Meanwhile, Back On Planet Earth

Lord knows I don't envy the schmuck who has to write one of these "What's the mood of the entire world right now?" thumbsuckers. And any honest person who regularly travels outside the country would have to say "antipathy" toward the U.S. in most places you can name is extraordinarily high these days. I even agree that President Bush's inattention and impoliteness has contributed a great deal to that antipathy. But Richard Bernstein's state-of-the-world overview still strikes me as a bit hokey. Post-9/11 sympathy squandered—check. Bush as cowboy—check. Suspicions about Iraq war—check. Then the whopper:

The subject of America in the world is of course complicated, and the nation's battered international image could improve quickly in response to events. The Bush administration's recent turn to the United Nations for help in postwar Iraq may represent such an event.

I agree that making nice with the UN is the right move, but really: This is what's going to improve our international image? Or just our image at 43rd Street?

Anyway, discuss.

Comments

[Sir Real]

To get out of a hole- stop digging. At least this is doable and immediate, as opposed to Kyoto or the ICC.

[Zathras]

What's to discuss? The Times does this kind of thing all the time.

Our immediate problem with respect to world opinion is that we have an administration headed by someone who knew very little about foreign affairs before taking office and is accustomed to gearing all his public comments -- not just those about foreign policy -- to resonate with specific domestic audiences. This is not going to change until January 2005, or 2009 depending on how the next election goes.

What this means is that no matter how good the case for American actions in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else is, it won't be made well or in language that foreigners are likely to understand. We will pay a price for this, as we have for the last two years -- for that matter, as we did for the preceeding eight years under a President who gained favor with foreign leaders by telling them what he (usually rightly) thought they wanted to hear. Foreign policy is not something a President can be expected to learn on the job.

[R.C. Dean]

The immediate problem with world opinion is that we are at war and most of the rest of the world isn't.

The secondary problem is that the rest of the world would love to have a say in how we fight our war, and George W. Bush won't let them. While this may irritate some people, I frankly don't care.

I don't really care if our "image" is "battered", if the price of everybody claiming to love us is the sacrifice of our security (allowing the UN to control our foreign policy and military) or economy (Kyoto).

[Dan]

I'm pretty much with RC on this one. I don't care if the rest of the world likes us or not. They don't have to like us; they just have to not threaten us.

Besides, was there ever a point at which Germany, or France, or Italy, or the UK, actually "liked" the United States? The prevailing attitude has always ranged from "vague contempt" to "open warfare".

[Jim Miller]

If I remember correctly from high school, the best way to be "liked" is to run around begging and pleading and trying to be really nice and do what people say.

Yep. That works.

[Mudflap]

Jason-

excellent rant

Thx

[objective dissent]

"Anyway, we would rather be alive and hated than dead and popular. If the rest of the world likes Americans only when we're dying, the rest of the world can go to hell."

Quote from WSJ's Best of the Web.

I concur

[Gene Berkman]

Oh how far have Americans come. In 1776 the writers of the Declaration of Independence invoked "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind..."
Now the party line seems to be "get behind our war or f**k you!"
American survival should in fact come first, regardless of what people think of us. At the same time, after 9/11 France & Germany have given tremendous help cracking down on Islamic extremists, and they have prosecuted more terror-linked individuals than we have.
If the Europeans and others object to the US attacking a country which did not attack us, so did many Americans.
When Bush expresses contempt for the French, we American taxpayers should know he has as much contempt for us. You'll find that out when the interest comes due on the Bush deficits.

[objective dissent]

I've never actually heard Bush say anything contemptual of the French. Maybe his actions, . . .

And deficits are a fool's game. The previous deficit was supposed to have ruined us by now. A few good boom years and no more deficit.

Any moron who thinks that the economy is a static measure deserves to walk around in a neurotic cloud of disillusion.

[objective dissent]

The Founders? decent respect of mans? opinions had nothing to do with capitulating to those opinions. The implication of Gene?s post is that the government has somehow restricted someone from voicing any dissent. I?ve yet to see any evidence to that, despite the Dixie Chicks publicist?s attempts at understanding the Constitution.

What a tremendously inane thing to say. What does Gene want? Every one is free to express their opinion on their own dime, but President Bush is supposed to cave to a minority of the American populace and the French & German governments, despite our own best interests? What an absolutely uninformed and illogical opinion, as long as we?re talking about them.

Granted, Gene?s post lacks any trace of rational thinking, he does contradict himself more than once ? that?s usually a good sign of irrational thinking, but I believe he is trying to link any implied contempt for France as also signaling contempt for the American citizenry. What a bizarre, quantum leap of a conclusion. This somehow connects the best interest of the American people with the opinion of the French government, who only opposed the war because of the own illegal business transactions with Iraq anyway.

Somebody get this guy his medications.

[Russ D]

I was aginst the Iraq War on logical grounds.

But to say

"France & Germany have given tremendous help cracking down on Islamic extremists, and they have prosecuted more terror-linked individuals than we have."

implying that they were being kind to us is a bit foolhardy.

These 2 nations are the "Western" nations with the largest percentage of Muslim residents (unless you think Turkey is western), which means they are likely to have large numbers of Muslim residents who are fundamentalist nutjobs. Any cooperation France and Germany gave toward prosecuting terrorists were acts of self-preservation more than anything else. They know they're easy targets. That's not to suggest that they should go along with US administration thinking, they should act in their own self-interest (you know, like we want our country to act). Which, regardless of which side you are on regarding the Iraq War, is exactly what France and Germany did.

[objective dissent]

Russ makes a good point. I wanted to pick up on that as well but had already ran long.

France & Germany did such a great job helping as compared to what? If we have no idea how many opportunities to nab terrorists that they have already passed on, how can anyone say that a few token presentations of police work has been a "tremendous help?"

The presumptive leaps this guy makes are astounding.

[Dan]

Oh how far have Americans come. In 1776 the writers of the Declaration of Independence invoked "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind..."

Talk about a bad choice of quotations! Here's the rest of the sentence:

"a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

We gave the world the same "decent respect" in the run-up to Gulf War II that we gave them in the War of Independence: we exhaustively detailed all our reasons for the action we were about to take, and then we went ahead and did it regardless of what they thought about it.

What we did not do is say "huh, England and Prussia don't approve? Well I guess we'll just keep being colonies, then". Nor did we worry what they thought of our independence, except inasmuch as they were capable of stopping us from achieving it.

Now the party line seems to be "get behind our war or f**k you!"

I don't think the average American gives a shit if any foreigners "get behind our war" or not. The hostility towards France, Germany, et al, stems from the fact that they did everything they could to oppose our national interests. Had they simply stayed out of it entirely (example: New Zealand), nobody here would have cared.

[ZAthras]

Look, I'm for pursuing American national interests even at the cost of being unpopular in Europe as much as anyone here. More, probably.

I neither want nor expect any President to act like George McGovern or Jimmy Carter, or even the elder George Bush. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, though, each had major differences with allied countries, and neither handled them with the clumsy hamhandedness the Bush administration has. We pay a price for not following the example of earlier Republican Presidents with a record of foreign policy success.

[joe]

I think he was talking about China and the Suez crisis, Ray.

[Ray]

You want President Bush to handle his foreign relations like Nixon?

Now that is a new one on me. I've heard some crazy things before, especially hanging out around here, but not that.

[Ray]

I forgot, we have some public schooled communtiy college types.

It's a farcical ideal to shoot for because, to be like Nixon, Bush would have to expend a few thousand more lives then throw the towel in and sell the Iraqis down the Eurphrates.