The LA Times reports that Bush’s foreign policy is shifting:
Although few foreign policy specialists interviewed for this article questioned the president’s personal sincerity, some dismissed his plan as little more than fantasy.
Maybe my problem is that I do question the president’s personal sincerity. But I take this ‘practical idealism’ so unseriously that I have spent zero time considering how well it’s going.
:::flip:::
Right. It fact, it’s so absurd that I don’t believe the President really believes it will work. And it’s not because I disagree with the sentiment, which is expressed here:
There is a long-standing theory that counties that develop trade relationships do not go to war with each other. Another theory holds that democratically elected governments co-exist peacefully. Those theories may not be air tight, but they do represent a decent theory of international relations that a progressive set of foreign policies can be built around.
But a close observor of our foreign policy establishment, and especially of the neo-conservatives, will note that our goals are to maintain sole superpower status, to prevent the emergence of any regional threats to our hegemony, and to set up basing rights all through Central Asia and the Middle East to, as former CENTCOM commander Anthony Zinni said:
– Battle Ready, by Tom Clancy and Anthony Zinni, pp.313-4.
And I do believe that part of protecting our national security involves protecting our economic security, and also, to some degree, the massive investments of some of our corporations. I’m not entirely comfortable with admitting this because we have a very sordid history of behaving like economic hit-men.
That is what is so troubling about Bush’s performance in Iraq. The difference between imperialistic/colonialism, and economic development can be quite fuzzy. The whole developed world has an interest in maintaining a steady supply of energy out of the Middle East. They have an interest in developing new oil and gas fields. That interest had traditionally trumped any risky ventures to spread democratic reforms.
If Bush wants to take the giant step of risking the health of the international economy to push for democratic reforms, he needs all the help he can get. He needs a broad consensus that it is worth the risk of economic dislocation to see the House of Saud driven from power. He needs a committment that the world will be at our backs if the region becomes dysfunctional as a gas station.
If Bush was serious about taking this step we would see certain symptoms. He would not have raced to fly the Saudi princes out of the country after 9/11. He would have pushed much harder for domestic energy exploration and alternative fuels and conservation (as a safeguard against disruption). He would be trying to rally the anti-Soviet alliance, and former Soviet Bloc, to rally to a new generational cause (bringing freedom to the Muslim world). He would be making whatever concessions necessary to build such an alliance.
As it stands, he has zero support for his venture abroad, and less than 50% support at home. This sends a clear message that Bush is not serious about bringing freedom to the world, but he is interested in maintaining military hegemony and control over the world’s energy producing areas.
And with the United States in such an isolated space, our disastrous mistakes in Iraq and Guantanamo assure that any popularly elected governments in the Muslim world will be a threat to that hegemony.
The conclusion is inevitable. Bush’s practical idealism is neither practical, nor idealistic. It’s a recipe for disaster.
Simple.
Red State Haters understand simple.
They like simple. Somthin’ to kick…
I lost my wife
I lost my job
My truck broke down
I shot my dawg
I’m depress’d
George Bush doesn’t care if any of it makes sense. Just keep it Red State Hate simple.
George Bush mouthing the Karl Rove script simple.
Somethin’ to hate.
Somethin’ to kick.
Somethin’ to feel Born-Agi’n superior to…
George BushMart lowest price simple.
KIS,S
keep it simple, (for the) suckers
That’s exactly what I was thinking as I read Boo’s superb — brilliant, really — analysis.
It’s all to keep the suckahs feelin’ like they live in the best country and thereby give themselves a feeling of superiority. Superiority by association, if you will.
(Same thing the religions and the rapture nuts do.)
One reason to keep the suckahs believin’ in the great nation:
Leave no child unenlisted and undeployed — Paradocs’ diary this morning
Are you sure that “practical idealism” is not another
term for DISASTER CAPITALISM?
No, no no, it’s “CATASTROPHIC CAPITALISM”
Get this, the Bush administration is planning neo-colonialist reconstruction
before the fact. The article goes on to describe how much they love a
‘clean slate.’ So what if Iraq is reduced to a desert.
And I have read many right-wingers propose this. It’s a clean slate
for the neo-con dream of restructuring the country in the shape
of their own model.
“You break it, you own it.”
No wonder they hated Colin Powell.
That’s the basic motive, they want ‘to own it.’
Perhaps we have all become so jaded as to be unable to recognize snark…my apologies. It doesn’t work when you have to explain it…
“catastrophic” as in this: “Catastrophic Success”
http:slate.msn.com/id/2107383/
http://www.slate.msm.com/id/2107383
but I’m still in shock over reading
Naomi Klein’s article and I try to
push it whenever there is an opening.
You thought I was your ‘straight man’
but you were mine.
No, many of these Democratic movements have been around since the 1980’s and have no relation to Bush’s foreign policy. This is entirely coincidental.
Mead wrote a relatively sophisticated analysis of American foreign policy, Special Providence, several years back–written pre-9/11 but published shortly after. He sees our foreign policy as the product of four distinct political schools. When they’re well integrated, things go well for us, when they’re not, things don’t go so well. Then end of the Cold War left us in a bit of quandary and the arrangements between the four schools have been out of whack ever since.
This is about as sophisticated and insightful as true believer insider is ever likely to get. But it means that he has a strong desire–not just emotionally, but intellectually–to see some sort of reconfiguration that (1) confirms his thesis and (2) continues America’s success in the world.
However: (1) His 4-fold typology is useful, but potentially misleading. The four schools are far from co-equal, with some far more organized, coherent and politically powerful than others. (2) There is no reason to suspect that America will succeed. Indeed, the increasing imbalance of the four schools is precisely what one would expect in an increasingly dominant world superpower, if past examples are any guide. (3) Continued chaos and disaster (which is what us non-kool aid-drinkers see) is also consistent with his analysis, with the added advantage that it is also consistent with the facts.
Forget Iraq and Afghanistan, let’s look at the undemocratic moves of the Bush administration, simplified form:
And I’m not even mentioning the regional juggernaut, Nigeria…
About the only partially admirable foreign policy moves have been to show support for democracy in Ukraine, Georgia and Brazil. And even that is only partially admirable, as they’re all done for underlying political motives rather than a genuine support for democracy.
As for strongly democratic countries whether Poland, France, Germany, Italy, El Salvador or otherwise, the Bush administration keeps butting in on their leaders’ decisions…
Pax
Well as much as I disparage Texas sometimes, it’s no longer quite under the category of foreign policy 🙂
Pax
What you said.
They started saying this in the mid-90’s – openly and with no apologies via the PNAC statements. They don’t see anything wrong with these goals. The only thing they see as important is the American Empire, and they will do whatever it takes to establish it and maintain it. They really don’t give a damn about democracy, unless democratic governments are more likely to support the American Empire. And looking at history, the Empirists have been much more likely to install and support dictatorships. (See every country south of our borders that we could meddle with. Iran. Ad nauseum.)
It’s not about the oil either, in the sense of greed, of the already obscenely rich just wanting to make even more money. It is about the oil because oil is essential to maintaining the Empire.
But the neo-cons will use anyone and anything to reach the Empirist goal – including the greedheads who will go along with whatever war or installation of dictatorships or political manipulation here at home if it makes them richer.
And that political manipulation at home, same thing. If they can get people all fired up about abortion or homosexuals and the macho emotional satisfaction of “kicking raghead butt,”(see notcho comment above), they can con enough Republican votes to keep on pursuing their Empire. That is, as long as they need votes to do it. As the last election shows, they’re willing at this point to pretend that their agenda has been endorsed by the democratic process, that they have a mandate from the American people. And I think they only reason that they’re even pretending this, is that it keeps the populace more docile to believe they are still living in a democracy.
It even demoralizes the opposition. Too many on the left say, well, what can you do, Americans are so stupid. Most Americans want this. Personally, I think there are many Americans who do, but that they are a minority. Most of the “middle” would be appalled, if they really understood the neo-con, PNAC agenda. Which is why they also need to control the media (and don’t think they don’t have their eye on more control of the internet medium, too). If they can fill the papers and the airwaves with Michael and Brittany, et al, there won’t enough space for any real information about what is actually going on.
They believe that they are smarter, more patriotic, and see the “truth” more clearly than mostpeople – they are elitists of the worst kind. With the hubris that leads to destruction that goes with it. The problem is that the destruction will be suffered by others – they will die peacefully in their own beds at a ripe old age. Maybe they will say, “mistakes were made.”
But it’s all about the Empire. They are the most dangerous kind of ideologues. They think this will work. But it won’t. It isn’t working. They are too blinded by their ideology to see how totally and utterly they will fail. But not after uncounted deaths and appalling destruction.
That is the only way we will win people to our side. But we can’t rightfully expect a neo-con to spread liberal ideals. A shared humanity, a shared global ecosystem, respect for differences, diversity, equality, community, a sense of global citizenship, these are dangerous ideas when your goal is perpetual warfare. You need a citizenry in fear to get people to surrender their rights and vote against their own best interests. You need an enemy to rally people and get them to sacrifice their children to the government military machine.
These are also dangerous ideas if you want global economic dominance. You need servile people around the globe so our corporations can take advantage of them. Democracy requires a free and educated population, exactly the opposite of what our corporate rapists require.
Giving lip service to these ideals while our foreign policy stands in total opposition to them will do nothing but fuel further hatred of our country and lead to future terrorist attacks.
For the reality-based community here & throughout the internets, I suggest that we call it what it is, “Impractical Cynicism.” It may work on Fox, and CNN, and everyone inside the Beltway. But when it come to everyone else–and I do mean everyone, folks, it is so full of holes that its holes have holes in them. “Practical” is most definitely is not.
As for the “idealistic” side, well, ideally, W will be doing life without parole for high treason. I know that treason is a hanging offense, but I’m staunchly anti-death penalty.