Thursday, June 03, 2004

Policy of Dominance

Former VP Gore spoke to the repugnant hate group I wish to address but one of the VP's points. Gore's complaint that we are seeking dominance over the world. He said:

An American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does.

Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens -- sooner or later -- to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul.

First of all, if we did dominate the world as Gore and his listeners fear, the world could do a heck of a lot worse. His shameful churning of the abuse of prisoners in Iraq (which is being addressed and punished) to bolster his false point should be beyond consideration by one who wished (still wishes?) to be President and who stood a heartbeat from the presidency for eight years.

But we don't seek dominance as Gore asserts. This is what The National Security Strategy of the United States says about dominance:

We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy—whether a state or non-state actor—to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.

Is this clear? We wish to maintain military capability so far advanced that no nation will try to match us and put us in the position we found ourselves in during the Cold War—blocked around the globe and doomed to an expensive arms race with an enemy that could destroy us and thus locked us into a nuclear-tinged stalemate for decades. 

And the purpose of this goal of dominance is not to control the world. France—God help us all—will be free to be France. Alec Baldwin and those owning summer homes there can rest easy. We just want our skyscrapers to stand unattacked. We don't want any more of our people to have to make the choice of burning or falling to their deaths. We want our subways free of chemical killing agents. We want our cities free from the threat of a mushroom cloud. We wish simply to be left alone. That's all. Just left alone.

What is so God-awful wrong with wanting America to be militarily dominant so we will be left alone? Why is it best if America is hamstrung and blocked and forced to compromise on every endeavor? Why are we better off if enemies are capable of attacking and harming us mortally because they have parity or superiority in power?

Why? Because the audience that cheered Gore's screeching and fevered speech views America as uniquely evil in the world. They believe we deserve to be constrained. They want other countries to impose their will on us. Shoot, they believe not too far below the surface that we deserve to be attacked and beaten—even destroyed—in order to save America. In their anger and hatred, they are the ones who have made the Faustian bargain—defeat the man they hate and stop the country they loathe, and the Devil with how it is done or who must die or suffer to achieve their goals. A million Mogadishus would not be too high a price for our justified humbling by wiser foreigners.

I vote for American military dominance. Proudly. And I won't need to put my soul in a lock box while I wish for our dominance.

[Originally from my pre-Blogger site. You can check for accuracy or just gawk in amazement at the primitive state of the blog then by hitting the reocities link.  Permalink to this post:]