THOMAS: An innocent abroad

Summary: I prefer McCain even though he has no plan and no strategic view, so I will write a silly column celebrating my own correctness and comparing Obama to the naif I was at thirty and the naif I remain. Hint: If you want the Eurpeans to step up, you should not start by announcing your intention to pursue permanent US hegemony, unilaterally abandon treaties, and refuse to face up to the common dilemma of global climate change. The idea of liberty was born in Europe, and remains strong. When my Greek co-worker hears a jingoistic celebration of American democracy, he laughs at the notion. That may or may not have to do with the years that the US supported a military dictatorship in Greece. Did you catch that on your first European tour?

Obama "might be the pied piper, leading Europe to its doom?" Get real, Thomas. Who believes that Obama or any other American can be Europe's leader, or that Europe's destiny lies in the hands of Washington? Certainly not me! The rise of the European Union, matched by the inertia of NATO, means that Europe's leaders are more rivals than sycophants of America's leaders. One challenge for the next president, whoever it is, will be to cooperate with, not coerce these leaders. This nation requires a less hubristic attitude toward the world than has been our history --- especially our post-Cold War history.

The one thing we need to be aware of with the Europeans are the vulnerabilities that Obama offers from his consensus driven policies. There is an opportunity for the EU to exploit their interests over U.S. interests when it comes to Obama's inexperience and celebrity status. Todays multilateralism is global in consensus but regional when comes to compliance. How will he react to the hard issues when those compliance zones come into contact? His leanings are socialist and the EU is that mature society that Justice Kennedy talks about. With half the U.S., the EU and a biased portion of media influencing him, will he even consider the other half of the U.S. as national interests if he is elected or ignore them like his regional commanders in the Middle East and stick with a failed Iraq paradigm.

To dmh (above comment): You are right and you are wrong. Is it just for American leaders to usurp authority over all foreign regimes without just cause or merit? No, of course not. Is it absolutely essential to the perpetuity of free nations that some party step in when foreign neo-despots reign physical and economic terror down upon their own kin? Yes, absolutely. At risk of sounding cavalier, the issue at play is a zero-sum game--that is the essential and most fundamental difference between justice and meddling. Americans participate in global diplomacy to release fellow men from shackles of tyranny that inhibit growth and plague the human experience. The US lifts struggling nations and economies (whether or not they are too oblivious to admit) from a figurative pit of despair--whether it be genocide, a ruthless dictator, or simply activity outside the best interest of the people--and returns them to a state of balanced flux. The US does not act as the so-labeled "world's police" out of malice or greed, but rather out of duty; duty to defend what is inherently right and good so that we all may live and prosper. It is important to note that I can appreciate your point of view, even though I completely disagree. The consistent collision of polar ideals is essential to effective democracy--which is the keystone of each of the world's greatest democracies [insert national cheer here].

The Europeans cannot recognize an empty suited chameleon no more than they can recognize the immigration problems that has already doomed their existence. They just don't know it yet. Think about the fact that they loved John Kerry so much. That speaks for itself. I believe that subconsciously, they want the United States to fail as badly as they have. Misery loves company. As to the U.S wanting hegemony, that is absurd. We just don't want to have to bail their a--es out again as we done several times in the last century. Most of them are unable (or unwilling due to appeasement policies) to do it. Look at the restrictions placed on their, for the most part, paltry contribution of troops in Afghanistan. They are not even allowed to fight. The U.S. and our British allies always do the heavy lifting.