Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 6, 2002 / 22 Adar, 5762

Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Axis of hubris -- AS President George W. Bush wandered across Northeast Asia, it appeared that he thought it was 1942, not 2002. He seemed to believe that the world was engaged in a twilight struggle between good and evil, and only overwhelming American military involvement everywhere could prevent a new Dark Ages from descending upon the planet.

He began his trip with Japan. Although the economy took precedence, Washington continues to reaffirm the two nations' military ties.

The United States wants Tokyo to do more, but not too much more. And America is committed to maintaining its deployments in Japan, in the face of increasing criticism, particularly from the long-suffering residents of Okinawa.

On to South Korea went the president, attempting to quiet fears created by his inclusion of North Korea in the "axis of evil" that he sees as threatening free nations worldwide. In response to Seoul's worries about his belligerence, he offered to talk with the North, but also promised to deter "aggression against Korea." Bush's view of China sensibly seems to be more competitor than partner, but he doesn't stop there. Before reaching the mainland, he promised to "remember our commitments to Taiwan" -- that is, to go to war with Beijing should it threaten to use force against Taipei.

Finally, he offered carte blanche guarantees to most everyone else. The United States, he said, would continue to "show American power and purpose in support of the Philippines, Thailand and Australia." Perhaps the only surprise was his omission of any security commitment to Brunei or Laos.

George W. Bush ran for the White House as the more restrained of the two major candidates, preaching humility and questioning nation-building. Now he is governing like a Roman emperor, lecturing his client-states around the globe. No matter how strong and how much stronger than their adversaries they may be, they must remain dependent on Washington.

American paternalism made sense in the aftermath of World War II. Japan was in ruins; defeated countries and conquered territories alike were vulnerable; the Soviet Union was competing for global influence. A U.S. defensive shield would give the East Asian states time to mature economically and politically. And they have done so. Yet Washington doesn't seem to have noticed. It has left its security guarantees and military deployments largely unchanged, as if the threat environment was largely unchanged.

There's Japan, for instance. It's an economic giant, despite its problems.

Yet its military role remains minuscule, essentially ready to provide body bags for Americans killed while defending Japanese interests. Other states remain wary of a more assertive Tokyo, but that is no excuse for the world's second-ranking economic power to shirk its responsibility for maintaining regional stability and peace, let alone for defending itself. Even more bizarre is Washington's determination to maintain 37,000 troops in South Korea as the North implodes. Seoul possesses an economy 30-40 times the size of its starving adversary; the South's population is twice as big as that of the North. The country that should deter "aggression against Korea" is Korea, not America.

Taiwan is a worthy friend, but is not vital for U.S. security. Instead of risking involvement in a war that would be catastrophic for the entire region, Washington should ensure that Taipei is able to maintain an adequate deterrent force.

Taiwan is ready and able to buy the best military equipment available. Doing so would force any Chinese leadership to think more than once before resorting to force to "resolve" the island's status.

Then there's the president's gobbledy-gook commitment to everyone else. Thailand faces no obvious threats; against whom does it need support? The Philippines has bothered to build neither a serious military capable of challenging China's territorial claims to the Spratly Islands nor a just civil order capable of deflating domestic political unrest. Manila needs to strengthen its own institutions rather than look to Washington for a bail-out. Finally, Australia sits serenely in the South Pacific, fearing not marauding invaders from China, but desperate refugee flotillas from Indonesia. There are many areas for continued U.S.-Australia cooperation, ranging from intelligence-sharing to freer trade, but no need for a defense guarantee. Canberra's primary security relationship should be with its Asian neighbors, not America.

The United States reigns supreme around the globe, spending as much on the military as the next nine nations combined. President Bush's proposed increase in defense outlays, $48 billion, is more than any other country devotes to the military. Traditional security threats remain, but primarily against America's allies, not America. And they are now fully capable of defending themselves.

Last September's attacks on the United States show that the greatest threat to America is terrorism. Washington should concentrate on confronting this menace.

JWR contributor Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Comment by clicking here.


02/27/02: Washington-style campaign reform: incumbent protection
02/20/02: The grand Enron morality play
02/12/02: Rebuilding what?
02/05/02: Succumbing to the terrorist temptation
01/29/02: Democrats for what?
01/22/02: The Iraqi question
01/14/02: Profiling frequent flyers
01/08/02: Trade, not aid
01/02/02: Treason by any other name
12/26/01: Preserving freedom in an unfree world
12/17/01: Dealing with terrorism's aftermath
12/10/01: Emerging friendships?
12/04/01: Uncle Sam: Insurer of last resort
11/28/01: Expanding the circle of trade
11/20/01: Free to be stupid
11/13/01: The meaning of compassion
11/07/01: Patriotic scoundrels
10/30/01: The coming postal raid
10/16/01: First, do no harm
10/12/01: Good news from a suffering land
10/04/01: Defending whom?
09/25/01: The wrong solution to the wrong problem
09/21/01: The price of terrorism
08/28/01: Uncle Sam's retirement scam
08/21/01: Canberra's quaint naivete
08/14/01: Uncle Sam's false fuel economy
08/08/01: The Clinton administration in drag
07/31/01: The high cost of government
07/24/01: Kill the campaign reform illusion
07/17/01: Do as I say, not as I do
07/11/01: Lawyers at play
07/05/01: Western blundering, Macedonian disaster
06/26/01: How best to honor Bill Clinton?
06/19/01: A maturing Europe?
06/15/01: Tell Beijing to mind its own business
06/06/01: Ukraine's boiling cauldron
05/31/01: Protecting privacy from Uncle Sam
05/22/01: America's Balkan quagmire
05/09/01: The Taiwanese flash point
05/01/01: Globalization serves the world's poor
04/24/01: Who's cheating whom?
04/10/01: The NCAA scam
04/03/01: Balkan stupidities
03/27/01: McCain doesn't want a 'risk for our country'
03/20/01: Dubious Korean alliances
03/06/01: Coercive patriotism
02/27/01: Bombing without end
02/20/01: A dose of misplaced outrage
02/13/01: Psst: Tax cuts for taxpayers. Pass-it-on
02/06/01: Bridging the unbridgeable gap
01/23/01: Left-wing demagoguery
01/16/01: The drug war problem
01/10/01: Politics and trade
01/03/01: Hope for liberty?
12/27/00: The debris of war
12/19/00: What's the rule of law for?
12/15/00: Ending silicone breast implant saga
12/05/00: Election may yield victor, but there are no winners
11/21/00: A Bush presidential mandate?
11/07/00: Exprienced Gore? Yeah, right
11/01/00: Interventionist follies
10/17/00: America's brightening prospects in Ukraine
10/11/00: GOP budget scandals
10/03/00: How a pharmaceutical 'crisis' was created
09/27/00: Clinton's empathy has helped nobody
09/13/00: AlGore's risky budget policies
09/05/00: Military readiness and Korean commitments
08/29/00: Let sleeping hypocrites lie
08/21/00: Targeting a journalistic pariah
08/15/00: European garrison for Kosovo?
08/08/00: Journalistic cleansing at the Boston Globe
08/04/00: Junk science on trial
06/22/00: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
06/15/00: The end of U.N. peacekeeping
06/07/00: The Clinton regulatory miasma
06/01/00: Administration stupidity, congressional cowardice
05/25/00: The silence of the international community
05/18/00: Protecting the next generation

05/11/00: Freer trade with China will advance human rights

05/04/00: How not to save the Constitution

04/28/00: American tripwire in Korea long ago disappeared: Why are we still involved?

04/18/00: Clinton administration believes the IRS is too gentle, wants more auditors

© 2002, Copley News Service