LIMBAUGH COMMENTARY: CLINTON INTERNATIONALISM BANKS ON CONVENIENT HUMANITARISM

The Clinton internationalists -- those who believe the United States has a right or even a duty to stick its imperial nose into every conflict it wishes around the globe -- reject the time-honored principle that, as to foreign-policy decisions, this nation ought to be guided by its strategic national interests. They argue that because we are the world's lone superpower, we have a moral duty to intervene as the world's policeman every time we determine, in our sole discretion, that such intervention is justified. Might makes right!

Concerning this global philosophy, there are no defining foundational principles to provide a framework from which we can make consistent decisions on a case by case basis. There are also no general rules that preclude us from intervening in a certain set of circumstances, such as when the conflict involves the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. We are simply to be guided by our subjective determination as to whether a sufficient humanitarian justification exists to warrant our intervention, irrespective of such trifling matters as sovereignty.

Our moral arrogance exempts us from having to explain why we intervene on behalf of one beleaguered people such as the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and not another, such as the Rwandans. The more thoughtful imperialists attempt to draw distinctions with such lofty assertions that we have a common bond with Europe and we must intervene to prevent destabilization of the region.

But the truth is that our decisions to intervene for humanitarian reasons are made on an ad hoc basis that has more to do with global accessibility and the particular opponent's firepower than with any historical international alliances we have. Let's call it "convenient humanitarianism."

This absence of a foreign-policy grid through which to filter our decisions leads to more problems than just foolish global inconsistencies. It is also the mother of nearly every imprudent decision we've made in the conduct of this war. When we are guided by our national interests, we at least have clear objectives and a yardstick by which to measure our success. When we are led by convenient humanitarianism, we have a sliding scale of tolerance for inhumanity depending on the varying impositions on our convenience.

If our single-minded purpose truly had been to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, we wouldn't have conducted the air war from 15,000 feet and promised not to send in ground troops. We have made a very strong statement by so doing: The Kosovars matter to us, but not enough to risk our lives. That would make it a humanitarian inconvenience.

If Clinton believes the least bit in his rhetoric about the United States world leadership role and the strategic importance of NATO, then why has he done everything he could to undermine their respective credibility. At the beginning of this ordeal, he made a great fuss about the paramount importance of NATO's credibility. We must defeat Slobo or NATO will be permanently discredited. Yet, as we enter the peace-negotiation phase Clinton is willing to wholly undermine NATO by handing off the negotiating baton and peacekeeping role to the United Nations and its non-NATO, veto-ready members, Russia and China.

If NATO's credibility is at stake, then why are we bringing in Russia and China (whose sympathies lie with Slobo and decidedly against us) to do our bidding with Slobo? I suppose our commitment to preserving NATO's credibility is a matter of convenience, too.

After doing almost everything conceivable to sabotage our own strategic objectives and undercut our national interests -- such as accelerating the ethnic cleansing, destabilizing the region, alienating Russia, bombing the Chinese embassy and killing hundreds of Serbian civilians -- Clinton has further humiliated this nation by groveling to China with multiple unanswered phone calls to its leaders and incessant apologies for the supposedly accidental bombing of its embassy.

For China to demonize the United States for an isolated accidental bombing instead of the United States punishing China for repeated and deliberate theft of our nuclear secrets is as warped as Bill Clinton demonizing Ken Starr for trying to bring him to justice.

There is nothing immoral about a nation tending to its national self-preservation. To the extent that we disregard our national interests, we will necessarily diminish our influence in world affairs to the ultimate detriment of our allies and other nations.