America did almost all of the fighting.

While it looked nice to have all the flags flying together, one of the adverse consequences was the inability of President Bush Sr. to push troops into Baghdad, because the Arab nations of the coalition would have pulled out. Just imagine if Hussein had been expelled 10 years ago. We wouldn't have to worry about him building weapons of mass destruction or inciting violence in Israel by offering $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.

The fact is, America does not have to solicit support or approval from other countries because it can do it alone. America can fight a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the Taiwan Strait without them. So, really, the burden is on the other nations to offer some advantage that would convince the U.S. that multilateralism is better. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. to include them like an older brother reluctantly bringing his kid brother to a ballgame with him. If these countries don't want to finance a military, there are still ways they can be involved; through intelligence gathering, financial aid, and medical help.

Ultimately, America must act in its own best interest, as all countries do. It is up to Europeans to decide whether they are able or willing to remain militarily relevant (an issue for another time).

So, if France won't support Israel, instead employing ambassadors that refer to it as "that shitty little country," that's fine. But America will proceed without it. America will continue to defend its interests, and those of its allies. America will, in the words of Winston Churchill, fight "…to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone."