America, the Losing Team

Anne Applebaum believes in recycling.

Her column "Why They Don't Like Us, Would You Follow the Country That Bungled Iraq?" may cite new numbers but the message is the same. It provides no new insight and perspective.

It's the same old, "blame America first," Leftist crap.

"Why do they hate us?" Much ink has been spilled over the past six years in attempts to answer that question. By contrast, not enough attention has been paid to what is, in some ways, a more perplexing conundrum: Why don't they like us as much as they used to?

"They" in this latter question are our very, very closest allies. By this I don't mean France, or even Canada, democracies that are part of the Western alliance but that have never particularly warmed to the idea of American leadership, whether political or cultural. The French have always been huffy about NATO, and downright nasty about Hollywood; the Canadians have actually formed their national identity around being "not-Americans." No, the more interesting question is why support for American leadership has declined among our traditional friends: Britain, Poland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands.

And it has declined -- drastically. Since 2002, according to the latest German Marshall Fund " transatlantic trends" survey, support for "U.S. leadership in world affairs" -- that's whether they want to follow our political lead, not whether they think we're nice -- has plunged by 30 percentage points in Germany, 26 points in Italy, 24 points in Poland, 23 points in the Netherlands and 22 points in Britain. More generally, support for U.S. leadership, which was at 64 percent across Europe in 2002, is now at 36 percent (though that figure includes the touchier countries).

So what's the problem? Why have our allies lost faith in us?

Naturally, the trouble is what lies at the root of all the ills facing the world today -- Iraq.

...[W]hat our closest friends really dislike is not our traditional pushiness, our violent movies or even our current president (though they don't like him much) but our incompetence. A full third blame the perceived decline of the transatlantic alliance on the "mismanagement of Iraq." Not the invasion of Iraq, the "mismanagement" of Iraq. Which makes sense: If you're really worried about Iran, do you want to put your faith in the United States, the country that bungled Iraq? If you really care about Islamic fundamentalism, do you want to be led by the country that, distracted by Iraq, failed to predict the return of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

"The country that bungled Iraq"?

Very nice.

If we're talking about blame here, I think it's appropriate to hold the defeatist Democrats and their media allies accountable for being bent on securing a loss in Iraq from Day 1.

It's kind of difficult to secure victory when so many in the country have invested everything they've got in America's defeat.

Applebaum has to be a bit concerned that her column is published on the day it's reported that Iraqi deaths fall by 50 percent.

The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a year. The U.S. military said the lower count was at least partly a result of new strategies and 30,000 additional U.S. forces deployed this year.

Oh, no!

That's bad news for those making the case that we've bungled Iraq.

But why let such positive numbers like that get in the way of dire predictions?

Applebaum still foresees a bleak future for the U.S. and our allies.

...NATO will not fall apart because our president has been rude to his German counterpart or a few Britons don't get scholarships. NATO will fall apart, however, if its American leaders are perceived as inept. And even if the surge works, even if the roadside bombs vanish, "inept" is a word that will always be used about the Iraq invasion.

Good grief.

Applebaum is saying that even if the surge works, (and it certainly appears to be working), if the U.S. is victorious, Iraq will still be seen as a U.S. failure.

She's saying that victory in Iraq is impossible if even we successfully stabilize the country and the new government takes hold.

Applebaum has another prediction:

Countries that would once have supported American foreign policy on principle, simply out of solidarity or friendship, will now have to be cajoled, or paid, to join us. Count that -- along with the lives of soldiers and civilians, the dollars and equipment -- as another cost of the war. No one wants to be on the losing team.

This really ticks me off.

Applebaum has declared America to be the "losing team."

We are losers; no matter what we do, no matter what the outcome in Iraq.

It's too late. It's over. We're losers. Our military has been defeated.

In addition to our military losses, there's also our diplomatic losses to consider. She thinks that we've lost our friends in the international community. They'd have to be bribed to be on our side.

Really?

OK. Let's see how well they fare without us, the "losing team."

Let them deal with Ahmadinejad and other assorted nutjobs. Let them bear the burden. Let's see what kind of "winning team" they can field on their own.

And how do we transform from being the sorry losers that we are?

What will that take? Leaving Iraq?

Get a Dem in the White House and magically restore "team" morale?

Is that what it will take for our former friends to like us again?

It's not what our fair-weather friends think of us that concerns me.

It's how our enemies view us that matters.

I'm sure they'd love Applebaum's assessment of America as the "losing team."