Bush's vision: One of those "well, duh!" headlines

Actually, the painfully obvious part is the subhead.  The headline on the article is: Bush's Foreign Policy Shifting by Tyler Marshall Los Angeles Times 06/05/05.

The subhead says (my emphasis):  "Spreading democracy has become his top priority, at times trumping urgent issues. Some specialists dismiss his vision as unrealistic."

Gosh, imagine that.  Some meterologists consider tornadoes to be damaging.  Some biologists insist that fish can swim.  Amazing the things you can learn from the specialists.

By now, the presidential vision even has its own buzz phrase: "practical idealism," a reference to the policy's underlying premise that in a post-Sept. 11 world, America's national security is tied directly to the spread of free and open societies everywhere, including the Middle East.

Although few foreign policy specialists interviewed for this article questioned the president's personal sincerity, some dismissed his plan as little more than fantasy. Others expressed doubt that the U.S. had the credibility to advance such ambitious reforms — especially in the Islamic world.

What's really scary is that even I don't necessarily think that Bush is "insincere."  But "sincerity" if a much over-rated quality in politics.  If a political leader is getting good results, I don't much care if he's "sincere" in some kind of subjective sense about getting to those goals.

I'm not sure what Walter Russell Mead's past stances have been.  But he's certainly been a loyal flak for the Bush policies:

"People in the Middle East already see it as a very powerful initiative," said Walter Russell Mead, an expert on America's role in the world at the Council on Foreign Relations. "A lot of people are beginning to wonder if American foreign policy isn't in the midst of a fundamental change."

I bear a special grudge against Mead because he had the gall to describe Bush's foreign policy as "Jacksonian."  Aren't there laws against blasphemy?

To paraphrase the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the Preventive War doctrine that makes most  people in the world see the US as a bigger  threat to peace than the jihadists."

Otherwise, the article is very superficial.  In fact, it makes me wonder if the Times isn't just responding to the latest PR initiative to promote Bush's latest slogans.  For instance:

By now, the presidential vision even has its own buzz phrase: "practical idealism," a reference to the policy's underlying premise that in a post-Sept. 11 world, America's national security is tied directly to the spread of free and open societies everywhere, including the Middle East.

Say what?  Now, I can't swear that I've never heard anyone use the term "practical idealism" to describe Bush's latest diplomatic posturings.  But I do pay some attention to foreign policy issues.  And it really is news to me that "practical idealism" has become any kind of buzzword.

The real question for me is what Ivo Daalder is right in arguing "that Bush increasingly appears to think the war on terror has actually been won." (Whatever Happened to Bush's "War on Terror" TPM Cafe 05/28/05).

What does seem clear - and hopeful in at least one sense - is that Bush has no serious possibility of starting a war with Iran or Syria without taking measure to drastically increase the number of soldiers in the Army.  And a draft is effectively the only way to do that.

But that's also a reflection of the fact that Bush's Iraq War has left the US with limited numbers of troops available to respond to real military crises, as well as to new wars of choice.  And that's not a very hopeful sign.