|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Who Are the REAL Allies of the United States? Barry Farber Somebody once said America was like the awkward nerd at the party who passes out cocaine to everybody and still nobody likes him. Don Quixote has been laughed at for 400 years for dueling with windmills. At least windmills are solid. What I'm dueling with isn't a solid. It isn't even a liquid. It's a gas and a subtle, fragile gas at that. Until someone traps it into a Latin or German word, let me just describe the effect. Every American at birth inhales a gas that convinces him for the rest of his life that any country that does the right thing is doing it only as a direct favor to America and must be amply rewarded, overrewarded, stroked, flattered, carefully attended, cautiously managed, and given the benefit of every doubt even when nobody's doubting. I first became aware I'd been gassed after World War II, when America took the lead in forging NATO. Oh, with what joy and self-satisfaction we welcomed Nazi victims Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Greece into our new American defensive formation. Portugal was hailed as a country that, though not conquered by Germany in World War II, was nonetheless sufficiently enlightened to see the wisdom of gathering together under the NATO motto, "An attack on one is an attack on all!" A post-evil Germany and Italy came in. As the Soviet threat grew, Spain and Turkey strengthened the ranks of countries that were not communist and wanted to stay that way. Newly independent Iceland came in as a strategic cherry atop the NATO sundae. We applauded ourselves mightily. We congratulated our diplomats able to shape such an awesome alliance. And what was wrong with that picture? Not the motive; that was noble. Not the achievement of NATO itself, which possibly deserves the credit for keeping a rapacious Soviet Union from trying to grab Western Europe. Not the architecture of NATO. That was flawless.
The ony thing wrong was who should have led the dance. Why did it fall to America to erect NATO? Why didn't the newly liberated nations that were plucked off by Hitler one by one come to Washington with the idea, the initiative, the energy and the persistence to cobble it all together themselves? Of course, America had an interest in a strong NATO. In those days we didn't scorn presidents who talked of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." But I don't remember Europe ever saying "Please!" to America. I just remember America saying "Please" to Europe and thanking the member countries for their cooperation. Cooperating in their own defense? Now isn't THAT a great concession to America! During the Cold War every time a nation, even a so-called "ally," allowed America to use a base or a harbor or overfly territory, those acts were hailed as "really coming through for the USA!" Shouldn't there have been a little "Thanks, America, for being who you are and what you are and shielding us against a Soviet Union with an obvious expansive appetite. A harbor, landing rights, overflight privilege is the least we can do for you in the cause of freedom, in which you are a powerful centerpiece and we are grateful beneficiaries!" Something populist or nativist sprung loose in me when I learned how much we were paying to have our troops quartered in countries we had defeated, liberated, and were actively defending against the new threat. I can understand older men giving young boys money for giving grandpa a hug. Giving other countries money for the right to defend them is explainable behavior only by countries that have been "gassed." Men have been known to assume the debts of certain women who provide certain services. Many an angry wife, upon learning of such an arrangement, has confronted her stuttering husband with the question, "Why are you paying her rent?" When's the last time you heard an American ask, "Why are we paying Europe and Asia's defense bill?" The only answer was always "Those countries are with us in resisting communist aggression." The fact that those countries might have had and perceived their own stake in such an enterprise was never uttered. Too rude! I blame it on the gas. Korea deserves special mention. There quite literally would not be a free, democratic, prosperous South Korea if it weren't for America. There wouldn't be a South Korea at all if President Harry Truman hadn't ordered American troops to its defense when communist North Korea attacked in June 1950. Truman said we'd worry about the paperwork later. Meanwhile, let's go. And we went. And as far as South Korea's interests go, we won. And today? Today the young people of South Korea prefer North Korea to America, and by a margin something like the Democrats of 2004 preferred Kerry over Dennis Kucinich.
The occasional rape of a South Korean woman by an American soldier and the tragedy of accidental traffic fatalities committed by American military vehicles cause understandably bad feeling. But how can such misfortunes loom larger than the deliberate invasion by the north resulting in the slaughter of over a million South Koreans, not counting the torture, the brutal imprisoning of anti-communists, and the ravaging of the South Korean landscape and economy? Washington sucks up the insult and behaves as though South Korea is doing us a big favor letting our troops remain. Don't ask ungassed peoples to put up with that kind of thing. I may be the only America who opposes the Dubai port deal who agrees with every single point made by those who favor it. I've been making the point that "all Moslems aren't alike" since long before 9/11; in fact, since I met Bosnian Moslems who didn't know which way Mecca was and Indonesian Moslems who taught me their drinking songs.
Yes, I know Dubai's post-9/11 behavior has been as laudable as Pakistan's. Pre-9/11 Dubai may have recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan, but pre-9/11 Pakistan gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to the Taliban and actively supported them. I simply hold a fear that any Arab auspices whatsoever in our vital homeland infrastructure amounts to a vulnerability. Organizational gays will never believe this, but the prohibition of homosexuals in our State Department, FBI, CIA, etc., in the 1950s was NOT homophobia. It was not, not even way back then.
Story Continues Below
It was a recognition that homosexuals, at that time almost 100 percent deeply closeted, were uniquely vulnerable to blackmail, a fact Soviet intelligence used many times to compromise gay American agents. I fear Arab overseers are uniquely vulnerable to infiltration. I felt the gas pinching my nostrils as the educated proponents of the Dubai port deal threw themselves on the floor in lamentation. "America's spitting in Dubai's face will cause not just Dubai but all other moderate Arab countries to rethink any cooperation with America and possibly even make their accomodation with Osama." Sorry, Dubai. I want you as an ally. But now that the "gas" is fading so long after my birth, I have to look you in the eye and tell you that I want you as an ally if you feel there is a legitimate common fight that Dubai and America should wage together for modernity, freedom, civilization and all the good things. If your desire to ally with us is based solely or mostly or even largely upon the billions you stand to gain from a port deal, perhaps it's a good thing we learn that prior to sinking into the comfort of what we feel is a true alliance. Norway, as just one example, and America were properly linked by the issues of World War II against Hitler. Portugal, as just one example, and America were properly linked during the Cold War against communist aggression. Are Dubai and America properly linked in the war on terror? I hope so! Norway and Portugal never needed a port deal. \Why must it always be regarded as a big favor when another country acts in conformity with American interests and American wishes? During the Cold War, didn't the free Europeans and free Asians want to retain that freedom? And don't today's terror victim and potential terror victim countries want to defeat terror – including Arab states like Dubai? Sherlock Holmes used to ask, "Cui bono?" (Who benefits?) Americans from the president and the secretary of state on down should learn to ask that same question. When you treat a mutual partner sharing a benefit as one who's doing you a favor, you risk that partner's coming to agree with that interpretation, clinging to it and charging you for it! Her head rested gently on his shoulder as she wept in the limousine on the way back from the cemetery. "I know how you felt about your Uncle Charlie," said he. "He came to live with us over 25 years ago. He became part of our family right away, and I just want you to know I loved your Uncle Charlie as much as you did." Suddenly her crying stopped. She sat bolt upright and said, "What do you mean, MY Uncle Charlie. All those years I thought he was YOUR Uncle Charlie!"
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |