The Western World faces the greatest threat to global democracy and freedom since the fall of the U.S.S.R, yet many in the West blame the U.S.A. for creating it, if not actually being worse than it! If I believed the hype that Kerry spews about the U.S.A. being "a sort of international pariah," I would have to believe that nations around the world are shunning involvement with the U.S.A.
That's not the world I see. I see people, services, and commodities from at least 20 different nations every day, and that's a conservative estimate. No nation is more involved with "the world" than the U.S.A, though George Washington is probably spinning in his grave over it.
Iraq, the so-called "lost cause," is still the main distraction of the MSM, while the Emirate of Waziristan isn't even a blip on their radar screen. These people need to wake up! The U.S.A. is not a repressive or imperialist "regime" under President Bush. The same can't be said for most of these nations:
Russia is using capitalism as it used socialism, to bludgeon it's neighbors into submission with threats of cutting off natural gas supplies. It also has repressed it's internal freedom of expression, with multiple killings of journalists, both native and foreign. The corruptocracy of Russia sent a big message with the murder of Alexander Litvenenko: CATCH ME IF YOU CAN
China takes the long view, but can't help being changed by the internal policies they are implementing. Perhaps to "stay relevant" on the world stage, they recently destroyed one of their obsolete satellites with a missile, without warning. Since this satellite was at the same altitude as our communications, as well as spy satellites, it was provocative. More troubling is their refusal to act against Sudan or Iran in the U.N. Security Council. Still, few see China as a "threat to world peace."
South America seems to be swinging to the left, reversing the trend after the U.S.A.'s efforts there in the past decades. The brightest star of the left is Hugo Chavez, who is determined to take up Castro's mantle. He's resurrected Ortega in Nicaragua, and supported other anti-U.S.A. candidates in other regional nations.
More disturbing is Chavez' meetings with Iran's President Ahmedinejad. There is no subject that these two have in common more than the destruction of the U.S.A. It might be on a different scale, but I present their meeting as equivalent to Stalin meeting Hitler: "A seperate peace" between the Islamist from Iran and the Infidel from Venezuela. The death of Saddam might be forcing some of these folks to accelerate their plans. We should be ready.
Africa remains in jeopardy. The "Dark Continent" has little hope of emerging to enjoy the freedoms of the modern world, though where there is struggle, there is always hope. What is the force that opposes all of the international efforts to help African nations? Why does the U.S, but not the U.N, call Sudan a "genocide?" Here's a hint: Russia aligns with China on "non-interference" with the Islamic government of Sudan, regardless of the atrocities.
With the USSR not around anymore, the U.S.A. should be frightening repressive regimes around the world, and we are, to some degree. The death of Saddam has sent shivers up the spine of every two-bit dictator (see Hugo Chavez) who hasn't secured a promise of asylum from some nation that doesn't extradite war criminals. The counter to that is the ongoing insurgency, fueled by Al Queda (Saudis and others) and Iran. The images of devastation from Iraq have dampened support for that front of the greater war we are in.
Speaking of which, Pakistan has spun off "Waziristan" into it's own Emirate. Is Waziristan under Pakistan's "nuclear umbrella," or can we invade that mountainous country, to find Osama Bin Ladin (as Hillary advised)? India has nuclear weapons as well, but is more concerned with Kasmir than Waziristan. The Kasmir conflict is as intractable as any in the world, on par with the Israeli conflict with the surrounding Muslim nations. Palestinians and Kasmirs are being used to advance the Islamofascist agenda of Sharia, though there are cracks in both fronts.
Freedom must grow through these cracks in the repression, as it did in the former U.S.S.R, and can in Iran, China, and elsewhere today. (More on that in another post.)
Many in the West call Bush an "imperialist," a "fascist," and claim that he has single-handedly restricted all of our liberties. People that have actually seen a repressive regime first-hand scoff at these accusations, but many people in other Western nations seem to believe them. However, opinion polls don't always represent public policy; nor should they.
The world today is linked by immediate communications on a level that has never been factored into politics, war, or international relations in the past. The telecom age has changed international politics dramatically, impacting everything mentioned in this post. There is also the quicker transfer of goods and people around the globe than ever before to consider. We worry about a nuke in a shipping container, while the world worries about our response to such an act.
My concern about the world today is not what the world thinks of us in the U.S.A, but what we in the U.S.A. think about our nation, and the negative image so many show the world. If Bush has made our nation so evil, how can Hillary change our nation back to being good? I worry that even if President Hillary appeases the evil opponents of the U.S.A, we will still be perceived as "the Great Satan," or just plain evil, as we were under her husband's gentle stewardship.
We need a wake-up call, before it's too late. We're gonna get one, though; sooner or later.
Here are three posts that relate to some of the points made here. I read these just after posting this. (hat tip to JWR)
David Limbaugh: Don't underestimate antiwar forces
Michael Ledeen: Our Blithering World: Where's the vision and leadership?
Charles Krauthammer: Who's to blame for the killing