Sounds like lax security at the so-called “Capitalist Tool” left the liquor cabinet open as “eminent British historian and author” Paul Johnson was walking by (he is shown below receiving the Medal of Freedom from Dubya if that’s any hint as to where his allegiance lies). He then penned this Obama Has to Be World Sheriff pining for the good old chest-beating days when the likes of Winston Churchill would act unilaterally against any boogeyman that may appear. Too many howlers in this one to dissect. But here are some hightlights.
Since 1945 America has voluntarily accepted leadership of the democratic West and therefore, ultimately, the responsibility for preserving peace in the world.
The questions we now face as Barack Obama is subjected to his first practical tests as world security leader are: Can the U.S. continue in this role? Has it the power, the self-confidence and the will to do so? And if America declines to continue as world sheriff, will anyone else take on the duty?
Britain is the only European state that can be relied upon to fight aggression, and then only in conjunction with American leadership.
In the 1980s one of Britain’s territories, the Falkland Islands, was occupied by a second-class power, Argentina. Britain fought a solitary campaign successfully to expel the aggressor. But that effort was notable for three things: an exceptionally resolute leader at the helm, cast in the Churchill mold, Margaret Thatcher; the willingness of President Ronald Reagan to give Britain’s forces a significant measure of covert logistical support; and the characteristic unwillingness of the Continental Europeans to give Britain any help.
Russia has consistently refused to take any measures other than in direct support of its own security. This is true whether the threat comes from international terrorism or from rogue would-be nuclear powers such as North Korea and Iran. Indeed, Russia is more likely to give moral and even physical support to a lawless aggressor state than to join in a collective effort of restraint. In this respect it is still primarily motivated by the ideological and emotional impulses of the Cold War.
China is an unknown quantity as a potential peacekeeper–and is most unlikely to prove an altruistic one. So far the auguries are not encouraging. The instinct of China’s leadership is to oppose any strong moves by the U.S., even when the risk to peace is real. In a world left defenseless by the retreat of American leadership, it is hard to see China acting, except in strict defense of its own national interests.
India has neither the physical power nor the geopolitical instinct to operate outside its sphere of direct influence.
And it keeps getting better!
Though hit hard by the world recession, the U.S. still has the means to keep its armed forces strong and active all over the world. There’s no evidence that sustaining its global military effort has weakened its economy–quite the contrary. It’s worth remembering that it was only the onset of WWII in September 1939 that really ended the Great Depression in the U.S. and allowed Wall Street to regain its pre-October 1929 levels.
Way to go, Steve! Who needs a subscription to the New York Times when I can get it right here at Forbes?
