Everyone out there that wants to sucker America, and get it to do the dirty work for him, knows what song to whisper in America’s ear. It’s the one that says: It is in America’s interest that you do as I yes.
It is also common knowledge that up until the middle of
the 1960s, America wore velvet gloves pursuing its interests when dealing with
other nations — but then, all of a sudden just about half a century ago, the
velvet gloves started to transform into steel knuckles.
What happened was that America – now subjected to intense
demonic advice – changed its policy of dealing with other nations from the
angle of friendly persuasion to that of making demands and giving ultimatums. From
henceforth, the promise was that economic sanctions and/or military action will
follow if the ultimatums are ignored. In fact, this has often been the outcome,
a reality that diminished America’s standing in the world to an extent that was
never imagined.
But how did the bad advice that was given to America,
develop? And who gave it?
John R. Bolton must have heard these questions and, being
the foremost expert at giving bad advice, decided to tell the world how he
would go about dragging America to an even lower standing. He wrote an article
under the title: “Containing Isolationism,” and the subtitle: “The pursuit of US interests requires engagement with the
world.” It was published on January 15, 2023 in National Review Online.
Ignoring the fact that the dominant cerebral
exercise in America today concerns the resolution of the question: “What is
accurate and what is spin in American history?” John Bolton began his
discussion by conveniently imagining a group of isolationists against whose argument—to
the effect that America has always been isolationist—he felt compelled to
respond. This gave him the springboard he needed to launch a dizzying spin on
America’s past interventionist policy and activities. This is how he started:
“America was never as isolated or isolationist
as some contend. At the outset, the US avoided European conflicts to guard its independence
and fragile unity against foreign meddling. In a passage from his 1796 Farewell
Address, George Washington wrote, ‘If we remain one people, . . . the period is
not far off when belligerent nations . . . will not hazard the giving us
provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice
shall counsel.’”
Even though George Washington’s saying meant
to advise that America should remain passive till provoked by others, in which
case it should rise and defend its interests, John Bolton went on to falsely
assert that American history has been characterized by the principle of
creative destruction, which is the ultimate in unprovoked aggression toward
others. He then fused the activities of commerce and war, and gave examples of
how the recently declared independent nation of America behaved on the world
stage. Here is some of what he said:
“John Adams fought against French privateers
in 1798–1800, and, from 1801, Thomas Jefferson fought the Barbary pirates in
North Africa. We created the Navy’s first Pacific Squadron in 1821, with a
major battle in Sumatra in 1831; the South Atlantic Squadron in 1826; and the
East India Squadron in 1835. We sailed Commodore Perry’s Black Fleet into Tokyo
Harbor in 1853 to open trade with Japan.”
But anyone interested in history who took the
time to read about the rise and development of empires, would recognize such
behavior as being a course of action naturally followed by such passive rulers
as the ancient Chinese, and such aggressive rulers as the Romans, neither of
which left a legacy considered to be a worthy model to emulate by those who wish
to create a perfect world.
But a perfect model is something that
John Bolton does not care much about, anyway. In fact, the ideal he chases is
not the creation of a perfect world; it is the creation of a world that works
perfectly well for America, even if that should come at the expense of everyone
else. And so, the writer proceeded to give lessons to the policy-makers of
today’s America.
In so doing, John Bolton attenuated the
significance of his earlier contentions: those pertaining to America’s fight against the French privateers, Jefferson’s fight
against the pirates of North Africa … the creation of a Pacific, a South
Atlantic and an East India Squadrons, and the sailing of Perry’s Black Fleet
into Tokyo Harbor.
Now accepting that this was no more
than the natural behavior of a rising power, John Bolton sank his teeth into the
real challenges that America will face in the future. Here is how he did that:
“After World War II, as America moved from
hemispheric to worldwide defense, those lessons were debated and tested.
Washington and its allies created an imperfect world order, based on our
unilateral exercise of power. This order persists to this day. If we were to
abandon it, as isolationists seemingly want, who would fill the gaps? Certainly
not the UN or other international organizations. There are only two
possibilities: adversaries such as China and Russia, or no one, creating
anarchy.”
Even though John Bolton went to great
lengths to dispel the notion that he is a closet neocon, he advocated vintage
neocon strategies that tell America’s policy-makers how to apply the modern
lessons that were learned up to now—among these being the humiliations of the
Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos, which ironically were fashioned for America
exclusively by the hands of the neocons. Here are Bolton’s recommendations:
“Bolster existing alliances such as NATO;
launch, enlarge and expand the scope of Indo–Pacific alliances; broaden
Israel’s acceptance and strengthen partnerships against Iran’s activities.
Because many NATO members still do not seem willing to spend 2 percent of their
GDP on defense matters, require that they shoulder their responsibilities. And
while enhancing collective-defense organizations, we should carefully avoid
endorsing international tribunals in lieu of national judicial systems to try
war-related crimes.”
Making a case about avoiding isolationism by going
gung-ho international, and then cautioning against joining international
tribunals, hammers a tall nail of incredibility into the coffin of John
Bolton’s intellectual capacity to participate in this debate.
The man should find something else to talk about.