Tag: Dubya Diplomacy

Unconscientious Objectors.

On the question of war, it seems that, Dennis Kucinich notwithstanding, the Dems have basically decided to lay low for the time being. It’s the Iraq vote all over again…when is our party going to get its act together? Be they pro-war or anti-war, Democratic reps should be actively involved in the public debate on Iraq, not running scared from the underhanded smears of the administration. Get in the game, people. Update: Perhaps this is the beginning. At a Q & A today, John Kerry argued that the world will only trust a new president after the experience of this war. Y’know, I think he’s on to something.

Turning the Tide?

Between the rescue of Pvt. Lynch (which seems an interesting comment on the Greenberg piece linked yesterday) and the advance of American forces to within 20 miles of Baghdad, we’ve gotten a recent spate of good news on the war front. But, as Terry Neal of the Washington Post notes, trouble is now brewing in the rest of the Arab world. And given both Saddam’s deliberate attempts to incite Muslim rage and the shocking, extremely graphic images of civilian carnage being broadcast on Al-Jazeera, it’s little wonder why. (I caught ’em via Week in Review, but the Al-Jazeera site seems to be down now.) Even if Saddam’s regime falls soon, and let’s hope it does, we have our work cut out for us in rebuilding the region’s faith in America. And, as I said before, it will take reservoirs of diplomacy and goodwill that the tone-deaf and heavy-handed Bushies have yet to manifest.

Nothing Succeeds like Failure.

Daschle catches flak from Dubya’s yes-men for stating the patently obvious – that this administration’s amateurish diplomacy has embarrassed us before the world and led us to the brink of a globally unpopular, non-UN-sanctioned war. (And as David Chess pointed out by way of Medley, “the idea that the U.S. must defy the U.N. in order to punish Iraq for defying the U.N. is simply absurd.“) Of course, Daschle’s comments notwithstanding, there’s also a convincing case to be made (as Maureen Dowd does here) that the Bushies wanted diplomacy to fail from the very beginning, so as to further weaken the UN’s international standing. Inept or corrupt…take your pick. Update: Kerry gets involved as well, although, in what’s becoming a troubling pattern, he’s hedged his bets a bit.

How did it come to this?

Well, that’s that, then. Thanks to the not-insubstantial blunders of Dubya’s crack diplomatic team, it looks like we’ll be going to war WITHOUT UN approval. True, I’ve always approached this venture in Iraq with a good deal of skepticism, particularly after its success in sucking all the news out of the room during the summer of Enron. And I was disgusted by the capitulation of Congress last fall in washing their hands of the matter and ceding their constitutionally-mandated authority to declare war over to Dubya. But I still think I could have been sold on the necessity of this conflict if a clear case had ever been made by the Bushies. And, frankly, that case has not been made. Instead we’ve gotten a series of half-truths and rhetorical flourishes attempting to conflate Iraq and Al Qaeda in the American mind, despite the fact that the two despise each other (Saddam is a secular despot while Bin Laden is a fundamentalist freakshow.) And whatsmore, Dubya has now managed in two short years to squander virtually all of America’s once-considerable reservoir of international goodwill in order to prosecute a war for which the rationale still remains blurry.

The Pentagon tells us that we will win a war against Iraq with minimal difficulty, and I think they’re probably right (although obviously there are a number of Saddam-unleashing-WMD-upon-troops and/or Israel scenarios that are almost too horrifying to contemplate.) But I hold very little optimism for our handling of the post-war world — when much of the international community considers us a rogue nation and the Middle East suspects us of imperialistic intentions — given that our actions up to this point only prove that it’s currently Amateur Hour in the White House and State Department.

When (Old New and New Old) Worlds Collide.

I am very late to the table with this link, but oh well. A friend of mine in the department passed along this recent controversial essay, Robert Kagan’s “Power and Weakness”, on the philosophical underpinnings of foreign policy differences between Europe and the US today. I don’t agree with everything he has to say (the Morrison and Worley responses here point out some key flaws, for example – is all of transatlantic difference really reducible to a question of disparate power?), but it is food for thought nonetheless.