Today's Opinion Journal has a great piece on Australia's PM John Howard, one of my favorite politicians anywhere.
Here's a little straight talk from Mr. Howard on Iraq: "It's not all negative and nobody pretends that it's easy... Pulling out will guarantee a descent into civil war and chaos and a victory for terrorism and we're totally opposed to that."
How different from the Brits is that?
It never ceases to annoy me that when people talk about Iraq, they act as though the planned UK scuttle from Iraq will leave America alone to fight the war alone...and forget about the Diggers, the Poles, and a few other brave nations who stand with us and will not waver an inch.
The Australians will be shoulder to shoulder us...just like they have been for almost 100 years.
I very much appreciate Austalia and all of our allies who stand with us in Iraq or Afghanistan. I'll be the first to admit that I wish they could do more. The truth is they are doing all that they can. When the US launched Operation Iraqi Freedom over thirty nations were with us in some capacity. This American truly appreciates all of their support and it will not be forgotten.
ReplyDeleteThose nations who have stood with us when the going has gotten rough are much appreciated and will never be forgotten. On the opposite end, the nations who bolted when things got a little hot will not soon be forgotten either. I have forgiven them but I cannot forget.
It angers me to no end when some people refer to our allies as "the bribed and the coerced" or something to this effect. That is an extremely crappy way to treat people who took and enormous risk to stand with you when things were tough.
It would have been much easier for any of these nations to say "no" when the Americans asked for help with Iraq and Afghanistan than it would have been for these nations to say "yes." When these countries said "yes" they took an enormous risk. They essentially placed themselves squarely in the sights of Islamic terrorists. Also, many of these nations placed the risk of facing a disruption in their oil supplies.
When someone takes an enormous risk and offers to help you when it would have been much easier for them to refuse, the appropiate response is "thank you." An inappropiate response is to insult them by refering to them as a "coalition of the bribed and the coerced."
It has been mostly Democrats who have done this, however, there may have been some Republicans who did this and I missed it. When a leader insults his or her friends, they demonstate themselves to be unfit for a position of leadership.
It is often asked, "why do they hate us?" I would assert that this is part of the reason. Referring to people who took an enoromous risk to help America as a "coaltion of the bribed and coerced" is not good policy and is not a good way to win friends or influence people. If I took a huge risk to help someone and they insulted me, I would be stongly inclined to hate them. These types of bone headed actions on the part of some American leaders have allot to do with why America is not very well liked these days.
In other words, if you insult your friends and appease your enemies, it may lead people to think it is more profitable to be your enemy than it is to be your friend. Both Republicans and Democrats have bnee guilty of appeasement of enemies. So far, President Bush is the biggest appeaser of them all.