Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Present Imperfect

A commenter on this Donklephant thread rejects the "centrist Democrat" argument and advocates instead for a "more isolationist approach and reduction of a military approaching 6% of GNP" for America. How this will work she doesn't say, but she implies it by instead listing what "The Republican approach" has led to.

It's a list of just about every challenge in the modern world, which sort of implies that, if there were no Republicans, there would be no problem.

It's hard to tell whether she considers Carter and Clinton and various Congressional Democratic majorities to be practitioners of the "Republican approach" or not. But even if she does, it still strikes me as an over-reach to say everything is the GOP's fault:

- A leftward swing in Latin America includimg nations allied with Castro.

[Hey, I thought real Democrats liked Castro]

- Nuclear Nprth Korea.

[Which happened under Clinton ...]

- A militant Iran with a foothold in Iraq.

[Militant Iran has been around since Carter's day]

- China and Russia somewhat allying and arming to fend off what they see as an aggressor. A new cold war.

[Does she really think if the U.S. gave up worldwide hegemony, China wouldn't be licking its lips at Taiwan, Burma, and Vietnam, and Putin's Russia wouldn't be yearning for its old imperial boundaries?]

- Growing splits with allies.

Certainly exacerbated by Bush, but an inevitable evolution after the end of the Cold War, and something that began under Clinton]

- Higher oil prices fed by insecurity which help almost no democracies with the exception of Norway.

[But how would American isolationism and pacifism have prevented it? She seems to be aware of the non sequiteur, as she adds "Given tight supply mantaining Iraqi oil production instead of being able to defend thhose lines would bring back a million barrels per day we took off the market." Which, frankly, as a sample of English, I can't make heads or tails of. Unless it's a way to say, "oil would be cheaper if Saddam was still in charge."]

- Pakistan as a platform replacing Afghanistan and in danger of a coup that would hand nuclear weapons to the Jihadists.

Pakistan was unstable and prone to coups before 9/11. Clinton wanted nothing to do with the current ruler. Arguably American aggressiveness toward Islamists, and the removal of their base in Afghanistan, has allowed and encouraged Pakistan's leaders to take a harder line with them.

UPDATE: Never mind. It's "Anna"/"Angie"/"Angela"/"Rachel"/"Patriot." Just wasted my time again.