An interesting post...

This is an interesting comment left on my blog today from Chris:


Condi will actually do quite well; what is coming is what the press doesn't expect-a Republican offensive challenging Democrats to cut off funding for the war. What people in the Democratic Party never quite understood about Rice is that she was always quite capable of taking care of herself. What is unsaid, of course, is that because she is black and female, they assume that she's hapless. People constantly underestimate Rice, yet what they don't realize is that it is she who has reoriented out entire defense strategy away from Europe and towards our three new main allies, Japan, Australia, and India. Condi realized early on that you go where the money and the wealth is being created. This burns the Europeans up, which is one the reasons you get snarky editorials about her in The Economist. The Brits, the French, and the Germans are being thrown under the bus, and its being called "transformational diplomacy". Take the Brits. In five years, we won't be allies. Why? They have systematically destroyed the Royal Navy and neutered the Royal Army. Without the RN, nobody cares what Britain thinks, nor should they. They won't even win the next Cod War with the Norwegians. This has been a ruthless process, but it has been Rice who has been reorienting the Department away from Europe and towards Asia and Oceania. This upsets the Old Guard, which cut its teeth on NATO and the Arab/Israeli peace process. People like John Edwards are attached at the hip to Atlanticism because that's what liberals have believed all their lives. They want to be liked by the editorial staff of The Guardian, they really do. But that world is dead, and it should be. Rice will be moving up to VP. Cheney is going; another blogger has heard same thing from the Puzzle Palace. His Hiroshima Blast Effects Quotient has gotten out of hand, and he's become a drag on the ticket. Bush needs big time boost. Condi is logical choice to get promoted. Liberals hate her, but it won't matter: she's popular in the country. I have a hunch about what comes after that, but I won't get carried away just yet. Karl would have me shot.


I think that Chris raises a great point that this administration embodied in the term that D. Rumsfield floated "Old Europe". This administration has broadened our interest in forming new alliances or strengthening existing ties - part of which was in the "Coalition of the Willing".

1.India has become a much closer ally - this is strategic as we need a check on China during its rapid expansion.

2.The alliance with Australia is good press for a prime minister that has swung that country in a very conservative direction - and is useful for Indonesian containment.

3. Japan, finally exiting a deep recession and deflation, is definitely jittery with N. Korea and China just across the sea. That country definitely should be a priority.

For each of these examples, the Administration has clear priorities and Condi has executed these deftly. India gets to overtly develop nukes without having to sign the non-proliferation agreement (to keep Pakistan honest). Austalia is constantly held as an ideal alliance between western democracies during these wars.

Now some rhetorical questions: Why on earth are we doing any negotiations with a totalitarian military dictator, General Mushareef, in Pakistan? Why do we foster closer relations with Saudi Arabia which is not a demonstrable friend of the US? (Did anyone else catch Dick Cheney's summoning to S.A. before Christmas for a dressing down by the Saudis over the worsening Iraq situation???) I'm not naive about this - I'm throwing it out there as an obvious question for some journalist to ask until we (the people) get a coherent answer. (BTW - anyone catch the story about truckloads of cash getting driven from S.A. to Iraq which is funding some subsets of the insurgency??) We and Old Europe displayed a Katrina-like failure in the war in Southern Lebanon and no progress has been made with the West Bank and the Palestinians who have elected a terrorist organization, Hamas, as their government. I would also question why we are supporting Hugo Chavez of Venezuala by continuing to import oil and refined gasoline from that country. Further, have we developed a coherent strategy about the deep leftward shift in South American "democracies"?

I will leave it at that for now. Chris, I realize that the Administration cannot handle all the brushfires in the world. Condi is also an arm of the Administration (we saw that with the compromising of Colin Powell at the UN). I would just argue that Condi has not offered a precise viewpoint for what the Department of State is doing in a comprehensive and proactive manner. Rather there are very targeted efforts in some areas that correspond to the Bush Administration's realignment priorities in the world. I'm just not sure that such a radical turn against our historical allies for those that have more current strategic interest is wise. But the again only time will tell.

Specifically regarding the turn of events in Europe, I would argue that Europe is not impotent. This can be seen in the strength of the Euro and slow changes in the socialist governmental agendas. I would say that Italy is a lost cause- their economy, based upon small family owned companies, is being decimated by globalization. There are only so many people that can afford 400 dollar shoes and the skill of fast-forward fashion companies (clothes, jewelry, furniture) have really undercut high end, laborious, and low-productivity production. Plus having a net population loss through low birth rates, will make Italy the weak spot in the major European economies. France will have to deal with its 35 hour work week laws - as will the smaller Benelux countries who have very draconian labor laws which stifle entrepenurial development. Angela Merkel, in Germany, is making a stab at reversing the worst facets of socalism in the economy but her grand coalition is fragile and will crumble when the hard decisions come up. I would argue that Britain (largely because of Thatcherian reforms) stands in the best position to emerge as a leader in Europe.

But there will be an eventual necessity for Europe to really drive integration of their economies to effect a collective powerhouse that will challenge American dominance - the EU has an aggregate population of over 400 million people. That collective European action will effectively contain Russia (with only 150 million people and an inherently unstable social structure) and European commitment to quality of life will be a beacon for human rights. I don't think Europe is irrelevant - rather they are much more cautious in mortgaging their long term position for short term gains. This can be observed in the value of the Euro (and particularly the sterling). I would argue that Europe might be better suited by aligning with the Russians to ensure valuable material resources and a union against the asecendancy of China. Europe's wavering with America reflects a sharp divide in culture - America is whoring itself (one example: official sanctioning of illegal immigration - effectively internal globalization) to the corporations who have no national interest. Europe has clearly realized that corporations must be controlled using existing law. In America, you see existing law is ignored for quarterly profits. I think that corporations will use every tactic to consume American resources, and then move on to a new host when the corpse issues its last gasp. Sound unrealistic? Perhaps. But I firmly posit that the parasitic forces in the market see that America as the most vital host for now. The countries in Europe definitely have their problems and there will need to be a realignment if they are to survive the coming power struggle from China.

I think America's best chance remains to stay allied with Europe and expand its Monroe Doctrine principles in the Western Hemisphere. Globalization in the Western Hemisphere might be preferable to our mass capital flow to Asia - but the American voters don't see how developing the democracies in our own hemisphere offer a robust economic opportunity versus allowing corporations to underwrite the totalitarian regimes of China and Saudi Arabia (as two of many examples). Control of corporate behavior ensures our longer term survival and should not be shunned - rather careful control of corporate behavior underlies a judicious use of democratic power. Something that Europe implicitly understands and struggles with. And we don't.

Chris - I understand the points that you have made and I appreciate the time you took to respond. But I don't think that it can be reduced to something so simple as Europe is irrelevant and bitter - the future scenarios are nuanced, multi-faceted and complex. Something Karl knows cerebrally - but cerebral thought has never generated alot of votes. And Karl knows that. He won't shoot you - that will happen when the Spanish speaking Huns overrun our Roman republic. And Karl won't be here at that point. But I will and you probably will be too - that is why this is so important.