Viewing things from the opposite side of the stadium

It's funny how a few different reference points can result in an entirely different take on a matter. Here's Kos's post about the Bolton nomination:

On the Bolton nomination, Reid released this statement:

'This is a disappointing choice and one that sends all the wrong signals. At a time when President Bush has recognized we need to begin repairing our damaged relations with the rest of the world, he nominates someone with a long history of being opposed to working cooperatively with other nations. Just as unfortunate, Mr. Bolton has overseen this Administration's flawed proliferation policy that has seen North Korea quadruple its nuclear arsenal and seen Iran take dangerous steps toward the development of nuclear weapons. Mr. Bolton will have much to answer for during the course of his confirmation hearings.'

Pretty weak. The problem with the Bolton nomination isn't that the US will have fewer friends in the world. BFD. Remember how we don't need no stinkin' permission slips from anyone? Bush has effectively demonized international cooperation, so who cares if he nominates someone like Bolton? The problem is that at a time where fighting a two-front war, we have fewer and fewer allies. We have very little significant combat help, very little logistical help, and our troops are the ones paying the price. Bush should've nominated a UN ambassador that could build bridges with alienated allies, someone who could've helped deliver the international help our courageous troops so desperately need. Instead, they gave yet another middle finger the world community. And while conservatives can pat themselves on the back, content in their oh-so-clever 'message' to the world, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to die in increasing anonymity.

What I find so interesting about this little analysis is that it's premised on a few ideas with which I totally disagree: Wrongful Premise (1): That our troops are alone and helpless. I think our troops have been amazingly effective, that they're getting increasing support from the Iraqis, and that there is not a snowball's chance in heck that the Europeans or the UN will ever step in. Why should they? We're already doing all the heavy lifting. Wrongful Premise (2): That it would be a good thing to have UN involvement.Regular readers of my blog don't need to be told again that I think the UN is a hopelessly corrupt, ineffective, anti-Semitic, bloated, awful entity. If we want to have a good sex trade set up in Iraq, well, call in the UN. If we want to increase corruption, by all means call in the UN. If we want to amp up the Arab's already hysterical anti-Semitism, let's call in the UN. But I don't think those are good things. Wrongful Premise (3): That the US needs to get along with other nations (read France, Germany and the UN) at all costs. Now, this is an interesting one. Normally, I'm a very affable person who, in her personal relationships, tries very hard to smooth away differences and get along. However, when I'm pretty clear in my own mind that the others are going the wrong way, I'll strike out on my own -- the heck with unity. Here, I'm entirely convinced that the US has the right idea, and the Euro-peons are spent forces, hopelessly focused on a stability that bred horrible tyrany. Getting along is not the only goal. Sometimes, especially when you're a superpower, doing the right thing is the goal, regardless of whether people (and nations) have the good sense to trail in your wake. Bottom line -- I'm happy about Bolton, and I think the premises underlying Kos's dissatisfaction are fatally flawed.