(Page 2 of 2)
Moreover, Washington is seen by everyone everywhere as the military guarantor of last resort. If the Iraq war is to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, it is up to America. If anyone can stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, it will be the U.S. If diplomacy ultimately fails with North Korea, Washington will be expected to take the lead. If Russia resorts to force against one of its neighbors in the Baltic, Caucasus, or elsewhere, America may find itself at war. If China acts aggressively against Taiwan, Taipei's emergency call will go to Washington. If the Philippines ends up in a scrape with Beijing over the Spratly Islands, Manila will look far away to the U.S.
If Australia finds itself facing military aggression from Indonesia or China, Canberra will press Washington for aid. Only in this case would Australia likely be involved, standing by America's side.
Allies can be useful, but only if they are willing to back up shared interests with manpower, money, and other resources. Advice is cheap, especially when it is Americans who are doing the dying.
What should Washington do in Iraq? There is no good answer, since Iraq already has been destabilized and is sliding towards chaos. Like Obama, I favor an expeditious withdrawal, which in my view is inevitable, so better sooner than later. Many good conservatives disagree, of course. But the decision is up to Americans, who are doing the bulk of the dying and paying.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Ian Grantham| 6.20.09 @ 9:12AM
It is amazing to read such fabricated garbage. Australia is serving in many many areas around the world - MANY and its military force consists of about a total ..including army, nave AND ari force of less than 50,000 personell, and to put decfence spending in to perspective alongside world wide assistance it spends more per capita than the USA and indeed if you are honest and look at the the US contribution to global assistance you would see that the US per catpia spends around 13c per person..Denmark around $1-40 All I am saying is that the statistics quoted herein are nothing more than absolute crap!
Ian Grantham| 6.20.09 @ 9:12AM
It is amazing to read such fabricated garbage. Australia is serving in many many areas around the world - MANY and its military force consists of about a total ..including army, nave AND ari force of less than 50,000 personell, and to put decfence spending in to perspective alongside world wide assistance it spends more per capita than the USA and indeed if you are honest and look at the the US contribution to global assistance you would see that the US per catpia spends around 13c per person..Denmark around $1-40 All I am saying is that the statistics quoted herein are nothing more than absolute crap!
Ian Grantham| 6.20.09 @ 9:17AM
I suppose I should blame my key board for the crappy spelling - but really it is MY fault - in Doug B andows case it seems he can't use a a calulator and cant read - either that or he is totally incompentent and incapable of accessing information possessing accurate data... then again I wonder if many people in the United States ... who say they are American ( which they are - but they usurp the title to mean them ESPECIALLY!) actually know where Australia is - Dooug Bandow obviouosly has limitations on his ability to source honest information!