It's not just the fundis who are not quite reality-based when it comes to grasping what Bush's version of Republican Values is all about.
The current issue of Business Week has a foreign affairs commentary called A Time For Realism And Reaching Out 11/15/04 edition. It's written by Stan Crock, (whose name I've been tempted to joke about more than once when I read his columns) with assistance from several other BW writers. The print edition version contains a sidebar that summarizes some of the main points, which I'll list here:
* Iraq requires realism. Forget building democracy in the Arab world. Stability would be enough.
Uh, hello? Iraq required "realism" from the beginning, Stan. But since they haven't bothered with what you people from the "reality-based community" had to say before, what makes you think they will start now? Before, Bush already thought he had a mission from God to liberate the Iraqis with bullets and bombs. Now he has the Will of the People behind him, too.
Iraq was "stable" under Saddam. That's why the fine folks in the Reagan administration thought it was such a cool idea to support him in the war against Iran and help him build up his chemical weapons capabilities. It's fantasy to think Bush is going to shelve the neocon program for "wars of liberation" in the Middle East until the problems with the project get much worse.
* Overwhelming force is good. Trying to make the military light and mobile has its drawbacks in peacekeeping. Don't shrink the army or junk heavy tanks.
Stan: mission from God, Will of the People. Peacekeeping is for wimps. If we have to fight guerrillas, we'll just bomb residential neighborhoods until we win. You're just not understanding the Bush program here, Stan.
In the article itself, Crock says:
REVIVE THE POWELL DOCTRINE ... [I]t is time to shelve the discredited Rumsfeld Doctrine. Rumsfeld's vision of shrinking the number of troops involved in the invasion and moving toward lighter, more mobile brigades has turned out to be deeply flawed: The lightning-swift toppling of the Hussein regime quickly gave way to military backsliding and social chaos as too few U.S. troops were on hand in the aftermath of the war to secure the country.
This is a silly recommendation, since the Bush administration flushed the Powell Doctrine down the toilet, officially after the 9/11 attacks, in reality probably on the day they took office. It can be argued that even the first President Bush had moved away from the Powell Doctrine.
James Mann describes the Powell Doctrine in Rise of the Vulcans (2004), though this particular historical relic should probably be called the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine. It's was Reagan's Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger who first articulated it in its familiar form, just after Reagan's re-election in 1984 in a speech called "The Uses of Military Power." Mann summarizes:
America should not send its combat forces on overseas mission unless doin so was vital to U.S. national interest, Weinberger said, and it should do so only in cases in which the United States had the clear intent of winning. Moreover, the United Staes should have "clearly defined political and military objectives" for a combat mission and regularly reassess the situation to make sure it still met these objectives. American leaders should have some reasonable assurance that the mission would have the support of the American public. Finally, the use of American combat troops should be a last resort, after other options had failed.
The Weinberger-Powell doctrine had six tests: (1) vital US interests must be involved; (2) commit to use adequate force to "win" ( in practice this was conceived in terms of conventional warfare); (3) clearly define the military and political objectives; (4) continually reassess force requirements in the conflict; (5) strong public and Congressional support; and (6) resorting to combat should be a last resort. And, in practice, the notion of having a clear "exit strategy," became part of the concept, as well. It was on the basis of this doctrine that many Republicans, including Powell himself, criticized the Clinton administration's interventions in the Balkan Wars, including Kosovo.
Whatever the value of this concept, it's gone into the dustbin of history, and it's not coming out again while the Bush dynasty is in power.
* Aid from abroad is good, too. Even a hyperpower needs help. Don't needlessly anger allies or the U.N.
I can just imagine Bush or Cheney or Rummy respoding to this one: "Oh, somebody else thinks we need a 'global test.'" Why did Stan Crock even bother to write something like that?
* The Middle East [sic] can't be ignored. Relaunching the peace process will not just improve America's image in the Islamic world - it could also stop the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from spinning out of control.
Stan, what are you smoking? The Bush team isn't ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's just that the neoconservatives and the Christian Right think the best policy is to let Ariel Sharon's Likud Party go their merry way in shaping an aggressive Israeli policy of settlement and annexation, and let what happens happen.
In the text, he says, "Washington has a unique chance to try to build backing for moderates and energize talks." They had an even better chance to do so after the 9/11 attacks when the US had the overwhelming sympathy of the world. (That seems like an eternity ago.) But they didn't do it then, because that's not their policy. And they won't do it now, either.
* U.S. leadership matters. Bush's hands-off approach on Iran and North Korea may be fostering nuclear regimes. Washington needs to engage in real diplomacy rather than leaving those talks to allies.
Of all these recommendations, the idea of a more pragmatic approach to North Korea is probably the closest to being feasbile the next four years. But only because Bush has his mission from God and the Will of the People to press forward with his wars of liberation in the Middle East.
Stan, maybe youshould take a peek at An End to Evil (2003) by David Frum and Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle for how things look from the neoconservative non-reality-based community's viewpoint. Frum and Perle writes of Iran:
Those of us who advocate a firm foreign policy are often accused of letting ideology prevail over comon sense. But if ever there was an exampleof ideology running roughshod over the facts, it is the delusional apporach that our softliners have taken to Iran.
Got that, Stan? You are an unfirm, soft and whatever-other-kind-of-unmanly-adjectives-come-to-mind wuss. Here's what real men like Frum and Perle think of your sissy advice:
And as for the idea that multilateral agreements can somehow restrain the Iranian nuclear program? Forget it.
Treaties are for wimps, Stan! What kind of girlie-man are you to be pushing such nonsense? Frum and Perle:
On the basis of our present information, we are not going to be able to stop them by bombing their nuclear facilities. The Iranians have learned a lesson from Israeli's [sic] destruction of Iraq's Osirak reactor and have scattered their nuclear program through their huge country, which is twice the size of Texas. In any event, the problem in Iran is much bigger than the weapons. The problem is the terrorist regime that seeks the weapons. The regime must go.
It's advisers like these who look to have more influence on US foreign policy the next four years, not less. In a new interview with Der Spiegel "Hart gegen Iran" 08.11.04 (published in German), Frum says that he expects Bush to proceed with a tough policy against Iran. ("Er wird auch hart gegen Iran vorgehen." I'm leery of putting quotes around my own retranslations from German into English of something that was presumably originally in English. Although I didn't do too badly on my last attempt.)
It's not that Crock's article is bad on the issues. On the contrary, it's better than some of his other articles on foreign policy that I've seen. It's just that it's wishful thinking at this point to imagine that the Bush administration, with God and the Will of the People behind them (as Bush sees it), is even receptive to hearing this kind of advice, much less implementing it.
But Crock's column does reflect a kind of perspective that is shared by some large portion of Republican voters, including many businesspeople and professionals who see themselves as worldly-wise, practical and business-like. Since respectable businesspeople are so often Republicans, they often assume that a Republican government is approaching the most important issues with the kind of realistic pragmatism reflected in Crock's article. Because that seems like the "sensible" and "businesslike" way to go about it.
If only it were so. It's too late, people. Wake up and smell the dead chickens. If you want to see practical policies like this implemented, not wars of liberation that regard virtually the whole world as America's enemies and whose results make that more and more the case, then I suggest you might want to start promoting some Republican candidate who shares your values to take the presidential nomination from Little Brother Jeb in 2008.
Because it ain't gonna happen while the Bush dynasty is in power.
A more likely view of what the approach of the next four years will be comes in: Worldwide Value by Frank Gaffney, National Review Online 11/05/04. Gaffney is a leading neoconservative publicist. Here's his view of the world:
The important thing now, of course, is not simply to acknowledge past achievements, but to build upon them. This will require, among other things:
Gee, Stan Crock in his article didn't notice the pressing threat from those emerging "aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America," whoever those may be in the strange dimension known as FoxWorld. But that's our future in the nightmare world of the neocons' imagination: enemies everywhere, enemies without end, urgent threats one after the other, extending as far into the future as Halliburton and like-minded public-spirited institutions continue to want tax dollars pumped into their bottom line.
No comments:
Post a Comment