|
Volume CXXXII, Number 17 |
 |
War without the U.N.
GIL BARNDOLLAR
CONTRIBUTOR
I was woken up a couple of Saturdays ago (around noon I admit) by anti-war protesters. While I didn't really understand the chants of "I say 'Warfare,' you say Welfare!'" it brought home the general international unpopularity of the looming war with Iraq. When a small town like Cambridge, in our most steadfast ally, Great Britain, is protesting the war, you know people aren't lining up to enlist.
The point was dramatically reinforced the last few weeks, as protests and demonstrations became commonplace in Europe. 750,000 people marched in London two weekends ago, although Cambridge students I met at a party that night assured me there were 2 million. 40,000 protesters gathered in Brussels, with signs like "We Are All Iraqis Now." And in last week's European edition of Time*, some idiot from Athens applauded the North Koreans for building nuclear arms to resist U.S. aggression.
The bigger question, though, is why any of this matters The reflexive anti-Americanism of much of Europe should come as no surprise. As much as they proclaimed solidarity with America or New York in the wake of September 11, there were certainly some in Europe who secretly danced a jig after the World Trade Center fell. But at the end of the day, Europeans will all still be inhaling Coca-Cola and McDonald's, while looking for Eminem CDs and Disney movies. Regardless of what Jacques Chirac would like to think, we live in a unipolar world. America, the world's lone superpower, is in a position not seen since Victorian Britain ruled the seas and a quarter of the world. Changing policy to reflect the wishes of the "Axis of Weasel," as France and Germany have been aptly dubbed, is not the kind of thing superpowers do.
Following the wishes of the United Nations is even more dangerous than subordinating our goals to European desires. The U.N., sadly, is starting to look more and more like the 1920s League of Nations. While the U.N. dithered, Rwanda and Bosnia burned. When the U.N. does finally get its act together and send in troops, it is always Americans who do the bulk of the fighting and the bulk of the bleeding.
Now, facing a clear threat to world security, the U.N. calls for more time, ostensibly in the interests of preserving peace. This is the same U.N., mind you, that has installed Libya as the chairman of the Commission on Human Rights. Out of 191 member nations, only the U.S., Canada, and Guatemala voted against this ridiculous arrangement. When the United Nations votes in a terrorist nation as its overseer of human rights, it is high time for America to go it alone.
Don't get me wrong; it's nice to have allies. We should remember that Britain stands by us, as they always have in the past. But even here, there's no doubt about the kind of help that America needs. The new British Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, was interviewed in the Sunday Telegraph* last weekend. When asked about the American view that we can fight a war on our own, he characterized it as "ungenerous," but admitted that it is perfectly valid. Staging areas are obviously needed for American troops and planes, but we have those. Beyond that, allies are welcome but more or less unnecessary.
The fact that George Bush and Tony Blair were affected by the protests of February is a little disturbing, bringing to mind America's abandonment of Vietnam and Somalia because of a lack of national will. To be driven off course in Iraq would be even more wrong-headed. Iraq, as Colin Powell demonstrated not so long ago, is a plain threat to American national security. For us to be turned back from a war that will not only protect us, but save a nation of millions from despotism, is the height of cowardice. The Iraqis, far from being slaughtered at American hands, will find out, as many have noted, that the best thing that can happen to a nation is to go to war with America and lose. Just ask the Germans and the Japanese, or even the Afghans.
The issue now at hand is whether we regard it as more important to be popular than to be right. I hope that's not the case.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |