|
A Blogger Symposium On The Post 9/11 World Order
by George W. Bush
I'd like to thank Bill Whittle of Eject! Eject! Eject! & Radley Balko, editor for The CATO Institute website, a biweekly columnist with Fox News, a contributor to Tech Central Station, & also the owner of The Agitator, for participating in this discussion. We got together yesterday afternoon in a chat room and had a nice, long talk. Then after a bit of editing, it came straight to you. I think you'll find this to be quite an interesting little symposium.
John Hawkins: To begin with, how do you see the relationship between America and Europe changing over the next decade or so?
Bill Whittle: I hate to say it, but I really think France and Germany will continue to drift apart from us until their unassimilated Muslim populations explode and then we will have to back in AGAIN and keep the peace. Britain is still a staunch ally. Eastern Europe is full of well-educated, hard-working people who can still remember what it's like to have a boot in the face and they don't care much for the memory. They are going to be good friends for a long time.
John Hawkins: The drifting apart I buy into, but do you think we'll have to go back in?
Bill Whittle: John, everything I read tells me that economically, culturally and demographically they are a time bomb with not a lot of fuse left showing.
John Hawkins: Bill, I can see that they're going to have demographic problems, but not to that extent.
Radley Balko: I think the war rift will fade. Frankly, the real rift I think will come via trade.
John Hawkins: So Radley, you think we're going to move back towards a pre-9/11 European/American relationship?
Radley Balko: No. I just don't think the war with Iraq will be the splitting point. As al-Qaeda fires up attacks against German and French targets, too, I think they'll be more inclined to side with us on foreign policy. But, I do see a major rift developing over genetically modified foods and biotech -- one that could spill over into the diplomatic sphere.
Bill Whittle: See, I respectfully disagree. I don't see anything on the horizon that promises to turn this around...except Al Qaeda targeting of France and Germany.
John Hawkins: I think the splitting point was the fall of the Soviet Union personally. I think Europe and America are destined to be rivals. Unless Europe comes to the conclusion that it's impossible to compete...
Bill Whittle: 9/11 is interesting because of the effect it had -- and didn't have -- on parts of America. For most of our readers, it was an act of war. Simple. But, for many on the left, and most of the rest of the world, it was a criminal act of a few individuals: get over it. One's view on Iraq, I think, is determined by whether or not you think we are at war with international terrorism, or just trying to round up a few criminals who had a big day.
Radley Balko: I'm not sure it's that simple. But, if that was their impression, the recent spate of attacks surely has them thinking differently. I do think we're at war with international terrorism. But, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq.
Bill Whittle: Really?
John Hawkins: Why so?
Radley Balko: Because there are far likelier targets than Iraq. Hussein's connection to Al Qaeda was tangential at best.
Bill Whittle: Apparently not so tangential now that documents are coming out, but I'm listening...
John Hawkins: It's not just about stopping Al Qaeda though, it's about tearing down the whole structure of the global terrorist network. Al Qaeda is just one target out of many...
Radley Balko: But, Al Qaeda is the only direct threat to the United States.
Bill Whittle: The only CURRENT direct threat to the US.
John Hawkins: I'd disagree -- Hizbollah and Hamas have both killed Americans and both fought against us in Iraq.
Radley Balko: So how is Hezbollah blowing up an Israeli pizza parlor a threat to the U.S.?
John Hawkins: Because the next pizza parlor might be in the United States...
Bill Whittle: Look, Al Qaeda can blow up a car bomb overseas anywhere and anytime they want to. This is not a significant threat to the US. 3000 dead -- it should have been 30,000 -- and a one-trillion dollar hit to the economy: That's what we need to worry about.
Bill Whittle: It is not a direct threat, agreed. But pardon the archaic attitude, it is an affront to civilization and to our moral and ethical ideals. If we allow these things to continue on a small scale, they will just keep making them bigger. As Guliani discovered in New York, the way you drive murder rates WAY down is to enforce ALL the laws. Someone pees on a building, they go to jail. The law is either respected or it is not. We have to make it clear to these scumbags that we are serious about protecting women and children wherever they are.
Radley Balko: OK -- so blowing up Israeli pizza parlors -- threat to U.S, but blowing up Moroccan pizza parlors isn't?
John Hawkins: That's the point Radley, every terrorist group with global reach is a threat.
Radley Balko: But, Bill just said that car bombs overseas aren't a threat.
Bill Whittle: I said they aren't a direct threat. They are a threat to global peace, and they are a disgusting attack on the IDEA of civilization. We have to get all of these b*stards. Sorry, that's how I see things.
Radley Balko: But, John's point about Hezbollah sending fighters to Iraq is important, I think.
John Hawkins: Why so?
Radley Balko: It's another example of how aggressive foreign policy in that region brings new enemies.
John Hawkins: They're not new enemies though, they killed Americans back in the 80s.
Radley Balko: Well, do you devote massive resources to the most immediate threat, or to uncertain, future threats?
Bill Whittle: You do both. You devote most resource to immediate and potent threats, and some to pending and potent threats.
Radley Balko: I think $75 billion is far too much to devote to an uncertain threat, especially when it could have gone toward intelligence ops in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, where the real, imminent threat is regrouping.
John Hawkins: We are already doing that...
Radley Balko: Are we? Seems to me that al-Qaeda's back to its old tricks again.
John Hawkins: We're getting off target just a bit. Back to Europe, do you see a European Union forming that's the equivalent to a United States of Europe?
Bill Whittle: The good old US of E is an illusion, John. Look at the way France managed the Iraq crisis. Would we tolerate California dictating US policy from Berkeley? We would not. Because this is a NATION. They are, at best, a TRADE FEDERATION.
John Hawkins: I agree that's what practical Bill, but there seem to be a lot of Europeans who want the EU to be more than that.
Bill Whittle: Ah John, if wishing made it so we'd all be socialists...
John Hawkins: I mean, when you have shared money, shared defense, and a President, you're getting pretty close to a United Europe. They already have the money and they're already working on the other two.
Radley Balko: The EU is already imposing environmental standards and heavy-handed business regulations on member nations.
Bill Whittle: Radley is right. Let's see, if we want to compete with the fast, fluid, ruthless US economy -- I know! Let's add more bureaucracy and regulations!
John Hawkins: My favorite one was where farmers ended up having to give toys to their pigs to satisfy an EU requirement to have manipulable material.
Radley > There's another good one where the EU wouldn't let a British artist carve a sculpture into a hillside. And my personal favorite -- EU aversion to genetically modified foods keeps Africans from getting food aid.
Bill Whittle: John, the EU is a forced collection of widely divergent nations and cultures force-welded by an elite united only by their loathing of America. Such a Union is solely reactive -- against America. A NATION requires all the people to be FOR something, and to be willing to die for that ideal. What ideal does a US of E have?
John Hawkins: Agreed, but there are a lot of Europeans who want it to be much more than that and they're making a lot of headway...
Radley Balko: I think they're united by more than that. They're united by a inclination toward socialism and loathing of technology.
Bill Whittle: Well, THERE's a recipe for certain success!
John Hawkins: Thatcher once said, "It is one of the great weaknesses of reasonable men and women that they imagine that projects which fly in the face of common sense are not serious or being seriously undertaken."
Bill Whittle: But isn't that the POINT? Are they viable? I say no.
John Hawkins: I don't believe it will succeed either, but I believe it is being tried.
Radley Balko: They're viable if they can close European markets to U.S. industry. And they're viable if they can do a lot of damage to world development while on the road to failure.
John Hawkins: I agree with you Radley, I think they're going to fail at uniting Europe and the only question is how much damage they'll do along the way.
Bill Whittle: Okay, now that's a serious issue Radley. And who gets hurt worse in a trade war? But it seems to me that our economy, when sick, is in better shape than theirs is when healthy.
Radley Balko: Everyone, I think. Look at how Africa adopts EU policies out of fear of repercussions.
John Hawkins: With tragic consequences, especially when it comes to genetically modified foods.
Bill Whittle: Okay, granted, but you brought up the idea of trade sanctions, and if things went to a full-blown trade war, who's got the most ammo?
Radley Balko: We do, of course. But my point isn't that we can outlast the EU in a war of attrition, it's that the war should never happen in the first place.
John Hawkins: What about the future of NATO? Do you see it growing and expanding in importance or declining?
Radley Balko: NATO was set up for three reasons -- to unite Europe, to thwart the USSR and surreptitiously to keep down German militarism.
Bill Whittle: Mission accomplished THERE, I might add.
John Hawkins: ...And some would say to keep the US from being isolationist, all complete.
Radley Balko: But, like any government agency, it simply can't fold up and go home. Instead it expands.
Bill Whittle: NATO may be obsolete militarily, but it has huge psychological implications.
Radley Balko: Yes. Namely, to needlessly antagonize Russia and China.
John Hawkins: It also keeps Russia from throwing its weight around in Eastern Europe which isn't a bad thing....
Bill Whittle: Exactly.
Radley Balko: I doubt Russia would reclaim Eastern Europe were NATO to dissolve.
John Hawkins: I doubt they would they would do so as well Radley, but I wouldn't put it past them to start threatening weaker states in Eastern Europe. Also NATO helps counteract the influence of nations that are unfriendly to our goals in Europe like France, Germany, and Belgium.
Bill Whittle: ALL NATO members, btw John.
Radley Balko: I'm not sure I get the last point, John. How does NATO thwart France and Germany?
John Hawkins: Because being in NATO means that the United States will defend you if you are ever attacked. That is a very valuable pledge, one that many Europeans wouldn't want to give up in order to side with Germany, France, & Belgium against us.
Radley Balko: True. But, I it also means France, Germany, etc., have a say in our own national defense, at least in terms of world opinion.
John Hawkins: That's something we need to correct.
Radley Balko: If a fellow NATO member opposes our foreign policy, it looks bad for us on the world stage.
John Hawkins: That's true Radley.
Bill Whittle: Do you know what I'd like to do with NATO? I'd like to re-animate Truman's DNA, sit everyone down, and in the plainest language possible say 'here's what we think this alliance means today, in 2003. 'Do you agree?' If they do, great. If they don't leave. If we find we are in the minority, WE leave. They HATE either/or statements like this, because it cuts their weasel room. But, 9/11 has shown us many things, not the least of which, who our real friends are and aren't.
Radley Balko: I think we should leave anyway. I don't like subjecting our national defense to the whims of bureaucracy, be it NATO or the UN.
John Hawkins: Speaking of the UN, what does the future hold for Kofi Annan and company in your opinion?
Radley Balko: Hard to say. I'd guess that the latest debacles would diminish its influence among reasonable people. Unfortunately, the world is full of unreasonable people.
Bill Whittle: There's something wrong with an organization that gives the same vote to a 10 million person dictatorship as it does to a billion-person democracy like India.
John Hawkins: I question why any US President would take anything important in front of the UN again...
Radley Balko: Much as I opposed the Iraq war, that I think was Bush's biggest mistake -- going to the UN first. Why set the precedent?
Bill Whittle: I disagree. Despite all the mess, the UN fiasco showed many people -- not the least the American public -- just how dysfunctional that body is. It used to be that only the tinfoil hat crowd said, "OUT OF THE UN". Now it seems a lot more reasonable and sane thing to do.
Radley Balko: Do you really think that was his reason for going to the UN?
Bill Whittle: No. I think he and Powell expected the UN to act like grown-ups. But, I do think he was smart enough to see it as a win/win situation. Either they get on board, and give us the 'legitimacy' or fail to live up to their own resolutions and look like impotent hypocrites. And that's exactly what happened.
John Hawkins: I'm glad they didn't give us approval. It was a broadside to their credibility when we went in anyway...
Radley Balko: I agree. UN humiliation was a nice upside. But, if the US is really in imminent danger, there's really no reason to get UN approval to defend ourselves. That we went there first -- and waited months for them to smack us down -- should tell you something about just how imminent the Iraq threat really was.
John Hawkins: Afghanistan wasn't an imminent threat either until the terrorists flew the planes into our buildings.
Radley Balko: But, that wasn't the argument against Iraq. The argument was that Saddam had WMDs that he might at any time hand off to Al Qaeda. So why wait six months for UN approval before going in?
Bill Whittle: And you're saying what?
Radley Balko: I'm saying the threat wasn't imminent.
Bill Whittle: I see. And when is it imminent? After it occurs? We know he has an active nuclear program, when Times Square goes missing?
John Hawkins: I agree with Bill on that.
Radley Balko: You don't attack another country without ample evidence that you're about to be attacked.
John Hawkins: Actually, we do now. That's what preemption is all about.
Radley Balko: Do we? Where are the WMDs? Where's the evidence that Saddam was handing them off?
John Hawkins: I think we're going to find WMDs. We're just going to have to wait for it. You don't have thousands of chem protection suits for your soldiers, bio-weapons labs, keep your scientists away from inspectors, take tens of billions of dollars in sanctions losses rather than allow complete inspections, etc, unless you do have a program.
Bill Whittle: Radley, this is where you and I get off the same bus. Back when we were facing vast armies and navies we could look at something like the Japanese Pacific fleet and say, hmmm....in a few years these guys mean business. Today, some smiling nutcase with a brief case can push a button on suitcase and the capitol And White House are gone.
Radley Balko: I agree, Bill. That's why all of our resources should be devoted to Al Qaeda, not massive military ops and nation-(re)building.
Bill Whittle: Radley, it takes a STATE to build a nuclear weapon. It is not a simple thing, thank God. Al Qaeda is a delivery system.
Radley Balko: There's ample evidence (far more so than Iraq) that Pakistani nuclear scientists are working with Al Qaeda and the whole country is one bullet away from the entire arsenal falling into the hands of militant Muslims.
Bill Whittle: If Pakistan wanted Al Qaeda to have a working nuclear weapon then Al Qaeda would have a working nuclear weapon and if that bullet is fired it will change the equation. Until then, we have to deal with reality.
Radley Balko: So why wait until we lose Times Square to act?
John Hawkins: That's correct, Musharraf could buy it at any time. And if radical Islamists took over in Pakistan who we believe were cooperating with Al Qaeda (or another anti-American terrorist group) then I would be fully behind hitting them first if that's what it took to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists.
Bill Whittle: I agree John, but until then, Pakistan is still a functioning government.
John Hawkins: Well gentlemen, that's all the time we have. Thanks for participating guys.
|
