O'Rourke: Why Americans hate foreign policy

[R. A. Hettinga]

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=X0NZR23ED5X0NQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQYJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/09/18/do1801.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/09/18/ixopinion.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=17114>


The Telegraph

Why Americans hate foreign policy

By P J O'Rourke

(Filed: 18/09/2004)


Frankly, nothing concerning foreign policy ever occurred to me until the
middle of the last decade. I'd been writing about foreign countries and
foreign affairs and foreigners for years. But you can own dogs all your
life and not have "dog policy".

You have rules, yes - Get off the couch! - and training, sure. We want the
dumb creatures to be well behaved and friendly. So we feed foreigners, take
care of them, give them treats, and, when absolutely necessary, whack them
with a rolled-up newspaper.

That was as far as my foreign policy thinking went until the middle 1990s,
when I realised America's foreign policy thinking hadn't gone that far.

In the fall of 1996, I travelled to Bosnia to visit a friend whom I'll call
Major Tom. Major Tom was in Banja Luka serving with the Nato-led
international peacekeeping force, Ifor. From 1992 to 1995, Bosnian Serbs
had fought Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims in an attempt to split Bosnia
into two hostile territories.

In 1995, the US-brokered Dayton Agreement ended the war by splitting Bosnia
into two hostile territories. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was
run by Croats and Muslims. The Republika Srpska was run by Serbs.

IFOR's job was to "implement and monitor the Dayton Agreement." Major Tom's
job was to sit in an office where Croat and Muslim residents of Republika
Srpska went to report Dayton Agreement violations.

"They come to me," said Major Tom, "and they say, 'The Serbs stole my car.'
And I say, 'I'm writing that in my report.' They say, 'The Serbs burnt my
house.' And I say, 'I'm writing that in my report.' They say, 'The Serbs
raped my daughter.' And I say, 'I'm writing that in my report."'

"Then what happens?" I said.

"I put my report in a filing cabinet."

Major Tom had fought in the Gulf war. He'd been deployed to Haiti during
the American reinstatement of President Aristide (which preceded the recent
American un-reinstatement). He was on his second tour of duty in Bosnia and
would go on to fight in the Iraq war.

That night, we got drunk.

"Please, no nation-building," said Major Tom. "We're the Army. We kill
people and break things. They didn't teach nation-building in infantry
school."

Or in journalism school, either. The night before I left to cover the Iraq
war, I got drunk with another friend, who works in TV news. We were talking
about how - as an approach to national security - invading Iraq was...
different.

I'd moved my family from Washington to New Hampshire. My friend was
considering getting his family out of New York. "Don't you hope," my friend
said, "that all this has been thought through by someone who is smarter
than we are?"

It is, however, a universal tenet of democracy that no one is.

Americans hate foreign policy. Americans hate foreign policy because
Americans hate foreigners. Americans hate foreigners because Americans are
foreigners. We all come from foreign lands, even if we came 10,000 years
ago on a land bridge across the Bering Strait.

America is not "globally conscious" or "multi-cultural." Americans didn't
come to America to be Limey Poofters, Frog-Eaters, Bucket Heads, Micks,
Spicks, Sheenies or Wogs. If we'd wanted foreign entanglements, we would
have stayed home. Or - in the case of those of us who were shipped to
America against our will - as slaves, exiles, or transported prisoners - we
would have gone back.

Being foreigners ourselves, we Americans know what foreigners are up to
with their foreign policy - their venomous convents, lying alliances,
greedy agreements and trick-or-treaties. America is not a wily, sneaky
nation. We don't think that way.

We don't think much at all, thank God. Start thinking and pretty soon you
get ideas, and then you get idealism, and the next thing you know you've
got ideology, with millions dead in concentration camps and gulags. A
fundamental American question is: "What's the big idea?"

Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts at
isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for
Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach programme. A
solitary bad person sitting alone, harbouring genocidal thoughts, and
wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in
the trailer park.

In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does.
America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of
being "hegemonistic," of engaging in "unilateralism," of behaving as if
we're the only nation on earth that counts.

We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned "to spend more time
with the family." China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese
leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai chi
for Jesus.

The European Union looks impressive on paper, with a greater population and
a larger economy than America's. But the military spending of Britain,
France, Germany, and Italy combined does not equal one third of the US
defence budget.

When other countries demand a role in the exercise of global power, America
can ask another fundamental American question: "You and what army?"

Americans find foreign policy confusing. We are perplexed by the subtle
tactics and complex strategies of the Great Game. America's great game is
pulling the levers on the slot machines in Las Vegas. We can't figure out
what the goal of American foreign policy is supposed to be.

The goal of American tax policy is avoiding taxes. The goal of American
environmental policy is to clean up the environment, clearing away scruffy
caribou and seals so that America's drillers for Arctic oil don't get
trampled or slapped with a flipper.

But the goal of American foreign policy is to foster international
co-operation, protect Americans at home and abroad, promote world peace,
eliminate human rights abuses, improve US business and trade opportunities,
and stop global warming.

We were going to stop global warming by signing the Kyoto protocol on
greenhouse gas emissions. Then we realized the Kyoto protocol was
ridiculous and unenforceable and that no one who signed it was even trying
to meet the emissions requirements except for some countries from the
former Soviet Union. They accidentally quit emitting greenhouse gases
because their economies collapsed.

However, if we withdraw from diplomatic agreements because they're
ridiculous, we'll have to withdraw from every diplomatic agreement because
they're all ridiculous. This will not foster international co-operation.
But if we do foster international co-operation, we won't be able to protect
Americans at home and abroad, because there has been a lot of international
co-operation in killing Americans.

Attacking internationals won't promote world peace, which we can't have
anyway if we're going to eliminate human rights abuses, because there's no
peaceful way to get rid of the governments that abuse the rights of people
- people who are chained to American gym-shoe-making machinery, dying of
gym-shoe lung, and getting paid in shoe-laces, thereby improving US
business and trade opportunities, which result in economic expansion that
causes global warming to get worse.

One problem with changing America's foreign policy is that we keep doing
it. President Bill Clinton dreamed of letting the lion lie down with the
lamb chop. Clinton kept International Monetary Fund cash flowing into the
ever-criminalising Russian economy. He ignored Kremlin misbehaviour - from
Boris Yeltsin's shelling of elected representatives in the Duma to Vladimir
Putin's airlifting of uninvited Russian troops into Kosovo.

Clinton compared the Chechnya fighting to the American Civil War (murdered
Chechens being on the South Carolina statehouse, Confederate-flag-flying
side). Clinton called China America's "strategic partner" and paid a
nine-day visit to that country, not bothering himself with courtesy calls
on America's actual strategic partners, Japan and South Korea. Clinton
announced, "We don't support independence for Taiwan," and said of Jiang
Zemin, instigator of the assault on democracy protesters in Tiananmen
Square: "He has vision."

Anything for peace, that was Clinton's policy. Clinton had special
peace-mongering envoys in Cyprus, Congo, the Middle East, the Balkans, and
flying off to attend secret talks with Marxist guerrillas in Colombia.

On his last day in office, Clinton was still phoning Sinn Fein leader Gerry
Adams. "Love your work, Gerry. Do you ever actually kill people? Or do you
just do the spin?"

Clinton was everybody's best friend. Except when he wasn't. He conducted
undeclared air wars against Serbia and Iraq and launched missiles at Sudan
and Afghanistan. Clinton used the military more often than any previous
peacetime American president. He sent armed forces into areas of conflict
on an average of once every nine weeks.

President George W Bush's foreign policy was characterised, in early 2001,
as "disciplined and consistent" (Condoleezza Rice): "blunt" (The Washington
Post), and "in-your-face" (the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
Bush began his term with the expulsion of one fourth of the Russian
diplomatic corps on grounds of espionage. He snubbed Vladimir Putin by
delaying a first summit meeting until June 2001, and then holding it in
fashionable Slovenia.

On April 1, 2001, a Chinese fighter jet, harassing a US reconnaissance
plane in international air space, collided with the American aircraft,
which was forced to land in Chinese territory. Bush did not regard this as
an April Fools' prank. By the end of the month, he had gone on Good Morning
America and said that, if China attacked Taiwan, the United States had an
obligation to defend it with "whatever it took".

The President also brandished American missile defences at Russia and
China. The Russians and Chinese were wroth. The missile shield might or
might not stop missiles but, even unbuilt, it was an effective tool for
gathering intelligence on Russian and Chinese foreign policy intentions. We
knew how things stood when the town drunk and the town bully strongly
suggested that we shouldn't get a new home security system.

In the Middle East, Bush made an attempt to let the Israelis and the
Palestinians go at it until David ran out of pebbles and Goliath had been
hit on the head so many times that he was voting for Likud. In Northern
Ireland, Bush also tried minding his own business. And he quit negotiating
with North Korea about its atomic weapons for the same reason that you'd
quit jawing with a crazy person about the gun he was waving and call 999.

We saw the results of Clinton's emotional, ad hoc, higgledy-piggledy
foreign policy. It led to strained relations with Russia and China,
increased violence in the Middle East, continued fighting in Africa and
Asia, and Serbs killing Albanians. Then we saw the results of Bush's tough,
calculated, focused foreign policy: strained relations with Russia and
China, increased violence in the Middle East, continued fighting in Africa
and Asia, and Albanians killing Serbs.

Further changes could be made to US foreign policy. For a sample of
alternative ideas, we can turn to a group of randomly (even haphazardly)
chosen, average (not to say dull-normal) Americans: the 2004 Democratic
presidential hopefuls. By the time this is read, most of them will be
forgotten. With luck, all of them will be.

 None the less, it's instructive to recall what 10 people who offered
themselves as potential leaders of the world deemed to be America's foreign
policy options.

Incessant activist Al Sharpton pleaded for "a policy of befriending and
creating allies around the world". The way Sharpton intended to make
friends was by fixing the world's toilets and sinks. "There are 1.7 billion
people that need clean water," he said, "almost three billion that need
sanitation systems... I would train engineers... would export people that
would help with these things."

Ex-child mayor of Cleveland Dennis Kucinich promised to establish "a
cabinet-level Department of Peace". The secretary of peace would do for
international understanding what the postmaster general does for mail.

Former one-term senator and erstwhile ambassador to New Zealand Carol
Moseley Braun said, "I believe women have a contribution to make... we are
clever enough to defeat terror without destroying our own liberty... we can
provide for long-term security by making peace everybody's business". Elect
me because women are clever busybodies. This is the "Lucy and Ethel Get an
Idea" foreign policy.

Massachusetts's thinner, more sober senator, John Kerry, said that he voted
for threatening to use force on Saddam Hussein, but that actually using
force was wrong. This is what's known, in the language of diplomacy, as
bullshit.

Previous almost-vice president Joe Lieberman indignantly demanded that Bush
do somewhat more of what Bush already was doing. "Commit more US troops,"
create "an Iraqi interim authority," and "work with the Iraqi people and
the United Nations." Perhaps Lieberman was suffering from a delusion that
he was part of the current presidential administration.

But imagine having a Democrat as commander-in-chief during the War Against
Terrorism, with Oprah Winfrey as secretary of defence. Big hug for Mr
Taliban. Republicans are squares, but it's the squares who know how to fly
the bombers, launch the missiles and fire the M-16s. Democrats would still
be fumbling with the federally mandated trigger locks.

One-time governor of insignificant Vermont Howard Dean wanted a cold war on
terrorism. Dean said that we'd won the Cold War without firing a shot (a
statement that doubtless surprised veterans of Korea and Vietnam). Dean
said that the reason we'd won the Cold War without firing a shot was
because we were able to show the communists "a better ideal."

But what is the "better ideal" that we can show the Islamic
fundamentalists? Maybe we can tell them: "Our President is a born-again.
You're religious lunatics - we're religious lunatics. America was founded
by religious lunatics! How about those Salem witch trials? Come to America
and you could be Osama bin Ashcroft. You could get your own state, like
Utah, run by religious lunatics. You could have an Islamic Fundamentalist
Winter Olympics - the Chador Schuss."

Since the gist of Howard Dean's campaign platform was "It Worked in
Vermont," he really may have thought that the terrorists should take up
snowboarding. On the other hand, the gist of General (very retired) Wesley
Clark's campaign platform was "It Worked in Kosovo". Kosovo certainly
taught the world a lesson. Wherever there's suffering, injustice, and
oppression, America will show up six months late and bomb the country next
to where it's happening.

The winner of South Carolina's JFK look-alike contest, John Edwards, and
the winner of Florida's Bob Gramm look-alike contest, Bob Gramm, said that
America had won the war in Iraq but was losing the peace because Iraq was
so unstable. When Iraq was stable, it attacked Israel in 1967 and 1973. It
attacked Iran. It attacked Kuwait. It gassed the Kurds. It butchered the
Shiites. It fostered terrorism in the Middle East. Who wanted a stable Iraq?

And perennial representative of the House of Representatives Dick Gephardt
wouldn't talk much about foreign policy. He was concentrating on economic
issues, claiming that he'd make the American Dream come true for everyone.

Gephardt may have been on to something there. Once people get rich, they
don't go in much for war-making. The shoes are ugly and the uniforms itch.
Some day, Osama bin Laden will call a member of one of his "sleeper cells"
- a person who was planted in the United States years before and told to
live like a normal American, and...

"Dad, some guy named Ozzy's on the phone."

"Oh, uh, good to hear from you. Of course, of course... Rockefeller
Center?... Next Wednesday?... I'd love to, but the kid's got her ballet
recital. You miss something like that, they never forget it... Thursday's
no good. I have to see my mom off on her cruise to Bermuda in the morning.
It's Fatima's yoga day. And I've got courtside seats for the Nets...
Friday, we're going to the Hamptons for the weekend..."

But how, exactly, did Gephardt plan to make everyone on earth as
materialistic, self-indulgent, and over-scheduled as Americans? Would
Gephardt give foreigners options on hot dot-com stocks? That might have
worked during the Clinton years.

As of early 2004, America didn't seem to have the answers for postwar Iraq.
Then again, what were the questions?

Was there a bad man? And his bad kids? Were they running a bad country?
That did bad things? Did they have a lot of oil money to do bad things
with? Were they going to do more bad things?

If those were the questions, was the answer "UN-supervised national
reconciliation" or "rapid return to self-rule"? No. The answer was blow the
place to bits.

A mess was left behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight
aggressive wars; a mess without the facilities to develop dangerous
weapons; a mess that cannot systematically kill, torture, and oppress
millions of its citizens. It's a mess with a message - don't mess with us.

As frightening as terrorism is, it's the weapon of losers. When someone
detonates a suicide bomb, that person does not have career prospects.

And no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers.
Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an air force.

This is an edited extract from Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism
by P J O'Rourke (Atlantic), to be published on September 23. To order for
#14.99 + #2.25 p&p, please call Telegraph Books Direct on 0870 155 7222


-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'