Still Waiting For The President's `Humble' Foreign Policy

[Strut&Rut]

This column ran in today's Hartford Courant, my state's leading paper...

February 12, 2004

Still Waiting For The President's `Humble' Foreign Policy[/b]
by Gustav Ranis

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush promised to abstain from nation-building abroad and to conduct a more "humble" foreign policy. Yet we all know that early in his presidency Bush torpedoed the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court, abrogated the ABM Treaty and anointed an "axis of evil." And we are now deeply engaged in costly nation-building in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Since 9/11, the United States has become clearly more unilateralist and with a decidedly increasingly imperialist flavor. The "war on terrorism" has taken U.S. forces to Afghanistan and Iraq and anti-al Qaeda efforts to all parts of the globe. It was made clear to the rest of the world that they are "either with us or against us," and that we have the right to defend ourselves by pre-emptive war, accompanied by our insistence on retaining our military supremacy.

Post-9/11 imperial unilateralism has seemed to work. The United States effectively marginalized the United Nations, won quick conventional military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even has the French anxious to make up with the imperial power and be included in those nation-building contracts.

But matters on the ground continue to be more doubtful. Afghanistan has a new constitution but is by no stretch of the imagination pacified, and Iraq's future remains a very open question. Liberation has turned into occupation, with mounting casualties and even the threat of civil war. Osama bin Laden remains at large and is undoubtedly gaining supporters at a rate faster than we are able to eliminate them.

Meanwhile, the United States, which had everyone's sympathy in September 2001, is increasingly seen as an arrogant imperialist whose real motives - even as continuously redefined for the domestic audience - are seen by many as gaining a position of influence in the Middle East, finding a reliable alternative to Saudi oil and settling the Arab/Israel conflict more or less on Israel's terms. The much-valued high moral ground the United States once occupied on human rights around the globe has been eroded by its treatment of foreign prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by some of the applications of the Patriot Act. And at home, support for a clearly bumpy Iraqi occupation has been waning as casualties have mounted and Iraq's political future has become ever more unpredictable.

The world's only superpower now looks vulnerable. We don't have a clear exit strategy - and so we have gone back to the United Nations and asked Kofi Annan to rescue the July 1 hand-over date, set, unilaterally, last November without any reference to the international community.

Clearly our goal of introducing democracy into Iraq clashes with our insistence on caucus-type elections and our reliance on an appointed governing council seeded liberally with unpopular expatriates.

However we finally manage to extricate ourselves, one thing is becoming clear: Given the loss of lives and treasure in exchange for global disapproval and body bags, and given the mounting credibility gap with respect to the quality of our intelligence and the way it has been used, the American public is increasingly likely to turn its back on future foreign involvements.

The United States will, of course, always support the troops. But many are saying domestic needs - in health care, in Social Security, in all the categories now being cut to make room for war, anti-terrorism, nation-building and irresponsibly large tax cuts - should no longer have to take a back seat to unruly and ungrateful foreigners.

A new bout with isolationism clearly looms, although we need to work with others more than ever before. Until China or a more united Europe rises to challenge U.S. hegemony, we will undoubtedly remain the indispensable nation. Such a nation is almost forced to act responsibly and worry about its reputation for veracity. With so much hanging in the balance, one can only hope that it is not too late for us to rediscover the path between unilateral imperialism and unilateral isolationism that we once trod so successfully after World War II.

Gustav Ranis is the Frank Altschul Professor of International Economics and director of the Yale Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University.

[Strut&Rut]

And this is the OPED piece that ran just below the above piece...

Bush Isn't Confused About What's ImportantFebruary 12, 2004
by Kathleen Parker

President George W. Bush's now-exhaustively vetted interview Sunday with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" proved the O.J. principle once again: People see and hear what they are predisposed to see and hear.

Most Democrats saw a bumbling, evasive fool who can't account for missing WMD or failed intelligence. Most Republicans saw the usual George Bush, who did just fine.

As an independent, I fall squarely into the "he did fine" camp. I want him to do well, to speak clearly and unequivocally, because what he means to say is so important.

When he falters, I find consolation in the fact that Bill Clinton was a mellifluous speaker and he allowed Osama bin Laden to build a worldwide army against us.

I trust Bush to fumble his words but not the ball in what for me and other post-9/11 Americans is a single-issue election: winning the war on terror and thwarting the growing menace of irrational, hate-filled barbarians who happen to think that we are Satan.

In the crossfire of so much partisan sharpshooting, it is difficult for even the most focused to keep a steady gaze on the target. For now, the target is to ensure that Iraq become an independent, pluralistic, constitutionally governed nation.

If that doesn't happen, all other bets are off. Bickering about who helps The Poor more or who loves The Children most will become ibids in history's index of forgotten footnotes.

What Bush knows to be true - and what he says, if not perfectly - is that we are in the midst of World War III. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was necessary to change the dynamics that led to Sept. 11 and to inhibit future assaults on our soil and interests.

As long as Hussein was in power, flouting both the United States and the United Nations, terrorists and the nations that tolerated them were empowered and encouraged.

It is no coincidence that Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi decided to end his nuclear programs upon seeing Hussein lifted from his spider hole. Or that Iran has decided that allowing international inspectors to drop by for tea would be an acceptable alternative to shock and awe.

As a matter of record, Hussein never complied with his obligation to disarm in a way that could be verified. He never proved that he no longer had the capacity to harm others, defying ultimatums as he continued torturing and murdering his own people.

At what point exactly were we supposed to say, OK, you don't have to comply? Surely not after Sept. 11. Surely not as Hussein was sending money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Surely not after Bush declared in his Sept. 20, 2001, address before a joint session of Congress: "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

When Russert asked about WMD and our apparently flawed intelligence, I wish Bush had said what is manifestly true: Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction. Or, refining the acronym, he was a weapon of mass death.

Mass death leads to mass graves, and we've found more of those than even Iraqi exiles had prepared us for. As to intelligence about stockpiles of weapons of mass death, Bush answered Russert as well as the question can be answered: We relied on the best intelligence we had. We believed it; the international community believed it; Congress believed it.

It now appears that our intelligence wasn't perfect, but intelligence never is. One strong theory as to how we got it wrong is that Hussein was deceived by his own people and used what he thought was true to deceive others. In CIA parlance, it's called a "red-on-red deception" in which we are deceived by the deceit of the deceived.

One can imagine the difficulty of parsing through so many layers of deception to reveal a certain, unassailable truth, or how impossible it is to affix blame to a single individual or agency.

Here's what is certain as committees and investigative teams sort through the data: We can't afford to lose our focus in the long haul, to see Iraq through and to secure the future. It is reassuring that Bush, self-defined "war president" and commander in chief, is not confused on this point.

Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist in South Carolina.

[Strut&Rut]

Meanwhile, the United States, which had everyone's sympathy in September 2001, is increasingly seen as an arrogant imperialist whose real motives - even as continuously redefined for the domestic audience - are seen by many as gaining a position of influence in the Middle East, finding a reliable alternative to Saudi oil and settling the Arab/Israel conflict more or less on Israel's terms. The much-valued high moral ground the United States once occupied on human rights around the globe has been eroded by its treatment of foreign prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by some of the applications of the Patriot Act. And at home, support for a clearly bumpy Iraqi occupation has been waning as casualties have mounted and Iraq's political future has become ever more unpredictable.

I trust Bush to fumble his words but not the ball in what for me and other post-9/11 Americans is a single-issue election: winning the war on terror and thwarting the growing menace of irrational, hate-filled barbarians who happen to think that we are Satan.

I think these two quotes, from each piece, exemplify America's split mindset perfectly right now. Just thought I would share, they were two of the better OPED pieces I've read recently...

[CalHunter]

Good posts S&R and definitely interesting reads. It's interesting to note that the 1st columnist (Gustav Ranis) believes the U.S. has apparently lost the much-valued high moral ground the United States once occupied on human rights around the globe because of how we've treated POW's at Gitmo. Some countries torture and murder innocents and conduct what are essentially mini-holocausts but the U.S. is the one who is losing "moral high ground." Other nations sponsor indiscriminate terrorism but it is the U.S. who is losing the "high moral ground." And other supposedly civilized nations conduct business and sell components for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to these rogue nations yet it is still (according to the extremely knowledgeable professor Ranis) the U.S. who is losing the "high moral ground." And with such idiotic rationalization, people like him actually wonder why so many Americans dismiss his logic as irrelevant and mindless rantings. Interesting indeed.

[etothepii]

I love the way people keep referring to the Kyoto protocals(top of first article). Do you all realize what these are???

[JagMagMan]

I found these quotes from a editorial journalist who is normally on the liberal side! They are not too bad for a liberal!

As those sanctions dragged on, UN investigators occationally discovered that Iraq had arranged secret shipments of this product or that machine. As with drug-smuggling, however, it was hard to measure what was getting through by what was getting stopped.
We also knew that North Korea, poorer and less advanced than Iraq, had developed nuclear weapons, right under everyones noses. It seemed likely that Iraq with billions in oil assets and willing allies throughout the Arab world, could duplicate North Koreas feat eventually.
We had not forgotten that Saddam lashed out like a mad dog in two major wars...

Bush could not let Saddam determine the pace and timing of the next conflict, even though it would have been easier for him to do what politicians at home and abroad had done for years-- issue pious statements of concern and hope that the UN sanctions would last afew more years, until they were safely out of office and it became someone elses problem!

If president Bush purposely distorted intellegence about Iraq before we invaded, he should be harshly judged by voters and history. If on the other hand,he went by the best evidence available and decided to err on the side of caution for a threat that had precious little margin for error, he made a courageous decision.

If we sit around waiting for evidence of a smoking gun before we act, we will end up with a smoking building or a smoking city.

I still believe we did the right thing!
Most of the dems were with us at the time, now they are flip-flopping!

[akbound]

Hey Strut&Rut,

No bias in that reporting: eek:

Someone grab me please before I "jump ship"!

[Coastie]

For another point of view regarding the Bush foreign policy I offer the following article from the Boston Globe.

EORGE W. BUSH -- GRAND STRATEGIST
By Tony Blankley
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-----------------------------------------------------------


The Boston Globe "” the respected, liberal newspaper owned by the New York Times "” ran an article last week that Bush critics may wish to read carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues that President Bush has developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in our history.

The author of this book, "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience" (Harvard Press) to be released in March, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University. The Boston Globe describes Mr. Gaddis as "the dean of Cold War studies and one of the nation's most eminent diplomatic historians." In other words, this is not some put-up job by an obscure right-wing author. This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment.

If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story because it makes a strong case that Mr. Bush stands in a select category with presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history.

As the Globe article describes in an interview with Mr. Gaddis: "Grand strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a country's mission, defines its interests, and sets its priorities. Part of grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape decades, even centuries of policy."

According to this analysis, the first grand strategy by Monroe/Adams followed the British invasion of Washington and the burning of the White House in 1814. They responded to that threat by developing a policy of gaining future security through territorial expansion "” filling power vacuums with American pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and accounts for our continental size and historic security.

FDR's plans for the post-World War II period were the second grand strategy and gained American security by establishing free markets and self-determination in Europe as a safeguard against future European wars, while creating the United Nations and related agencies to help us manage the rest of the world and contain the Soviets. The end of the Cold War changed that and led, according to Mr. Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and democratization were inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Mr. Gaddis observed.

That brings the professor to George W.Bush, who he describes as undergoing "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V." Clearly, Mr. Gaddis has not been a long-time admirer of Mr. Bush. But he is now.

He observes that Mr. Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more that a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945."

It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central criticism of Mr. Bush "” the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without U.N. approval "” is rejected by Mr. Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system."

In assessing Mr. Bush's progress to date, the Boston Globe quotes Mr. Gaddis: "So far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."

In another recent article, written before the Iraqi war, Mr. Gaddis wrote: "[Bush's] grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle East. And this long-term dimension of it, it seems to me, goes beyond what we've seen in the thinking of more recent administrations. It is more characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the Truman administration was doing at the beginning of the Cold War."

Is Mr. Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as FDR, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as the eminent Democratic Party Chairman and Clinton fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe argues? I suspect that as this election year progresses, that may end up being the decisive debate. You can put me on the side of the professor.

[Tazman]

Bushs policies and actions in the Middle East are going to bring into place a safer world in the long run, it will not become safer without sacrifice, which is sad, but necessary.

I have a feeling that in 10-20 years after the Middle East has settled down into a democratic non-terrorist portion of the world that we will see Africa become a hot bed of terrorism due to the political instability there. Africa will more than likely become the next Middle East which the Free World (America & Allies) will be dealing with, I will be an old man by then, or possibly have passed on, but Africa will be next after the Middle East steps into the modern world.