Steven Den Beste has a typically good essay on form, substance, and the shortcomings of waiting for our friends in the EU to approve our actions in the War on Terror:
That last sentence [ed.—referring to the Democrats’ platform draft] is a straddle worthy of the master. It’s also boilerplate. For what this really says is that the Democrats think it is more important what reputation the US has in “the world” than what the US accomplishes to reduce the threats we face. The goal of foreign policy should be to get the Europeans to pat us on the head and to praise us for being good boys and girls.
The part that I simply can’t understand in those who believe that we should act in ways that are against our national interest in order to curry favor with France, Germany, and Russia is the notion that they, in turn, would act against their national interest to signal their displeasure with us. This flies in the face of both reason and experience. Can anyone give an example of France, Germany, or Russia behaving in such a way?
I believe that we’ll get total cooperation from our erstwhile allies or foes when it suits their perceived national interests and none at all when it doesn’t. And that they’ll castigate us all the way if that suits their national interests, too. Should we do any differently?
