Being a World Leader
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <12/17>

      For some reason there is a faction in this country that wants us to be the leader of the world. Unfortunately they have no idea what leadership is. Bosnia is the most obvious example.
      Lets try to make it very personal and within almost everyone's experience. Within a family, your family, either now or when growing up, what did leadership mean? Is there anyone who can imagine that family leadership (the head of the family) meant only breaking up squabbles between the children?
      But that is Bosnia. A bit more violent than breaking up children's squabbles but in both cases it is reactive. A leader does not sit around doing nothing waiting for a problem and then react to it.
      In today's parlance, a leader is pro-active. One of the secrets of real leaders is that if there is nothing to do they will create something to do. If you had the pleasure of the military and in a company that met all standards you now know why there were the regular efforts to surpass previous records.
      That is leadership; creating goals where none existed. That is why Kennedy deciding to put a man on the moon rather than simply equal the Soviet satellite program was leadership. He did not react to the Soviets, he set us on a course to surpass them.
      Bosnia is not American leadership. Bosnia is American reaction. Ever since the fighting started there have been people talking about stopping it. The US is simply the latest stooge on the scene.
      If the US were truly a world leader what would we be doing differently? We certainly would not be waiting around for trouble to start and then stepping in. That is a world policeman not a world leader.
      As we know a leader takes the initiative. We do take some half hearted and mostly for internal consumption leadership in spreading democracy through trade agreements. And certainly we did exactly that in cutting off trade with the warring factions in Bosnia.
      This is different in that we are sending in the military. And of course the military is there to kill people who step out of line. And if that is not the role we could have sent the people in the State Department to talk at the factions.
      To have a military leadership role in the world it is very clear that we must be willing to use military force rather than mere trade sanctions to promote something. It is not particularly important what we promote but for internal consumption it should be vaguely related to democracy.
      For example, we should demand Mexico end its one party rule of the country or face fifty thousand very upset Marines. We would be explaining to China that they will relinquish control of Tibet or we will give them a nuclear solution to their population problem. And if Italy does not bring its judicial process in line with that of the United States we will occupy their country and change it for them.
      The point is there is no difference between being a leader and being in charge. In the days of the Cold War it was clear the US was in charge. NATO countries at our instigation, like Warsaw Pact countries at Soviet instigation, had the clear power to invade a member country to preserve the respective ways of life. In those days the US undertook actions, assumed leadership, against the Soviet Union.
      Lets face it. In today's world there is nothing to instigate that can get public support in the US much less the rest of the world. There is nothing to be a pro-active leader over that anyone really cares about.
      More fundamentally, a free world has no place for a leader. That is truly the problem the US faces today. Calling reaction to Bosnia leadership does not make it so. There is no need for a leader of the free world when there is no threat to a free world. It is like forming a team and choosing a quarterback when you are the only football team in the world. Why bother?