House of Eratosthenes

I belong in a sizable majority of us, who say absolutely not. Not yet. I suspect that majority includes nearly all of us, and since it includes me, with them I have no beef. Be that as it may, there is another sizable majority that says that time will never come. Those who say it is the job of the United States, to keep that option off the table, come what may, regardless of anything and everything Jong-Il may do — even they, I gather, are in the majority. Whether that is the case or not, the longer President Bush continues to represent them, the more trouble he’s going to get himself into.

Conservative Anger Grows Over Bush’s Foreign Policy
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 19, 2006; Page A01

At a moment when his conservative coalition is already under strain over domestic policy, President Bush is facing a new and swiftly building backlash on the right over his handling of foreign affairs.

Conservative intellectuals and commentators who once lauded Bush for what they saw as a willingness to aggressively confront threats and advance U.S. interests said in interviews that they perceive timidity and confusion about long-standing problems including Iran and North Korea, as well as urgent new ones such as the latest crisis between Israel and Hezbollah.

“It is Topic A of every single conversation,” said Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has had strong influence in staffing the administration and shaping its ideas. “I don’t have a friend in the administration, on Capitol Hill or any part of the conservative foreign policy establishment who is not beside themselves with fury at the administration.”

Conservatives complain that the United States is hunkered down in Iraq without enough troops or a strategy to crush the insurgency. They see autocrats in Egypt and Russia cracking down on dissenters with scant comment from Washington, North Korea firing missiles without consequence, and Iran playing for time to develop nuclear weapons while the Bush administration engages in fruitless diplomacy with European allies. They believe that a perception that the administration is weak and without options is emboldening Syria and Iran and the Hezbollah radicals they help sponsor in Lebanon.

Most of the most scathing critiques of the administration from erstwhile supporters are being expressed within think tanks and in journals and op-ed pages followed by a foreign policy elite in Washington and New York.

But the Bush White House has always paid special attention to the conversation in these conservative circles. Many of the administration’s signature ideas — regime change in Iraq, and special emphasis on military “preemption” and democracy building around the globe — first percolated within this intellectual community. In addition, these voices can be a leading indicator of how other conservatives from talk radio to Congress will react to policies.

As the White House listens to what one official called the “chattering classes,” it hears a level of disdain from its own side of the ideological spectrum that would have been unthinkable a year ago. It is an odd irony for a president who has inflamed liberals and many allies around the world for what they see as an overly confrontational, go-it-alone approach. The discontent on the right could also color the 2008 presidential debate.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a bid for president, called the administration’s latest moves abroad a form of appeasement. “We have accepted the lawyer-diplomatic fantasy that talking while North Korea builds bombs and missiles and talking while the Iranians build bombs and missiles is progress,” he said in an interview. “Is the next stage for Condi to go dancing with Kim Jong Il?” he asked, referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the North Korean leader.

“I am utterly puzzled,” Gingrich added.

Of course, everybody knows what’s going on here, and not very many people are actually saying what it is. Diplomacy is always very appealing to those in charge, even when there’s no call for it, because politically it is costless. The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, has been made artificially expensive politically. It has been made so expensive, that President Bush doesn’t want to even look like he’s doing the same thing anywhere else, even if another country like Iraq or North Korea indulges in more threatening shenanigans than Iraq ever did.

For three and a half years now, I’ve been told dissent equals patriotism. I’ve been told the anti-war protesters storming the streets with their events and their rallies and their demonstrations, smiling a mile wide at the “(two) thousandth casualty in the War on Terror” celebration-that-isn’t-supposed-to-be-a-celebration, are the “real patriots” and that they are “speaking truth to power.” And where have all these demonstrations gotten us. Unlimited liberty and freedom…for those who don’t believe in such things.

I’ve been trying to find a consensus within the “don’t invade Iraq” faction, that there are important reasons why the old Iraq regime should have been left in place. I haven’t seen a whole lot there. I doubt that this movement ever cared that much about Saddam Hussein at all, whatsoever. The “anti-war” movement that makes it’s appearances so frequently and so bumptiously, seems to be, if it’s anything at all, an “anti-law-and-order” movement. The gunslinger comes to Dodge City, and they aren’t half as scared as the big bad gunslinger as they are of Matt Dillon. Both men have guns, both are fast, both are experienced killers, but Marshall Dillon has all those rules and junk.

We don’t call the anti-war movement what it is; not nearly enough. Thy name is anarchy, anti-war movement. I haven’t seen one anti-war person — not one! — seek to assert that Saddam Hussein could have been safely left in charge of things, except to change the subject. I have to conclude that even taking stock of the residual danger involved in leaving dictators in charge like that, is simply out of scope for them. They don’t want to think about it, and they don’t want anybody else to think about it. With Marshall Dillon dead in front of the saloon, the gunslinger runs the show and — who the hell cares? Just stay out of his way. Stay on your farm, until it’s time to get something to eat, then go to the dry goods store when the gunslinger is drunk off his ass in the saloon.

That’s what this kind of diplomacy is all about. Gingrich is right. This is nothing more than a fantasy, and it’s based on no evidence at all. Where are the ingredients to a successful negotiation? Where is truth? Where is honor? Where is the history of abiding with past accords? What is Jong-Il to do to provide us with those? What pressures are being put on Jong-Il to make sure they’re forthcoming?

That’s the one thing that is wrong with American foreign policy today, and it doesn’t start with the President, it starts with the people. More talking, seems to always be the answer. We tend to forget there are certain things you need for that. There are things like good-faith, and both sides have to have the right temperament before the talks can be continued. In the American political scene, today, from out of nowhere materializes this phantom that says talks will solve everything — and we have this apparition appearing to us before we’ve had time to consider who is at the other end of the negotiating table. See, that’s what’s jacked up here. I’m watching and waiting to see if North Korea, as it exists today, has the makings of a functioning negotiating partner. That I remain unsatisfied in this study disturbs me a little bit, but not as much as the fact that I seem to be alone in making that study. There is at least the possibility that North Korea simply doesn’t have what’s needed, to participate in negotations — any kind of negotiations at all. The United States should be the last party to discount that as a possibility, so that North Korea is prevailing upon us, not the first one so that we’re the ones prevailing upon them. That is our real job.

Thing I Know #123. Diplomacy is an exchange that places a premium value on refined strategy and positive results. The diplomat with the least-refined strategy obtains the most positive results.

In my experience the argument was that Saddam was “in his box”. That is, free to rain terror and death upon anyone in Iraq but no threat to anyone else. I call this the “screw the Iraqis” line of thinking. I’m old enough to remember when liberals were the ones who wanted to overthrow tyrants and dictators.

China is the only nation with any real leverage over the DPRK. I’m in the “not yet” school but something has to be done. If there’s to be war with them, the South is going to want a vote before artillary starts decimating Seoul.

On one bulletin board, I asked if war with Iraq was wrong, what do we do about Iran and North Korea (this was 2 years ago) and was met with silence.

Where is the UN or EU in Darfur? Tibet? Yugoslavia?
- Duffy | 07/19/2006 @ 12:26
Like someone said on Fox News the other night, the UN is really only good at moving into areas where a cease fire is already in effect. Kofi Annan said something about the situation in Israel being too violent to send in peace keepers. Clearly the UN has been successful at not doing their job, and even (in my opinion) promoting discord while trying to stop it.

Lockjaw
- Lockjaw45 | 07/21/2006 @ 13:13

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

On North KoreaWednesday, July 19th, 2006

On North Korea
Wednesday, July 19th, 2006