[Commentary] The Radicalization of American Foreign Policy

[Chewbacca]

An insightful commentary in my opinion, it shows the cracks in Bush foreign policy by comparing it to previous cold-war policy and does so quite well. Also of note the article illustrates a dissenting voice, Richard Haass, who was once within the Bush administration.

I would like to accent and expand the point made at the end of this opinion piece, that basically we will probably see and be sold a different policy on the Bush campaign trail than we have seen in the last three years. I will be watching very carefully for this prediction/observation. I want to see how they try to pull it off and if the attempts will be successful.

Do we absolutely have to snub our allies, international norms, and arms control to win the war on terror?


*********
Link


The Radicalization fo American Foreign Policy
Bush Has Abandoned Policy That Won Cold War

January 4, 2004


After three years in office, it is clear that President George W. Bush has presided over one of the most radical transformations of U.S. foreign policy in history. His policy of unilateralism, pre-emption and regime change represents a dramatic and dangerous shift in emphasis away from more than 50 years of policy that was characterized by cooperation with allies, recognition of international norms and support for arms control.

When Bush stands for re-election later this year, Americans are going to be asked to ratify that new policy. Along with the effect on the nation's long-term fiscal health of huge deficits, the Bush foreign policy ought to be a central issue in the presidential campaign.

Bush's foreign policy is not just about the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Indeed, this editorial page reluctantly supported the war against Saddam Hussein because we believed he represented a unique threat to U.S. security interests and could no longer be contained or reliably deterred. Rather, it is the manner in which Bush got the United States into the war and the overall thrust of the administration's diplomacy that causes us great concern.

Since the end of World War II, a cornerstone of the United States' foreign policy has been maintaining alliances and trying to build on the concepts of cooperative security and international law. The use or the threat to use the immense U.S. military power was certainly part of that approach to foreign policy. But it was not the be all and end all.

Take It or Leave It

The people who have formulated the Bush foreign policy, especially the neoconservatives who have dominated that policy-making, operate on a different set of assumptions. They believe that alliances and organizations such as the United Nations rob the United States of its freedom to act to protect its interests. With the end of the Cold War and the start of the war on terrorism, they believe that the principal goal of foreign policy must be to maintain the United States as the most powerful nation in the world. They reject arms control as a primary way to contain nuclear weapons and favor unilateral action as a first, not last, option. The idea is: "You are either for us, or against us. Take it or leave it." This is a radical change.

There has been considerable opposition inside the administration to an America-alone approach, mainly from Colin Powell's State Department. But these thinkers have lost most, if not all, of the policy battles.

It's significant that one of Powell's top aides, the former director of policy planning at State, Richard Haass, has begun to publicly articulate an alternative to the unilateralism. Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued in a recent article in the Financial Times that the United States is not rich or powerful enough to sustain a unilateralist policy. In this ever-more-interdependent world, Washington ignores its long-term interests by acting arrogantly and alone, he says.

Iraq is a case in point. The United States certainly had the power to occupy Iraq. But the question now is whether it has the resources and will to rebuild Iraq on its own. And having made such a major commitment to Iraq, does Washington have the manpower or wealth to deal with other crises that might face it at the same time? The Army is spread too thin, even in Iraq, some experts say, and the $87 billion narrowly approved by a reluctant Congress will add to growing budget deficits.

"What will it take, then, for the U.S. to drum up the necessary international support for all that it seeks to accomplish in the world - and in the process translate its enormous power into lasting influence?" Haass asks in the article. "Part of the answer is consultation - genuine consultation, not simply informing others of decisions already reached."

U.S. Didn't Woo Allies

These are damning words from a highly respected former administration official. Haass is saying that the allies did not simply refuse to help the United States in Iraq; the administration did not really try to bring them aboard. Unlike Bush's father preparing for the gulf war in 1990, this President Bush did not move heaven and earth to keep a wide coalition together. Granted, keeping a coalition together often means compromise and settling for the lowest common denominator. But the benefits of cooperative action often outweigh the costs.

The neocons have an entirely different perspective: They see the obligations of alliances as too constraining and believe only bold American leadership can protect the nation from the threats it faces.

Haass is critical of the administration for rejecting such diplomatic initiatives as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming without offering alternatives. Even if those were proposals were flawed - and the facts suggest they were - the United States could have maintained a consensus by proposing better ways to accomplish the goals, Haass says. That is a profoundly important point. Foreign policy is as much about means as about ends.

After three years of the Bush foreign policy, the United States is more isolated than at any time since before World War II and more unpopular in the world than ever before. Sure, some of that unpopularity comes with the territory, from being the world's strongest nation. But much of it stems from the arrogant, unilateralist attitude of this White House.

If the United States were so all-powerful that it did not need help from anybody else, then maybe this policy could be justified. But that is not the case. Clearly, trying to fight three wars at once - one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan and one against terrorism - is stretching U.S. resources beyond what this nation can long sustain, as Haass points out.

Election Year Politics

Don't be surprised if this administration tones down its unilateralist rhetoric this election year. Powell has an article in Foreign Affairs magazine saying the foreign policy isn't that much of a departure after all. But the question for voters in 2004 is: What will a Bush foreign policy be once he and his go-it-alone cohorts are re-elected? Of course, the Democrats must present a viable alternative. Naive pacifism won't win an election when the nation is under attack by terrorists. But the vision of Bush and his neoconservatives, unbound by re-election considerations, is one that voters ought to ponder now - before it's too late.

[Timber Loftis]

One thing to remember is that US foreign policy has been all about US interests and protecting them -- and NEVER letting allegiance to any country or group of countries cause us to deviate from pursuing the best interests of the people or the country. So sayeth G. Washington many times over. Now, as to exactly WHAT may be the best road to achieving our interests, and as to what exactly our best interests are.... those are up for a bit 'o debate.

[Davros]

That was a commentary that was not to far from my thinking. I am traditionally a centre right voter. If I was voting in the US election instead of the OZ one I would be worried enough about the hawks of foriegn policy to consider swinging my vote. Only trouble is when I look at the total lack of substance amongst the current democrats I would in all liklihood strap myself back in for 4 more nervous years of hoping G-Dubbya lights only the correct blue touch papers.

I think that for some reason the Democratic party just doesn't understand that in general, the American public LIKES to feel safe and that means a strong stance on national security and a decently equiped and trained Military (which due to 12 years of drastic over reductions has cause increased military spending to recover from cuts that went too deep) And the Dems just fail to calm peoples worries along those lines...ever since 9/11 they have failed to convince their own constituents that they will implement policies that will make the nation safer.

In order for them to Start Winning Elections again I think this particular issue will need to be dealt with. At one time the Dems were actually driving a strong Military for America...but that was long decades ago.

magick - the point of the article, and the underlying issues, arent about the size of the military but, rather, how it is used.

no one felt "not safe" under clinton, when the military was smaller and the policies "nicer". what everyone is responding to is terror, pure and simple, which is exactly what terrorists want to inspire. feel the fear, live with it, and if it means you make a bunch of bad decisions then good, the more you suffer the better.

and the sad fact is that the change in foreign policy (eg - how the miltary is used) is making life harder for america in the broader world, and not doing anything to make u.s. citizens safer.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by sultan: and the sad fact is that the change in foreign policy (eg - how the miltary is used) is making life harder for america in the broader world, and not doing anything to make u.s. citizens safer.

This is a good point. Invading and occupying Muslim countries hasn't seemed to lessen the hate that drives terrorists. Snubbing traditional allies in favor of hasty unilateralism hasn't lessened terrorists either. I don't see how reinstating nuclear arms development and testing is going to make us safe or gives us the 'moral high ground' when demanding other Nations disarm or abandon nuclear/WMD development. I could go on...

Eventually we may get boxed in by our own policy, we will have to use military force to further solve the problem of WOMD proliferation therefore we will have to further abandon allies and international norms with the use military force.

It has already begun with the failure to gather a broad coalition/UN support before the war even with all the strong rhetoric and supposed evidence of Iraqs womds. When we next set our sights on a new target, who will beleive us when we say they have the WMDS now that none have been found in Iraq? The damage done to our credibilty will force us to act unilaterally or not act at all.

I do hope the Democratic contender develops a strong and viable alternative to the Bush doctrine, (while maintianing and protecting our interests of course) and that the "People" are paying attention....

[Skippy1]

We won't scrap WMD stockpile unless Israel does, says Assad
The Syrian president talks exclusively to Benedict Brogan in Damascus
(Filed: 06/01/2004)


Syria is entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own chemical and biological deterrent, President Bashar Assad said last night as he rejected American and British demands for concessions on weapons of mass destruction.

In his first major statement since Libya's decision last month to scrap its nuclear and chemical programmes, he came closer than ever before to admitting that his country possessed stockpiles of WMD.


Bashar Assad yesterday: 'It is natural for us to look for means to defend ourselves'
Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Assad said that any deal to destroy Syria's chemical and biological capability would come about only if Israel agreed to abandon its undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Since the capture of Saddam Hussein and Col Muammar Gaddafi's decision to dismantle his WMD programme, Mr Assad has risen towards the top of America's target list.

The White House and Downing Street have been waiting for his response to Col Gaddafi's appeal for other Arab leaders to follow his example or risk inflicting a "tragedy" on their people.

President Assad spoke for more than 90 minutes at his discreet villa, which he prefers to the grand palace overlooking Damascus built by his father, the late Hafez Assad.

Asked about American and British claims that Syria had a WMD capability, he stopped short of the categorical denial that has been his government's stock response until now.

Instead, he pointed to the Israelis' recent attack on alleged Palestinian bases in Syria and the occupation of the Golan Heights as evidence that Syria needed a deterrent. "We are a country which is [partly] occupied and from time to time we are exposed to Israeli aggression," he said. "It is natural for us to look for means to defend ourselves. It is not difficult to get most of these weapons anywhere in the world and they can be obtained at any time."

Mr Assad said that Col Gaddafi's surprise decision to allow international inspectors to supervise the dismantling of WMD programmes was a "correct step".

He called on the international community to support the proposal that Syria presented to the United Nations last year for removing all WMD from the Middle East, including Israel's nuclear stockpile.

"Unless this applies to all countries, we are wasting our time."

It is the worst kept secret in the Middle East that Damascus has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical agents in the region.

The latest CIA report on weapons of mass destruction says: "Syria continued to seek CW-related expertise from foreign sources [this year]. Damascus already held a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin but apparently tried to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents. It is highly probable that Syria also continued to develop an offensive BW [biological weapon] capability."

Mr Assad tempered his refusal to compromise on WMD by holding out the prospect of joint patrols with America along the Syria-Iraq border to prevent the passage of arms and fighters.

Acknowledging pressure from the US and Britain to crack down on Palestinian extremists based in Syria, he claimed that their offices had been closed and their activities curtailed. The groups could no longer "do anything military from these places. They are closed".

But he risked infuriating the West by stepping up his defence of Palestinian suicide bombers. He said the attacks had become "a reality we cannot control" and blamed them on "the Israeli killings, the Israeli occupations".

Despite his passionate advocacy of the Palestinian cause and his use in the past of inflammatory language about Israel and Jews, he denied hating them. "If you hate, you cannot talk about peace," he said.

Mr Assad repeated Syria's offer to resume negotiations with Israel over the occupation of the Golan Heights which were interrupted when a deal was in sight nearly a decade ago. But he said that an agreement was impossible as long as Israel insisted on starting negotiations from scratch rather than picking up where they left off.

Tony Blair, speaking on a flight back from Iraq before news emerged of the Assad interview, repeated his hope that Syria would follow Libya's example.

He said: "We offer Syria the possibility of a partnership for the future. But it is important that they realise that the terms are very clear and have been set out by ourselves and the Americans many times.

"You can see very clearly with what happened just before Christmas in respect of Libya that it is important to say to countries that may have engaged in such programmes: 'Look, there is a different way of dealing with this.'

"It can be dealt with diplomatically if people are prepared to do so, but it does have to be dealt with."

*************************************************
During the first war on Iraq, Desert Storm, Saddam sent most of his airforce to neighbouring Iran for "safe keeping", which the Iranians subsequently kept, knowing that his aircraft would easily be destroyed by the Coalition forces. My question is, could this possibly be what has happened with the WMD, except that they were possibly shipped to Syria? Just a thought. Rarely is anything as clear-cut as it seems. The Syrians have played a trump card in saying that stability can't be achieved in the region unless the Israeli's also give up their own arsenal of WMD.

They have a valid point in my opinion.

[ 01-06-2004, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Skippy1 ]

[Timber Loftis]

Ohboy ohboy ohboy! If this guy can manage to keep his cohones, we may have one big fight on our hands worth watching! GO! GO! GO! GO!
[img]graemlins/tomcat.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Eventually we may get boxed in by our own policy, we will have to use military force to further solve the problem of WOMD proliferation therefore we will have to further abandon allies and international norms with the use military force. It has already begun with the failure to gather a broad coalition/UN support before the war even with all the strong rhetoric and supposed evidence of Iraqs womds. When we next set our sights on a new target, who will beleive us when we say they have the WMDS now that none have been found in Iraq? The damage done to our credibilty will force us to act unilaterally or not act at all.

The only flaw in this logic, Chewbacca, is the arbitrary assumption that the U.S. will automatically "go to war" with the next "target". But that is not necessarily the case. Libya has agreed to allow inspectors to oversee the dismantling of thier biological and chemical weapons because of the show of force America and her Allies used in Iraq. Syria is not giving up their weapons - yet. But they are at least discussing the possibility of joint American/Syria patrols along their borders. In other words, they are expressing a willingness to work with the U.S. instead of against us. They are also very wise to play the "Isreal Card" - because it gives them a HUGE point of leverage in negotiations. Still, even if they refuse to allow inspectors in, that doesn't mean that the U.S. will arbitrarily declare war and invade them also.

I have mentioned before that history may take a kinder view of President Bush's actions than we currently do. I believe his Invasion of Iraq was not just an impulsive decision on his part to gain the oil fields for his buddies (as the critics like to suggest). Instead, I believe it was more like a very agressive move in a National Chess Game. It may seem rash and reckless at first, but the benefits of the move may become more apparant as the game progresses.

What benefits could possibly come from this action? Let's take a moment to consider that.

Typically, throughout history, when one country invaded another...the first rule of warfare was to completely and utterly destroy the first village/settlement/town they came to. Why? Because it shows the opposition just how strong you are and exactly what you can do if you choose to. In light of this first act of extreme agression, the next town would often be more willing to compromise or surrender rather than face obliteration also. That wasn't always the case, of course. Sometimes, it served to strengthen the resolve of the opposition (Remember the Alamo?). However, it does appear that America's "show of strength" is already reaping benefits. Muammar Quadaffi has been defiant of America ever since Ronald Reagan was president. Now, after seeing that President Bush will invade a country without the support of the U.N. or traditional Allies, he has decided the time is right to change his stance.

While Syria is being more resilient in maintaining their stance, other Middle Eastern countries do not have the same bargaining leverage that Syria does (the fact that Isreal occupies part of their territory). So there is certainly good reason to hope other countries (like Iran) will be more willing to allow inspectors to come in and oversee the dismantling of their weapons also.

As for the statement that invading Muslim countries and snubbing traditional allies hasn't helped reduce the hate terrorists feel for us...that was not the goal nor the point of invading Iraq. The fact is that allowing U.N. to continue to seek permission for inspectors to do their job and maintaining a non-confrontational relationship with traditional allies also would have had absolutely NO EFFECT on reducing the hate that terrorists feel for the U.S. That is something we cannot change. However, what we can change is the willingness of Middle Eastern countries to sponser, aid, or support these terrorists and their activities...and we are already seeing signs of compliance from Syria in this area.

The "show of force" was not meant to make terrorists suddenly like us, nor was it to say "Do what we tell you, or your country will be next". Instead, the message was "The U.S. is fighting against terrorists and the countries that support them. IF you support terrorists that attack the U.S., then we will have to consider you an enemy of the U.S. and we may take extreme measures to defend ourselves - even going so far as to perform pre-emptive strikes against our enemies."

The whole purpose is to let the other countries know that we will act alone (if need be), and we might invade their country if we feel the need is great enough. Given the quick and decisive victory in Iraq, this gives the rest of the Middle Eastern countries a LOT to consider when deciding whether or not to support, harbor, or aid terrorists.

[Timber Loftis]

NAZI!

Erm... I just wanted to be the first to say it in this thread. Forum mathematics tells us it's going to show up sooner or later on this thread, and I just want to beat the curve. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]