We've come a long way from the 2003 British lectures about American obtrusive ray-bans and Kevlar losing what British soft hats and smiles had won.
That quote about defeat from "a senior U.S. official" about the British withdrawal from southern Iraq is probably accurate, but it belongs to a larger, more disturbing context:
(1) the popular British anger at the U.S. (whether evidenced by the "poodle" slur or the latest Pew poll finding that a bare majority of British subjects approves of the U.S.);
(2) a growing acknowledgement of British weakness and appeasement, as exemplified not just by the escape from Iraq, but everything from the coddling of radical Islamists in London to the humiliation of the British navy by Iran.
So there is a logic there: the more the U.S. seeks to be a partner with Britain in harm's way where it is ill-equipped, uncomfortable and thus bound to be humiliated, the more it resents America for doing so.
The unspoken truth is that just as there is no real military alliance called NATO, so too there is no Anglo-American "alliance". Both of course can serve as valuable psychological props, and continue in name through tradition and ennui, but neither amounts to anything militarily or even much politically anymore. We should accept that "getting the Brits or Europeans on board" at best means a few platitudes at the U.N .
The irony?
Continued Anglo-European distance from the U.S. transpires at exactly the time that the world is getting more dangerous for an unarmed Europe from rising Chinese and Russian nationalism, Iranian theocracy, and Islamic extremism-while U.S .public support for basing troops in the U.K. and Europe is at an all-time low.
To read contemporary journalism is to learn of Russian anger at Eastern Europe and EU morality lectures, Chinese frustration with EU tariffs, al Qaeda's hatred of a soft, 'decadent' European lifestyle, and missile proximity to Tehran-and a growing American weariness with all of the above.
For Britain and Europe, it is a classic case of "be careful of what you wish for..."
Transforming Debate for Inclusive and Impactful Participation Objective: To empower thousands—or even millions—to contribute meaningfully to debates by leveraging structured organization and robust evaluation criteria. Together, we can ensure every voice is heard and every idea is thoughtfully considered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Featured Post
David's Sling by Marc Stiegler is a Great Book
Home › Topics › Book Analysis › David's Sling David's Sling by Marc Stiegler is a Great Book Current Status: Cult Cl...
Popular Posts
-
This is my mom's mom's life history. Also check out the ongoing projects for my dad , mom , and and dad's mom . Typ...
-
Best reasons to agree : +6 Its hard to understand yourself very well without trying to figure out parents. Your kids will want to know a...
-
Best reasons to agree : +1 The Art Institute of Chicago is bigger, and bigger museums are better. the second largest art museum ...
-
Best Videos that agree : +2 Best reasons to agree : + Kids eat things they should not eat. Kids lick bird poop off slid...
-
Killer whales should not be kept in captivity. Reasons to agree : Over seas zoos are cooler, because they let you have more of ...
-
Reasons to agree : +7 Their is little risk of falling off a trampoline if you have netting. Trampolines are no more dangerous than...
-
Background : Before James loved animals, he loved trains. He spoke about them all the time. In particular was a train movie we got from the...
-
Images that agree : Friday Morning Walk around the block. Grandma didn't get as many hugs last time. She is very happy this t...
-
Best reasons to agree : +6 Buildings don't always ruin a place's aesthetic beauty. We shouldn't build if there is a delicat...
-
Reasons to agree : +7 Young kids will never catch geese. Geese can bight back. They have sharp teeth. Geese are overpopulated. For inst...
No comments:
Post a Comment