AMERICAN ARROGANCE?????

In recent weeks, we have witnessed President Obama and his critics express their view of the United States' role in the world. Conservative critics of the President dubbed his trip to the G20 as the "Apology Tour". They were equally outraged by his shaking hands with tin pot Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. Let's take a moment to review the President's foreign policy initiatives and his public statements.

First, he has handled North Korea correctly. He has not appeased. Secondly, his actions in the hemisphere seem to suggest a willingness to get past the like of Mr. Chavez and speak to the people of Venezuela too. It seems the same view is held towards Cuba. Whether you agree with this perspective or not, it is a dramatic departure and can be altered if the President deems that these efforts are not matched in turn.

His attitude towards Cuba and Venezuela is acceptable as a short term objective as long as he does not undermine political support in the region. If he is to find common ground with Mr. Chavez, then the President must insist that he stop supporting FARC rebels that are trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of Colombia. Mr Chavez is supporting these rebels in concert with his allies in Ecuador,Nicaragua and Bolivia. Sadly, President Obama has weakened Colombia's position by opposing a free trade agreement.

Of all the foreign policy matters, the issue of Iran is paramount. The mullahs in Iran deny one Holocaust as a justification to renew genocide on an epic scale, on their terms. You cannot placate those who would embrace destruction. The President has conceded that Iran not be required to swear off pursuing nuclear technology as a precondition of negotiations. The minds of the mullahs see this compromise as weakness and it clearly emboldens their apocalyptic objectives.

The President, while in Europe was condemned by some for suggesting that we as a country have been "arrogant" and sometimes "derisive". The President also said that Europe was wrong to blame everything on the United States. This was conveniently overlooked by his critics. The Presidents' statement clearly sought to reinvent an historic relationship that he believes to have been broken. This is clearly a debateable view, but not unworthy of expression.

It is quite evident that many Europeans and of course President Obama in turn believe we are or have behaved arrogantly. Is this a correct perspective? I believe it is, but in a context conveniently overlooked and in need of exposure.

How did we, the United States of America come to occupy our present station in time as a global superpower? Prior to the Second World War, as we were trying to escape a Great Depression, much of the world was either in a state or progressively moving into war.
The American people embraced isolation. We believed as tragic as war is, it was none of our business. After all, as immigrants from every corner of the globe, didn't we come here to escape the brutal devastation of imperial societies? We embraced peace through the pursuit of freedom and liberty tempered by a respect for civil law.

As a matter of history, we as a nation have been roundly criticized for wanting to trade with every nation, but remain neutral in their wars. How then did such a nation with such a view become a global superpower? Was it arrogance? No. Was it a callous disregard for human life in foreign conflicts? No. Americans, contrary to what many would have you believe, understood the consequences of fighting a war in Europe and Asia. Both continents were dominated historically by oppressive monarchs suppressing their citizens. Additionally, Europe extended its suppression to Africa and Asia by violently pursuing colonial imperial expansionism, disguised as trade. Americans saw through it and recognized the trap.

One of the great fallacies of history is that European democracies ignored the objectives of Adolph Hitler because they did not believe he wanted war, given the horror of the Great War. It is often ignored but must be pointed out that Hitler was able pursue his path of destruction because his neighbors viewed the Nazis as a bulwark against Soviet expansion under Joseph Stalin. The result was to appease.

American "arrogance" was conceived amidst the echo of appeasement. Were we being arrogant when France did nothing to oppose the occupation of the Rhineland? Were we being arrogant when Hitler annexed Austria and Europe dithered? Were we arrogant when Europe did not oppose Mussollini when he invaded Albania,Greece and Ethiopia? Were we arrogant when Europe turned a deaf ear to the urgent pleas of Haille Sellassie's appeal at the League of Nations? Were we arrogant as no one stood up to Japan's literal rape of China? Were we arrogant as Chamberlain bartered the lives of millions in the Sudetanland to declare "peace in our time"? Was it our arrogance that saw Europe in flames at the hands of Fascists due to their naive indifference? No, no to all of it

If this sounds somewhat bitter, well that's because I feel bitter when there is talk of "arrogance". The subtext of our arrogance, perceived or otherwise is a latent but profound bitterness. We ought to feel bitter that we got dragged into a war we did not want. We wanted no part of a world in flames, but found ourselves awoken one Sunday morning by a world insistent upon our participation.

We met that challenge with a courage and tenacity unmatched in modern times. When the war was over, we were compelled to stay. Why? Because Stalin's Russia, having suffered twenty million fatalities in the wake of appeasement, in turn justified an occupation of Eastern Europe to protect its own border integrity from further invasion. The result? Almost five decades of Cold War, one more tragic chapter, originating with the appeasers.

When we are accused of arrogance, I respond with a few questions: Don't we deserve to be bitter? Yes and no. History played its hand and we were forced by necessity to meet the challenge. But we may justly be bitter that a world at war insisted that American mothers and fathers sent their sons to die.

Did Americans desire or deserve to send their sons to volcanic Iwo Jima? To a distant atol named Guadalcanal? To die on a torpedo run against Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway? From the jungles of New Guinea to a dust bin in Tunisia called Kasserine? Did the 101st Airborne deserve to freeze at Bastogne or merchant marines on convoys in the arctic? Did submariners deserve to die at the depths of the oceans? Did our airmen deserve a horrific death at 20,000 feet? No, but they did nonetheless.

Contrary to what many may think, we did not pursue our present role or seek a greater chapter in history. We wanted to be left alone but were not. We are who are and have earned our present station in time and history, not by desire, but by the demand of those insistent that the world would repeat its conflict with our absence. So it goes, so it is, so stop whining about our arrogance or leave us the hell alone. That's all we ever asked for anyway.