Mark Steyn: “Harmless as an Enemy, Treacherous as a Friend”

Another great analysis from Mark Steyn on America’s position on the world stage under the Obama administration.

“… Notwithstanding that Joe Biden was bragging in 2010 that the then stable Iraq would be seen as one of the great achievements of the Obama Administration, it’s safe to assume that the fall of Baghdad will be smoothly transferred into the Bush column, even though it’s five-and-a-half years since he left office – or the length of the Second World War. But, as I said to Hugh, it’s not even worth talking about it in those terms. ISIS can’t tell Bush from Obama from Cheney from Clinton:

The fellows who planned 9/11, for example, were planning it before Al Gore got into his hanging chad problem down in Florida. So they don’t think about Bush or Obama. They just hate America. And if you look at it again from the point of view of people who love America, or who made the mistake of getting on the right side of America in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I was on a panel with the great Bernard Lewis a couple of years ago – actually six or seven years ago – and Bernard said that the danger here is that America risks being seen as harmless as an enemy, and treacherous as a friend.

And if you’re someone who got too close to the Americans in Baghdad, where the most expensive US embassy, the most expensive any embassy on the planet in the history of embassies, is about to fall, if you’re someone who got too close to the Americans in Kabul, you’re about to learn the truth of Bernard Lewis’ dictum. And likewise, if, you know, the other half of that – that America is harmless as an enemy, treacherous as a friend – that applies to Libya, that applies to Egypt, that applies to Syria, that applies to Iraq, that applies to Afghanistan. It’s a very dangerous lesson to teach the planet.

Not just for our enemies, but for our allies, too. The Brits, Canucks and Aussies have been in these wars at America’s side for over a decade. They’re not “allies” in the Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin sense, where you all get together and agree on the way forward. They’re essentially junior participants in an American war directed on American terms. They went along because they believed it was important to show support for American leadership in the world. As John Howard said a few days after 9/11, “This is no time to be an 80 per cent ally.” And the Aussies weren’t. But, 13 years later, why would they want to make the same mistake as Sirik Matak of “believing in you, the Americans”? Obama isn’t leading from behind, he’s leaving from behind: America is departing the world stage.

And, if you’re in Benghazi or Aleppo or Kandahar – or, come to that, Kiev – why would you believe the Americans over the other fellows? Unlovely and blood-soaked as they are, the other guys mean it; America doesn’t.”

To read his full article, click here.