How do Americans see themselves and others in the new world that’s shaping in front of them?
To answer that question, we may consult a number of
articles, all published recently, that paint a near comprehensive picture of
what preoccupies the elites of that country at this time.
Jed Babbin, whose interest is America’s place in the
world, wrote about: “China’s Saudi-Iran gambit,” an article that also came
under the subtitle: “The Saudi-Iranian
deal brokered by China is in conflict with the Abraham Accords.” It was
published on March 18, 2023 in The Washington Times. Here, in condensed form,
is what Babbin thinks:
“China has established itself as a
major player in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to recommence
diplomatic relations after a four-day summit meeting in Beijing. Iran remains
the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. China’s Saudi-Iran deal is a direct
reflection of Mr. Biden’s weakness. China isn’t done interfering in the
Middle East. China is also seeking to increase its influence in South
America. If Mr. Biden were a strong leader, he would be
answering China’s overheated rhetoric in calm, strong words. But
Mr. Biden is not a strong leader. China will continue to
increase its Middle East influence without American opposition while Mr.
Biden sleepwalks to war with China”.
Clearly, what Jed Babbin wants to see
is a firmer if not more aggressive American foreign policy. It is one that will
make China—America’s current rival if not adversary—think twice before going
deep into places which America considers vital to its interests. But Babbin
reminds the readers that according to him and others like him, Iran is the
world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism. When China teams with it; when it seeks
to increase its influence in South America and when its leaders encounter a
weak American President, bad thinks can result. How bad would that be? As bad
as start a war with China, he goes on to explain.
Thomas
Lifson is even harsher on President Joe Biden. He wrote an article that came
under the title: “Calamity Joe,” and the subtitle: “Geopolitical Catastrophes Multiply as American Power and
Influence Crash to New Postwar Lows.” It was published on March19, 2023 in the
American Thinker. Here, in condensed form, is how Lifson sees things:
“In two years, Joe
Biden has produced multiple catastrophes. Domestically, we see the banking
system teetering on insolvency as a rapid escalation in interest rates was
triggered by his jihad against domestic oil, gas, and coal production. The
potential for serious damage to the American people from the military and
diplomatic policies is even worse. The administration is flirting with a
nuclear confrontation with Russia and China. And as the potential increases,
resources for America to counter the threat are diminishing. In addition, Xi
Jinping is visiting Moscow, the two being opposed to American hegemony. They
seek to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency by other rising
powers. And there is the insane drawdown of our stocks of ammunition, missiles,
and other weapons of war, sent to a dictator in Ukraine. This denuding of
critical resources continues, even as China and Russia strengthen their
positions, and China openly continues a massive military buildup aimed at
conquering Taiwan”.
Thus, Thomas Lifson sees nothing that’s redeeming in the character of his
President Joe Biden or in the work that he is doing. On the contrary, Lifson
sees Biden as being such a catastrophic figure, he ruined the banking system,
at the domestic level. As to the international level, Lifson sees Biden as
having opened the door for China and Russia to replace the dollar at being the
world’s reserve currency. Worse, Biden has allowed America’s arsenals to be
depleted at a time when Russia and China are replenishing theirs, says Thomas Lifson.
As to Daniel R. DePetris, he looked at things from a different angle. He
wrote an article which came under the title: “The Iraq Campaign,” and the
subtitle: “The public was given talking
points and PR before the war.” It was published on March 16, 2023 in National
Review Online. Here, in condensed form, is what Daniel DePetris has in mind:
“Driven by sensationalism, fear, hubris, and
naïveté in the making of policy,” President of the United States George
W. Bush was snookered into believing that the President of Iraq Saddam Hussein
had developed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Bush’s speech on the eve of the war was the
culmination of a monthslong, highly disciplined public-relations strategy to
convince the American public and the international community that Saddam was an
imminent threat to US interests. At a time when the American people deserved a rigorous debate about
whether war was necessary, the mainstream media repeated what they deemed
credible, irrefutable administration talking points. Advocates of the war in
Iraq defend the misadventure to this day. But the record is clear: The
regime-change campaign was the worst US foreign-policy mistake since Lyndon
Johnson’s Vietnam troop surge nearly four decades earlier”.
Thus, it is clear that Daniel DePetris believes that the Iraq War was
committed as a result of malicious advocates orchestrating a highly
disciplined public-relations strategy to convince the American public that
Saddam was an imminent threat to US interests. And these advocates defend the misadventure to this
day despite the record which shows it was the worst US foreign-policy mistake
since Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam troop surge nearly four decades earlier, says
DePetris.
But who were those malicious advocates? And
are they still the same today? We meet them when we read the article that came
under the title: “Why the Iraq War Felt Right,” and the subtitle: “On the distorting influence of the
‘manly virtues.’” It was written by Tanner Greer and published on March 16,
2023 in National Review Online. Here, in condensed form, is what Greer had to
say:
“The Left never found it
difficult to explain the catastrophe of Iraq. They are free to blame the
disastrous course of our war on deception and malice. Younger rightists dodge
the war-taint by blaming everything on a ghoulish cabal of neoconservatives.
This is a comforting narrative. Blaming the neocons leaves a crucial question
unasked: How could dreamers convince the rest of us that this venture was worth
it? The place to start is the late 1990s. For intellectuals, this was an age of
sterile prosperity. The picture was particularly glum for men. For conservative
intellectuals, politics offered no reprieve from humdrum modernity. The
American Right began this century adrift. Conservatives yearned for something —
anything — that would ground their politics and their manhood in something more
meaningful than the stock ticker. For a brief, shining moment it felt as if the
War on Terror might provide that grounding. Here was an escape hatch from
unwelcome modernity”.
As can be seen, Tanner Greer agrees that the Iraq War was a catastrophe.
But who was to blame for it? Well, without any of the other writers blaming the
neocons, Tanner Greer came out bellowing that it was not the neocons. He thus
proved that it was the neocons through and through. In fact, he named a few
individuals who made up the neocon cabal at the time.