Gerson Is Too Cute By Half
I hate to turn our discussion of Matt's book into a forum for Michael Gerson-bashing (okay, no I don't), but as usual, Gerson is being too cute by half.
Gerson offers up some whinging about the feckless Europeans that I think cries out for comment:
At the White House, I watched President Bush ask NATO leaders to come to Darfur's rescue only to see his request roundly ignored. NATO seems fully occupied and completely exhausted by its limited exertions in Afghanistan. European militaries are dramatically underfunded for far-flung missions. And many Europeans seem fully prepared to accept the free ride of American security protection while contributing little to the security of others.
And thus,
what realistic option will the next president have when the next genocide commences or the next proliferation threat arrives? Probably a coalition of the willing, led by America. It is the paradox of American influence: In a crisis, our power is irreplaceable -- and we want nothing more than to replace it.
The last clause of the last sentence above is utter nonsense. I don't know why neoconservatives insist on protesting that we really don't want to have to run the world, but it's a burden that's been thrust on us because others have chosen to neuter themselves. For sixty years, the United States has worked assiduously to prevent Western European powers from developing a meaningful defense capacity of their own. In particular, the Clinton administration successfully discouraged European efforts throughout the 1990s to develop the European Security and Defense Initiative. (.pdf)
Why? Why would we do this? The answer, simply put, is that we didn't want an independent center of gravity to develop in Europe apart from NATO, the existing organization over which we can exercise significant control. If an independent, better-armed and more cohesive Europe emerged, it would have a larger voice in international security affairs. And the U.S. foreign policy establishment--in both parties--looked on such an outcome with abject horror.
So it's fine for Michael Gerson to argue that we should endeavor to run the world. But let's not be ridiculous and pretend that "we want nothing more than" to devolve our role as the sole superpower.
The problem is that this is an unsustainable situation, and Gerson offers nothing except an outdated version of the status quo. Unfortunately, America has squandered its moral authority, and has so overtaxed its military as to make additional interventions impossible. We have no othwer viable option but to work to strengthen the UN's Peacekeeping Role, and the EU's efforts to provide for its own military needs, through NATO and through support for a separate EU force that could be called upon to deal with continental issues.
America has nothing to fear from a Europe that matches its economic power with military strength.
April 25, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am so glad you pointed this out. In truth, the US would benefit a lot if the EU had its rapid reaction force and China and Russia took more responsibility for their spheres of influence. For one thing, it would diffuse the targeting of terrorists.
But it would also mean that we wouldn't be able to, at least theoretically, use our military force to get everything we want, and thus our policymakers are terrified of it.
The funny thing is, this will happen anyway with China. And a powerful EU is a lot less of a threat than a powerful China. So it strikes me as a really counterproductive move to oppose it.
April 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink