In a long, sometimes contradictory, typically incoherent post, Christy Hardin Smith is crying crocodile tears over the “loss of American influence” in the world.

One would think, judging from the rhetoric and actions of the left over the last 50 years, that she and her fellow liberals would be jumping for joy. The goal of liberal foreign policy has always been a reduction in American influence in the world. Cut the military, unilaterally disarm, rein in the multinationals, do what the United Nations says, and generally grovel at the feet of every thug, dictator, and unelected royal who happens to mention either “colonialism” or the CIA has been, for all intents and purposes, liberal foreign policy goals for more than a generation.

So why the long faces now?

The myth of American superiority has been punctured, most likely irreparably, by the idiocy of George Bush’s policies and failures. Nations which once worked with us — not just because we were working on issues of import to them, but also because it was in their long-term interest to do so with a nation which controlled so much of the economic and military and other resources throughout the world, as well as had its finger on the pulse of so many spheres of influence at once…all of these nations have learned to get by without having to rely on any favor from the United States whatsoever.

Diplomacy is not just negotiating for what you want. It is also maintaining a balance of relationships, a level of trust, and a constant stream of ties that bind one nation to another. This ensures a long-term level of relationships on which we ought to be able to rely when problems — both big and small — crop up, be they in individual nations, regionally, or globally.

The Bush Administration’s disdain for such diplomacy has wrought a whole series of changes to the global system of interdependence and ties — and the web has re-woven itself. But instead of including the strands that the United States had for some many, many years assiduously guarded and jealously built and re-built time and time again, the Bush Administration has allowed many of them to fray, some of them to break — and all of them to become redundant to other lines that have now been built as detours around us.

First of all, allow me to comment on the logic and perspicuity of this extraordinarily convoluted and bizarre reasoning:

Huh?

What “myth” of American superiority is she talking about? Is that the “myth” of a $12 trillion economy? Or maybe it’s the “myth” of the only military on the planet that can project its power to all corners of the globe in a matter of days – even hours?

Couldn’t be the “myth” of our dominant culture, language, arts, sciences, and blue jeans, could it? It seems so recently that the left was skewering America for being too powerful, too dominant. The were imploring American companies to stop being so competitive. They were criticizing Hollywood for making too many movies and TV shows that everyone in the world wanted to watch. They were lambasting American workers for being the most productive on the planet .(Well… maybe they didn’t go that far).

Now that we’re cut down to size – at least according to Smith – one would think that the left would be turning handsprings and jumping for joy.

And as far as this “irreparable”(?) puncture of the “myth” of American superiority, I would dearly hope that Iran, Syria, and half a dozen other nations actually believe that hogwash. I can guarantee that they don’t which makes one wonder why Christy Hardin Smith does. Perhaps she is blessed with that special insight vouchsafed liberals whenever they wish to teach us all a lesson about the evils (or weaknesses) of America.

As for the rest of Ms. Smith’s lovely paean to the “strands” of diplomacy so frayed by the Bush Administration that other threads have been “built around us” – lovely poetry but hardly serious analysis. I daresay the next crisis to roil the world will not see the French or Germans or even Great Britain taking the lead to resolve it; it will, as it has been since the end of World War II, up to the United States to wade in, take the inevitable criticism from friend and foe alike, and bring relief to the suffering masses while the rest of the world stands by and kibitzes from the sidelines.

But here’s where Smith gets particularly incoherent:

Nations which once worked with us — not just because we were working on issues of import to them, but also because it was in their long-term interest to do so with a nation which controlled so much of the economic and military and other resources throughout the world, as well as had its finger on the pulse of so many spheres of influence at once…all of these nations have learned to get by without having to rely on any favor from the United States whatsoever.

First, talking about the power of the United States in the past tense is loony – as in we are “a nation which controlled so much…” and “had its finger on the pulse…” To talk about waning American influence is incredibly short sighted at this point. The doomsayers have buried America several times – most recently just prior to the fall of the Soviet Union when it was widely believed Ronald Reagan was destroying NATO, angering our friends, and driving third world nations into the Soviet orbit all because of our policies in Central America.

They were saying the American “era” was over back then as well. Such sophistry is silly, stupid, and ignores the real world calculations of the Assads and Ahmadinejad’s of the planet who could care less about favors but care very deeply about how fast and how far our military can rampage through their nations before driving them into their very own spider holes.

Belgium or France might not care very much about those calculations but given the stellar level of cooperation between all NATO countries and our allies in the War on Terror, one begins to wonder where Ms. Smith sees this fall off in “favor exchanges.” Is it in negotiating trade and tariff arrangements? Perhaps it is in import-export controls? Immigration? Cultural exchanges?

Even at the UN, all of our allies are on board for sanctions against Iran – most of them wishing stronger ones but recognizing the obstructionist policy of Russia and China in this regard, are fully prepared to go along with the watered down sanctions proposed that our two potential adversaries will eventually agree to. To believe that anything meaningful can be accomplished through diplomacy at the UN with regards to Iran or Syria is a pipe dream in the first place.

One might legitimately ask Ms. Smith then which “nations” she is referring to who have “learned to get by without having to rely on any favor” from America. The Iraq War, unpopular as it is with our allies (decidedly less unpopular than Viet Nam, I might add), as our Central American policies in the past, does not stand in the way of carrying on the business of diplomacy with friend or foe. It is typical liberal exaggeration and overblown rhetorical gibberish to advance the notion that the world is altering right before our eyes as a result of Bush incompetence, or Bush evil, or Bush stupidity. The only thing that is altered is the consciousness of liberals who are giddy at the prospect of American decline.

One final note; I realize the idea that “the world was with us” after 9/11 has now become firmly ensconced as one of the enduring myths about that horrible day. But as numerous people (including myself) have pointed out, the facts do not support that conclusion. Those interested in the truth might read this article which has links to other analyses that debunk that bit of hooey promoted by the left as a means to criticize the Bush Administration for losing something the government of the United States never had – the unqualified support of most of the world’s governments.

What we have lost in respect as a result of our Iraq adventure (including Abu Ghraib and Gitmo) is significant but not a body blow to either our position in the world nor especially our influence. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that in the capitols of the world where governments plan and plot, they worry most about what impact their policies will have on America. And the day that changes, Ms. Smith and the rest of the left will let out a whoop and a holler for joy; not cry crocodile tears as Ms. Smith did today.