The bright young lads in three-piece suits* who write the editorials for the Economist have come up with a stunner, *What would America fight for?* Listen to their jive:
For America’s most exposed allies that is now in doubt (see article). For decades, America’s security guarantee used to underpin Japan’s foreign policy; now, on his Asian tour, Mr Obama has had to reassure Japan that it can count on America if China seizes the disputed Senkaku islands (which China calls the Diaoyus). After his tepid backing for intervention in Libya and Mali and his Syrian climbdown, Israel, Saudi Arabia and a string of Gulf emirates wonder whether America will police the Middle East. As Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, disrupts Ukraine, eastern Europeans fret that they are next.
Each situation is different, but in the echo-chamber of global politics they reinforce each other. The Asians note that in 1994, in exchange for surrendering nuclear weapons, Ukraine received a guarantee from Russia, America and Britain that its borders were safe.† The Baltic countries remember the red lines crossed in Syria. Arab princes and Chinese ambassadors count the Republican senators embracing isolationism. Together, these retreats plant a nagging suspicion among friends and foes that on the big day America simply might not turn up.
Naturally, none of these smart young lads are planning to see any action themselves. Yet, if you take them seriously, the U.S. should, right now, be bombing Russia, menacing China, and invading Syria. Except, of course, they aren’t really saying that. We should just project “resolve,” that’s all. Otherwise, we lose “credibility,” and “doubt feeds on itself.” And, one imagines, the dish runs away with the spoon.
It’s hard to fathom the roots of the massive contempt displayed for Obama in this editorial. The Economist kids just seem to be desperate for some excitement. All this peace! It’s so boring! Why can’t you just kill some people, President Obama? It’s so much more exciting when you kill some people!
Afterwords
Amusingly, and not unexpectedly, the Economist both faults Obama for not defending Ukraine and admits that he was right not to do so: “nobody thinks he should have sent troops to Crimea, despite the breaking of the 1994 agreement.” Still, he should really, you know, get out there and “vanquish” something! That would be so cool!
*If this stereotype is dated, I apologize. But not very much.
†In fact, we did not guarantee Ukraine’s borders. We guaranteed not to violate them, a guarantee that Russia violated.
