Joe Scarborough Needs to Wake Up and Smell the Coffee

Cable television news has an earned reputation for its tendentiousness, but still, every now and again I can get caught off guard. It happened to me again this morning, Oct. 26, at my hotel while watching the usually moderate Morning Joe on MSNBC, listening to Scarborough launch into a rant about how the United States is woefully "going it alone" in the Afghanistan effort, and how the rest of the world should belly up to the bar to share the burden. Sandwiched between a discussion on taxing meat eaters and the eternal feedback loop on healthcare, these ill-considered quips highlight a bigger problem beyond my fragile Canadian sensitivities.

Let's just do some numbers. The greatest burden in terms of per capital military casualties has been Canada, having lost 131 soldiers in violent deaths in the campaign to date - disproportionate to its small population of 33.5 million (U.S. casualties total 897, to a population of 304 million, for a war effort they have led). The only other coalition partner to lose more of its soldiers in Afghanistan is the United Kingdom, with 222 casualties.

This ungrateful chauvinism of U.S. thinking reaches far beyond the example provided by Scarborough, who at least has the excuse of being in the business of manufacturing polemics. It is a bipartisan rejection of the value of allies we have unfortunately gotten used to, and one that is increasingly outdated in the post-9/11 international atmosphere, and eagerly exploited by rising regional powers of sometimes questionable motives. This gets right to the heart of the reasons why U.S. soft power is so rapidly crumbling: it's becoming harder and harder to see the benefit of being a friend of America.

Consider the enormous contribution of the coalition in this effort. Amid the sensation of aimless strategy on the ground and regular disappointment (yes, I am afraid that Dick Cheney did locate the jugular in accusing Obama of "dithering"), the Canadian mission boasts a rare success story in the Kandahar region. The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) has recently stated that the mission has "turned a corner" in its peacekeeping efforts in this area, making marked improvements from a year ago. Ken Sommers, a retired rear admiral who visited Afghanistan as part of the CDA tour, commented to the press that "Where Canadians used to clear an area and leave, allowing the Taliban to come, they are now able to stay," and that one of the most memorable snapshots he witnessed was "Canadian troops walking hand-in-hand with Afghans in the village of Belanday, one of six model villages established to the southwest of Kandahar since this spring by Canadian soldiers and diplomats."

The United Kingdom has also, on its behalf, contributed considerably successful results in Afghanistan, due in part to the fact that both the UK and Canadian military have a strong track record in state-building, security, and non-offensive initiatives. After interviewing the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Roger Cohen of The New York Times found the British to possess a much clearer and determined vision of counter-insurgency in the Af-Pak theater - which is almost an embarrassment in contrast to the enigma of Washington's policy.

So when we hear Joe Scarborough (whom most of the time I like) and inwardly focused commentators lament their solitude in the global anti-terrorism effort, perhaps it should not come as a surprise whatsoever that support among allies for this war is rapidly declining. Just today new poll numbers from the Innovative Research Group have come out to show that now less than 50% of Canadians support the war effort, down from 59% in June 2006. In the UK, the reaction is much stronger, and I can't tell you how often the evening news delves into bitter and angry obituaries of the young men and women being sacrificed. Just this weekend between 5,000-10,000 protesters marched in London to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops.

What would the nationalist pundits have to say then if the protesters got their way? I try to take my friend's oft-repeated advice to ignore the provocations of television news bacchanalia, preferring to nourish the endangered species of print media or even the blog infestation (guilty as charged). But this lack of appreciation of America's closest allies and the assumption that the whole world should by default see the interest in working with the United States reeks of ugly hubris.

Both Washington and its pundits on both sides of the aisle have got to come around to the fact that the number of disincentives for being friendly with the U.S. are rapidly increasing, and it's not longer just the radical fringes. In Latin America, where we can't even seem to hold confirmation hearings for our diplomatic appointees, it simply pays much, much more to accept unconditional aid from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, or even strike up relationships based on credit and guns from Russia and China. In Eastern Europe, Poland and the Czech Republic stick their necks out in their reluctant agreement to host a missile shield, only to have it withdrawn and watch the Obama administration throw them right into a conceded "sphere of influence" of Russian revanchism.

From Southeast Asia, to the Stans of Central Asia, to Muslim areas of Africa, the United States is emphasizing relationships with abusive dictators over the fledgling democracy movements, unwittingly raising the prospects of newly hostile Islamic states. We don't even need to ask leaders such as Jose Maria Aznar or Mikheil Saakashvili the personal political costs of support the United States.

Worst of all, I am one of the people who actually believes that peaceful cooperation in the international community and the active and respectful engagement of the United States in key alliances is a cornerstone of global security - that's why it is such a pity to see these relationships dependent on a battered spouse syndrome ... one of these times, they might not come back. A slip of the tongue on just one cable news show means nothing, but if the U.S. doesn't get back on the same page as the rest of its friends, these lamentations of isolation could become self-fulfilling.

 

Follow Robert Amsterdam on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertamsterdam

Comments

[WarSkeptic]

Joe was attempting too make an anti-war war argument. Which is my the extremely right wing amsterdam is attacking him

Joe said that he wants an exit strategy for Afghanistan. Saying he would support a temporary troop surge only if we left in two years

[dukeuch]

This guy lost me at "...the usually moderate Morning Joe on MSNBC".

[roch20]

Wow, a great article, right on point Mr. Amsterdam; thank you!!!

[mredder4]

At what point in American history did it become a national tragedy for a soldier to die in combat? Talk about the complete feminization of this country. Anyone looking for proof that women have successfully grabbed the reigns needs look no further than our attitude towards soldier casualties. Better that a soldier should "look hot in his uniform" or some crap like that than for him to give his life to defend the country.

There's no longer any perspective about military deaths. Don't believe me? Go look up how many soldiers died in WWI, or WWII, or Vietnam, or any other 20th century war. The numbers are RIDICULOUS compared to what we're whining about today. It's absolutely stupid or insane to go on about 131 or 222 or 897 deaths relative to wars that cost TENS of thousands of lives.

Maybe the truth is that America recognizes the falseness/­futility/p­ointlessne­ss of this military exercise and so chooses to accept as few deaths as possible. Hopefully Americans remain upset, like I do, that our soldiers are dying for lies and political interests based on decisions that pampered sons and men with limitless deferments made years ago. But please, stop acting like a soldier dying is the worst that could happen. It's not. The worst would be if America reached a point where no one laid down their life to defend it, and luckily we're nowhere near that point.

Our soldiers deserve our respect and support, but not our pity.

[raquetman]

You know, I am sitting in Afghanistan right this minute...thinking what the hell does Joe know. In fact, very few people know the situation here. And by the way, Joe, the countries right here in the North with me...Germany, Italy, Sweeden, Norway, Finland, England, Italy....Lets don't mention the countries in the South! This is a very difficult postion, and I am not sure what the answer. But, JOE, you always have a simple answer for everything.

[lieslgee]

I don't think I've heard any news reports on there even being troops from any other countries in Afghanistan. It's assumed that they're all US troops. Or if there are any there, it's just a handful. And I watch MSM and cable stations.

[StillAmused]

"the usually moderate Morning Joe" ?

MODERATE?

It's a self-serving act.

Blow the dog whistle... mention Cheney and watch the veins in Scarboroughs neck stand out as he launches into an irrational, jingoistic rant, attempting to defend the indefensible.

... and watch the rest of his clowncollege sit there in servile acquiescence.

[3blueeggs]

Bravo, well said!

[hotseat]

Another Bravo. He and Dan Senor do nothing but promote Cheney.

[buggey]

He's also bitter because President Obama will not invite him to the White House for an interview. That's one of the reasons he says negative things about the President. Olberman and Maddow have been invited. I don't think he has even met the Prez. ( when he and Mika went to White House, they only went to Gibbs office and talked to him for a few minutes. they did not get to see Obama).

[GodBlessAmerica]

I don't think Keith Olbermann has been invited, either. Reason? They're not reporters per se, collecting and reporting, but more of overall analysts,

I still don't think anyone should be offended by what a TV personality says.

[pumpupthevolume]

They are great host their views is factual and they will challenge anyone dem or republican. I f you watch you would know that. By the way he was invited and attended recently.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Ahem, Mr. Amsterdam, he's simply a tv host/celebrity. If a member of our government ever said something along those lines, then by all means, call us Americans out on it -- but despite what Mr. O'Reiley and Rush Limbaugh would like, we *are* actually governed by thoughtful people, including Sec. Gates, Sec. Clinton, and their boss, the President.

I thank Canada, Australia, and the NATO nations for being serious military partners in a very serious fight against Al-Qaida, the most craven of extremist murdering thugs in the world.

[TrueThis]

When will MSNBC ever learn?

[Joseph Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

This morning I caught a little Morning Joe, and he's a nice conservative, he admires Robert F. Kennedy a great deal and I respect him for that -- though his view of RFK must omit some things conservatives would hate -- I like Z. Brzezinski too -- he was a voice of reason on foreign affairs during the W. years -- but they would have to admit it's a little creepy to hear his daughter, Mika, calling for greater US military forces in Afghanistan -- when 20 years ago it was her dad who thought it was a great idea to arm those religious fanatics to fight the Soviets, even with the aim of trapping the USSR in their "Vietnam." Just creepy, nothing to say politically about it, just creepy.

[Ameriki]

Joe is not a moderate.

[slc1950]

Correct - and I don't like him.

[WebofDem]

I don't understand why Amsterdam cites war propagandists and an un-credible embedded journalist to illustrate Scarborough's chauvinism. The Conference of Defence Associations is one of Canada's premiere defence lobby organizations who have never had anything to critical to say about the war/occupation; indeed, they've been among its most vocal drum-beaters. As such, it should surprise no one to hear a pro-war organization make the delusional claim that the Canadian military has "passed the tipping point on the road to success" through its Vietnam-esque "hamlet program" in southern Afghanistan. To rely on such unreliable sources is to succumb to a myopia as extreme as Joe's.

[DasBoot]

Very interesting, thanks for the info.

[esgabel]

please see icasualties.org -- constant updates
Afghan Coalition Military Fatalities
897 USA deaths
222 UK deaths
361 "other" deaths
Total1480
Iraq Coalition Military Fatalities
4351 USA deaths
179 UK deaths
139 "other" deaths
Total 4669

Total of all Military Coalition Deaths in Afghanstan and Iraq -- 6149

[Opygollopy]

I just hate it when Canada is referred to as "other".

[esgabel]

The site does break down "other" and it also lists the names,sex, ages, rank,country of service,and date of death for each person...I try to remind myself that in death the lives, of each of these men and women, are not just statistics...
I meant no disrespect to any country or ther service...
I never look at Mr Scarborough as a moderate but I am very liberal...it just amazes me that he does have staff who could look this up and make him more informed rather than riding the wave of US exceptionalism--
always focusing on us and being myopic about the bravery and suffering of others. There are many US citizens who are aware of the bravery and generosity of others--we are not all like Morning Joe.

[seawolf77]

Joe has drunk to much of the kool aid. He used to be one of the few remaining republicans that made a little sense ala the Terminator. But no more. He's practically got the moonie kool aid facce on him now.

[realpolitic]

Rhetoric like Joe uses and his loud-mouthed conservatism is a big part of the reason no one wants to help us in our foreign adventures, although as the author says Canada and other countries have. Conservatives used to be reticent about foreign adventurism and now they celebrate it. Scarborough is just barking whatever line he thinks will puff him up in the eyes of viewers.