Clinton's words echo George Bush's on the eve of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein. In struggling to redefine NATO's role now that the Western alliance is no longer needed to contain a Soviet thrust into Central Europe through the famed Fulda Gap, the administration is urging its European allies to embark on a new initiative to combat weapons of mass destruction. Yet for this new task of fighting terrorism, we presumably need the same number of carrier battle fleets we deployed during the Second World War. In Paris, unofficial French sources who are well versed in the Quai d'Orsay's thinking are skeptical of American protestations that NATO is not to become an arm of American interests. European anxiety about American purpose reflects the paradox of American power.
American hegemony is a reality.
Rarely do all-powerful nations surrender their predominance without a struggle. And so we go on, willing to bear the trappings of military prowess, but unable to define what and who it is we are protecting. If indeed we are undertaking the role of protector of the rights of the oppressed and determined to act, whenever feasible, to right wrongs, we had better say so. And then let the debate over ends and means begin.