Bush: "Nation-Building Not Worthwhile"
I know the U.S. has been in Iraq for a while, but since elections in Iraq are near and since we're constantly discussing Bush's policies, I'd like to quickly revisit the 2000 campaign before he became president. You've heard or read this before, but let's do the media's job and remind ourselves what kind of flip-flopper we're dealing with (Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000):
- Q: In the last 20 years, there have been eight major actions involving the introduction of US forces. If you had been president, would any of those interventions not have happened: Lebanon?A: Yes. Q: Grenada? A: Yes. Q: Panama? A: Yes. Q: Obviously, the Persian Gulf. A: With some of them I’ve got a conflict of interest, if you know what I mean. Yes. Q: Bosnia and Kosovo. A: I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO. I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. Q: Somalia. A: It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either.
- Q: Why not Africa? Why the Middle East? Why the Balkans but not Africa? BUSH: Africa’s important. And we’ve got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade. It’s an important continent. But there’s got to be priorities. And the Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons as is Europe and the Far East, and our own hemisphere. Those are my four top priorities should I be the president. It’s not to say we won’t be engaged [in Africa], and working hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity [like in Rwanda]. I thought the best example of handling a [genocide] situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians; support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.
Q: Are you a flip-flopper?
BUSH: Yes. I mean...no. Yes. It depends.
(Source: I made this up)
I know, I know...this sounds like pre-election talk on my part. Is it useful to talk about it? YES!!! We've elected somebody who ran on being decisive and resolute. But now he seems to be a different person from the one who ran in 2000. It's important that we point this out, before or after the election, because he should be held to this shift in foreign policy. This is nation-building going on in Iraq, is it not? Our troops are expected to stay for another four years. Now that he's open to nation-building, how about giving some really problematic places a look?
What? They don't have as much oil as Iraq does or aren't close enough to Israel?
But these other places, like some countries in Africa, breed terrorists and genocide! What's that you say? They don't have as much oil?
How about some clarity on the issue? I'm confused. I want to know what our "strong" and "resolute" leader has to say about nation-building today. Is it okay when it's a poor country without any direct ties to "US interests" and without any useful resources we can take advantage of? Is it only okay when U.S. security is involved? I don't understand! I’m starving for a clear policy statement from our “unwavering” leader.
Let’s see if I can take a stab at this one: nation-building missions are okay where our national interests are concerned (i.e. where we’ll be able to build a Wal-mart) and in places where an investment in their development directly benefits our economy (i.e. benefits corporations like Wal-mart). The national security argument is fuzzy to me. That is, underdeveloped places tend to be the breeding grounds for terrorists and yet our nation-building efforts there are limited (with the exception of Afghanistan,which provides access to the oil-rich Caspian Sea and has already produced a monster oil pipline).
Am I wrong? Probably. If I am, it’s not because I’m stupid or biased. It’s because I'm uninformed. Our government has done a poor job of being clear on the issue.
posted by The Decider @ 11:48 AM
5 Comments:
In 2000, Dubya was as close to being an isolationist as any candidate I can remember in my voting life. At the time, I found that odd. His dad had been a very successful DCI, had conducted more than the usual amount of vice-presidential diplomacy, and had been a good coalition-builder in Gulf War I. You would have thought that some of that skill and interest in foreign affairs would have passed from one generation to the next.
There was running speculation during the 2000 campaign that Bush did not even have a current passport.
He picked Dick Cheney as his running mate to balance his domestic focus and filled a number of influential positions with the NeoCon crowd from Project for a New American Century. Prediction: in 20 years, when we look back at the Bush Presidency, we'll conclude that Cheney was a positive influence and Rumsfeld and the NeoCon crowd were net negative.So, along comes September 11, 2001. We lose more people than we did at Pearl Harbor. Bush simply cannot ignore foreign policy anymore. That day changed the country. It changed George W. Bush even more. The isolationist was forced onto the global stage.
Two unsurprising things happened: (1) he was incredibly clumsy his handling of foreign affairs, especially in the first few months after 9/11 and (2) he relied heavily of his foreign policy team.
I think Bush has been more clear on his foreign policy than most presidents:
1. Terrorists are bad and will be hunted down.
2. Governments who support them are equally bad and will be overthrown.
3. The worst weapons cannot fall into the hands of the worst people.
4. We will act pre-emptively to enforce 1,2, and 3, even if it pisses off the French.
The policy is clear and simple and sometimes simplistic. It is not about oil or Wal-mart. It's about establishing a democratic government in part because the people deserve it, but more because democratic governments don't fight wars against other democratic governments.
-Chris
Chris,
I was hoping you'd show up for this one! I depend on you to be a voice of reason to oppose my desperately liberal topics. Please keep posting. I found your comment interesting, but it seems that you and I have remembered and interpreted the events leading up to the Iraq invasion quite differently.
First, outside of the political opportunities that he took in order to seem as though he was as an isolationist (like the excerpts I posted here) his interests in Iraq and the middle-east were well documented. According to Cheney, Bush met with military advisors before even being inaugurated in order to have, in Cheney’s words, a serious “discussion about Iraq and different options.” If he was uninterested in foreign affairs before 9/11, it was because there was no immediacy justifying a shift to nation-building in the Republican foreign policy approach. That level of urgency, as you and Bush have pointed out, was changed on 9/11--though not because he was forced into a change, but because that event served as a means to willingly redirect his foreign policy! We know this now. Again, I point to Bob Woodward's interviews of meetings and discussions pre-9/11 regarding Iraq. As a side note, I would argue that there was ALWAYS a high level of urgency in this regard; it just wasn't politically convenient to respond to that urgency pre-9/11. My point is to think that Bush was somehow involuntarily changed by 9/11 in some policy shattering way seems inconsistent with what we know from interviews with high ranking officials, including Bush. You’re painting him as though he’s a reluctant nation-builder—as though if 9/11 hadn’t happened, he wouldn’t have gone that route no matter what other events would have taken place instead.
9/11 was important, but conveniently so (no disrespect to him; I’m sure it meant more to him than just a political opportunity. But politicians see advantages and take them). Iraq may have happened anyway given some other event to justify the invasion/liberation.
Second, I completely agree. He has been clumsy about foreign affairs, though more so in the few months after the invasion of Iraq. I also agree he has relied heavily on his military and foreign affairs advisors. Here’s my beef about that: everyone seems to be relying on each other and nobody is taking responsibility. Rumsfeld blames his advisors, Congress blames US intelligence…I blame Bush! He’s the president. End of story. You probably agree with me here. The buck stops at his desk. He needs to say so.
Third, it IS about Wal-mart and oil (though not those things exclusively; just those sorts of things). Let me use your points to demonstrate my argument on this one:
1. Chris says of Bush: terrorists are bad and will be hunted down. Nan says of Bush: Sometimes. It depends on who and where (what about Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan?). They may be hunted down one day, but not anytime soon.
2. Chris says of Bush: Governments who support them are equally bad and will be overthrown. Nan says of Bush: Not really—no overthrowing Iran anytime soon (and I remind everyone that this is NOT the primary reason we were told we were invading Iraq).
3. Chris says of Bush: The worst weapons cannot fall into the hands of the worst people. Nan says of Bush: I agree. Be careful though. Bush has many weapons and is not exactly good people.
4. Chris says of Bush: We will act pre-emptively to enforce 1, 2, and 3, even if it pisses off the French. Nan says of Bush: Again, not true. See 1, 2, and 3 above.
I agree that his foreign policy, whatever it really is, seems to be about stability, security, human rights, and democracy, which is your argument. But because he selectively picks countries to invade/liberate that, in addition to these problems, contain accessible resources and have politically and militaristically feasible options, we see that his policy is also very much about access to resources and growth of new markets and economies in a way that benefits US corporate and economic interests. If it wasn’t, then according to your points above, we would have invaded Sudan on 9/12/01.
I’m standing firm on this one. Bush’s policy, though simple as it may be, is not clearly being enforced and not clearly being defined to the public and the world. His current policy is inconsistent with his political rhetoric earlier in his first term—which is additionally misleading because his political rhetoric early on did not match his true tendencies towards hawkishness (a word?) and selective nation-building—and is inconsistent his actions, or lack thereof, towards other nations with stronger ties to terrorism. He is, I’m afraid, a master flip-flopper.
Nan-
Your initial criticism of the Bush Doctrine seemed to be that it was not clear. Now, if I may condense your criticism, you say that the doctrine is not applied universally, unconditionally, and immediately and conclude that it is a façade for something more evil. Let me suggest a few points to ponder:
First, application of the doctrine requires three resources currently in limited supply: (1) military might and manpower, (2) public will to press the campaign, and (3) supportive allies. It does not seem to me that we could apply it everywhere and all at once even if we wanted to do so.
Second, there is some evidence that our willingness to use force has persuaded some bad guys, like Libya, to give up WMD. This evidence is not yet compelling. Some experts believe that our actions in Iraq are creating enemies faster that we are destroying them. It is possible that we will stiffen the resolve of those who hate us to build nasty weapons. I’m not sure we will know for a while. I submit that those who claim to know (on either side) are working with a subset of the data.
Third, James Monroe was President from 1917 to 1825. I think the US finally had the chops to enforce the Monroe Doctrine sometime around 1940. That does not mean that the doctrine was a façade for something more evil. It was a brash and grossly premature statement of the stature to which we aspired.
Fourth, there is a disturbing trend in this country to attack the patriotism and integrity of our political opponents and to ascribe evil to their intentions. While vigorous debate improves our decisions and strengthens our democracy, this trend diminishes our stature and the authority of our leaders. I believe it increases the likelihood of military conflict by weakening our hand in diplomacy and moral persuasion.
Fifth, and last, a rule I live by, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”Cheers,
Chris
“Your initial criticism of the Bush Doctrine seemed to be that it was not clear. Now, if I may condense your criticism, you say that the doctrine is not applied universally, unconditionally, and immediately and conclude that it is a façade for something more evil.”
Chris,
Very interesting comments. But let me make sure we understand each other:
1)I think you’ve misinterpreted my argument about the clarity of his policy. My criticism is still that Bush’s policy is unclear. I mean to say that his policy is unclear BECAUSE it is not implemented in a means that accomplishes the original design of the policy. The Bush Doctrine is a case of policy drift (I’ll get to the reason for the drift in the next paragraph). I’ve learned that a policy is defined by a continuum. That is, the formulation, implementation and evaluation of a policy are not executed sequentially and discretely. Bush’s policy is unclear to me because the implementation has severely redefined the original policy goals that were sold to the public and Congress. Because Bush has been SO selective in the implementation of his policy and has almost exclusively chosen Iraq as the subject of his policy, I see a major disconnect between the design and execution of the policy. That disconnect is so large, I think he has entirely redefined his policy and that NEW definition is VERY different from the original. Yet, he and his supporters (e.g. you) continue to use his OLD policy definition, just as you did in the previous comment. The points you numbered in your original comment apply to the original intentions of his policy. He has now drifted from those intentions in the execution of his policy, as I pointed out in my previous comments, and has thus drifted from the original design. I’m not pissed about the policy drift; it happens all the time. I’m pissed that he keeps selling the original policy, as though THAT’S what he’s implementing, because it is politically and diplomatically advantageous to do so.
2) I never said his intentions were malicious. Whether his intentions are malicious, naïve, or whatever has not yet entered my argument, although I could see you may think it’s implied. Either way, people are dying as a result and the death count and that prompts me to write about the actions of our government. I mean to point out the perceived and maybe actual motivations for our actions because they help explain the redefinition of the policy and how the Administration has managed to pull off the shift with the public. I did not explicitly assign some objective value to the actions in terms of good vs. evil. That’s what George Bush does—not me.
But since you mention it, and to get of track, I personally DO think that intentions matter and I do happen to think that the intentions were malicious-like. Malicious is a strange, broad word. Let’s use misleading, which I think is more specific than malicious. Again, and to reemphasize, I’m not meaning to argue that misleading people is inherently evil. Maybe he has been misleading because the Administration has been collectively incompetent. Who knows? To me, intentions matter on a personal level. But more importantly and in a practical sense they matter in terms of diplomacy and credibility. The implementation and subsequent redefinition of this policy has been seen by many of us around the world as misleading. As long as this perception is at all ubiquitous, then credibility, trust, motivation for alliance and other means of support go down the drain. In that sense, our history with the middle-east, our history of corporate imperialism, and constituency of this government (i.e. Republicans/Christian Right/Conglomerates/Texans (just wanted to throw them in there)) ALREADY put the US in a position far from a chance to follow a virtuous path in fighting terrorism (I think it was even a stretch to have Clinton in a peace-facilitating role in Palestinian-Israeli peace talks). I’ve said from the start that in order to succeed in the “War on Terror,” America cannot be perceived as a main force behind the war or any anti-terrorism effort. As a side note, and I mean this only partly in jest, our best chance to turn things was to have Ralph Nadar elected. The Defense Science Board Task Force’s report on our “message” has shown that we have substantial problems in related to the world effectively in this sense (see http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf), although not for the exact reasons I’ve mentioned here.
In the end, what will be remembered is that the Administration sold one policy to us and gave us another. Bush’s claim that we’re still following the original policy is the clarity problem I mean to discuss.
My apologies to Texans. I shouldn't have implied that you're somehow on the same level as the Christian Right (I was just joking).
Post a Comment
<< Home