ShareThis Page

Pat Buchanan: Red lines & lost U.S. credibility

| Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
In this image from video broadcast on Syrian state television Wednesday, April 17, 2013, President Bashar al-Assad speaks during an interview. (AP Photo/Syrian State TV via AP video)
In this image from video broadcast on Syrian state television Wednesday, April 17, 2013, President Bashar al-Assad speaks during an interview. (AP Photo/Syrian State TV via AP video)

A major goal of this Asia trip, said National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, is to rally allies to achieve the “complete, verifiable and permanent denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.” Yet Kim Jong Un has said he will never give up his nuclear weapons. He believes his dynastic regime's survival depends upon them. Either the U.S. or North Korea backs down, as Nikita Khrushchev did in the Cuban missile crisis, or there will be war.

In this new century, U.S. leaders continue to draw red lines that threaten acts of war that the nation is unprepared to back up. Recall President Obama's “Assad must go!” and warning that any use of chemical weapons would cross his “red line.”

There was a time when U.S. words were taken seriously, and we heeded Theodore Roosevelt's dictum: “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1991, George H.W. Bush said simply: “This will not stand.” But in the post-Cold War era, U.S. rhetoric has grown ever more blustery, even as U.S. relative power has declined.

In Saudi Arabia recently, Rex Tillerson declared, “Iranian militias that are in Iraq, now that the fight against ... ISIS is coming to a close ... need to go home. Any foreign fighters in Iraq need to go home.” The next day, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi responded: “We wonder about the statements attributed to the American secretary of State about the popular mobilization forces. ... No side has the right to intervene in Iraq's affairs or decide what Iraqis do.”

Earlier that day, Tillerson made a two-hour visit to Afghanistan, meeting Afghan officials in a heavily guarded bunker near Bagram Airfield. Wrote The New York Times' Gardiner Harris: “That top American officials must use stealth to enter these countries after more than 15 years of wars, thousands of lives lost and trillions of dollars spent was testimony to the stubborn problems still confronting the United States in both places.”

In Geneva, Tillerson asserted, “The United States wants a whole and unified Syria with no role for Bashar al-Assad.” But our “rebels” in Syria were routed and Assad not only survived, but with Russian, Iranian, Shiite militia and Hezbollah allies, he won his six-year civil war and intends to remain and rule.

America needs rhetoric that conforms to new realities. Since Y2K, Putin's Russia has rebuilt its strategic forces, confronted NATO, annexed Crimea and acted decisively in Syria, re-establishing itself as a Middle East power. China has grown into a rival on a scale that not even the Cold War USSR reached.

North Korea is a nuclear power. Europe is bedeviled by tribalism, secessionism and waves of immigrants. Once-vital NATO ally Turkey is virtually lost to the West. Our major Asian allies are dependent on exports to China. In part because of our interventions, the Middle East is bedeviled by terrorism and breaking down along Sunni-Shiite lines.

The U.S. pre-eminence in the days of Desert Storm is history. Yet the architects of American decline may still be heard denouncing the “isolationists” who opposed their follies and warned what would befall the republic if it listened to them.

Pat Buchanan is the author of “Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.