 |
|
| July 25, 2008 | ||||
|
Honorable Exit From Empire |
||||
| by Patrick J. Buchanan | ||||
|
As any military historian will testify, among the most difficult of maneuvers is the strategic retreat. Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, Lee's retreat to Appomattox and MacArthur's retreat from the Yalu come to mind. The British Empire abandoned India in 1947 – and a Muslim-Hindu bloodbath ensued. France's departure from Indochina was ignominious, and her abandonment of hundreds of thousands of faithful Algerians to the FALN disgraceful. Few Americans can forget the humiliation of Saigon '75, or the boat people, or the Cambodian holocaust. Strategic retreats that turn into routs are often the result of what Lord Salisbury called "the commonest error in politics ... sticking to the carcass of dead policies." From 1989 to 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and breakup of the U.S.S.R., America had an opportunity to lay down its global burden and become again what Jeane Kirkpatrick called "a normal country in a normal time." We let the opportunity pass by, opting instead to use our wealth and power to convert the world to democratic capitalism. And we have reaped the reward of all the other empires that went before: A sinking currency, relative decline, universal enmity, a series of what Rudyard Kipling called "the savage wars of peace." Yet, opportunity has come anew for America to shed its imperial burden and become again the republic of our fathers. The chairman of Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang Party has just been hosted for six days by Beijing. Commercial flights have begun between Taipei and the mainland. Is not the time ripe for America to declare our job done, that the relationship between China and Taiwan is no longer a vital interest of the United States? Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government wants a status of forces agreement with a timetable for full withdrawal of U.S. troops. Is it not time to say yes, to declare that full withdrawal is our goal as well, that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq? On July 4, Reuters, in a story headlined "Poland Rejects U.S. Missile Offer," reported from Warsaw: "Poland spurned as insufficient on Friday a U.S. offer to boost its air defenses in return for basing anti-missile interceptors on its soil. ... "'We have not reached a satisfactory result on the issue of increasing the level of Polish security,' Prime Minister Donald Tusk told a news conference after studying the latest U.S. proposal." Tusk is demanding that America "provide billions of dollars worth of U.S. investment to upgrade Polish air defenses in return for hosting 10 two-stage missile interceptors," said Reuters. Reflect if you will on what is going on here. By bringing Poland into NATO, we agreed to defend her against the world's largest nation, Russia, with thousands of nuclear weapons. Now the Polish regime is refusing us permission to site 10 anti-missile missiles on Polish soil, unless we pay Poland billions for the privilege. Has Uncle Sam gone senile? No. Tusk has Sam figured out. The old boy is so desperate to continue in his Cold War role as the world's Defender of Democracy he will even pay the Europeans – to defend Europe. Why not tell Tusk that if he wants an air defense system, he can buy it; that we Americans are no longer willing to pay Poland for the privilege of defending Poland; that the anti-missile missile deal is off. And use cancelation of the missile shield to repair relations with a far larger and more important power, Vladimir Putin's Russia. Consider, too, the opening South Korea is giving us to end our 60-year commitment to defend her against the North. For weeks, Seoul hosted anti-American protests against a trade deal that allows U.S. beef into South Korea. Koreans say they fear mad-cow disease. Yet, when a new deal was cut to limit imports to U.S. beef from cattle less than 30 months old, that too was rejected by the protesters. Behind the demonstrations lies a sediment of anti-Americanism. In 2002, a Pew Research Center survey of 42 nations found 44 percent of South Koreans, second highest number of any country, holding an unfavorable view of the United States. A Korean survey put the figure at 53 percent, with 80 percent of youth holding a negative view. By 39 percent to 35 percent, South Koreans saw the United States as a greater threat than North Korea. Can someone explain why we keep 30,000 troops on the DMZ of a nation whose people do not even like us? The raison d'etre for NATO was the Red Army on the Elbe. It disappeared two decades ago. The Chinese army left North Korea 50 years ago. Yet NATO endures and the U.S. Army stands on the DMZ. Why? Because, if all U.S. troops were brought home from Europe and Korea, 10,000 rice bowls would be broken. They are the rice bowls of politicians, diplomats, generals, journalists and think tanks who would all have to find another line of work. And that is why the Empire will endure until disaster befalls it, as it did all the others. COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. |
||||
|
||||
| Archives |
|
Honorable Exit From Empire 7/25/2008 A Phony Crisis – and a Real One 7/15/2008 No More Blank Checks for War 7/11/2008 Who's Planning Our Next War? 6/27/2008 Hitchens Demands an Eye for an Eye 6/25/2008 Was the Holocaust Inevitable? 6/20/2008 Is Bush Becoming Irrelevant? 5/30/2008 Bush Plays the Hitler Card 5/20/2008 Is It Jaw-Jaw or War-War? 5/6/2008 Petraeus Points to War With Iran 4/11/2008 Was WWII Really 'The Good War'? 4/4/2008 Should We Fight for South Ossetia? 4/1/2008 Does Balkanization Beckon Anew? 2/19/2008 Blowback From Moscow 11/30/2007 Is World War III on Hold? 11/13/2007 Is a Vote for Rudy a Vote for War? 11/9/2007 Who Restarted the Cold War? 10/19/2007 Infantile Nation 9/25/2007 Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat? 9/21/2007 Stopping the Next War 9/14/2007 Phase III of Bush's War 9/1/2007 Has Bush Boxed Himself In? 8/28/2007 Onward – Into Waziristan! 8/3/2007 Hillary's Late Hit 7/27/2007 This Is How Empires End 7/20/2007 Tonkin Gulf II and the Guns of August? 7/17/2007 How Scooter Skated 7/6/2007 The Retreat of the Old Bulls 6/29/2007 The Martyr of Mosul 6/22/2007 On the Escalator to War With Iran 6/15/2007 Who Lost Russia? 6/5/2007 Does 'The Decider' Decide on War? 5/30/2007 Why Congress Caved to Bush 5/25/2007 But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron? 5/18/2007 Dying for...Estonia? 5/4/2007 Wolfie's Piggy Bank 4/17/2007 What a Lack of Courage Cost 4/10/2007 Magnanimous Mahmoud 4/7/2007 Interventions Without End? 3/27/2007 Pelosi's Capitulation 3/20/2007 Does Putin Not Have a Point? 2/13/2007 Is Bombing Iran Bush's Call? 2/9/2007 Hysteria at Herzliya 1/31/2007 The Ideologue 1/25/2007 The X Factor in 2008 – Iran 1/23/2007 See the Superpower Run 1/19/2007 Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones 1/16/2007 Still One More Card to Play 1/12/2007 Who Is Planning Our Next War? 1/9/2007 Cakewalk Crowd Abandons Bush 1/5/2007 Broken Army, Broken Empire 12/20/2006 Person of the Year: Ahmadinejad 12/19/2006 Beware the Next Bipartisan War 12/12/2006 The Stability Problem, Solved 12/5/2006 Is Putin Being Set Up? 11/28/2006 November '56: Defining Moment 10/31/2006 Georgia – on Moscow's Mind 10/24/2006 Is the Bush Doctrine Dead? 10/17/2006 An Asian Nuclear Arms Race? 10/11/2006 Consult America – Before the Next War 9/26/2006 America's Ideologue in Chief 9/11/2006 Olmert's War, and the Next One 8/15/2006 Were Bush and Blair the Targets? 8/12/2006 Condi's 'New Middle East' 8/8/2006 On Talking With Terrorists 8/5/2006 |
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.
Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Copyright 2008 Antiwar.com